Typhoons an Raptors
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're mixing ITAR waivers & JSF technology access yet again. UK didn't asked for 100% JSF technology at sign up time and Billyboy never promised it. Your own Minister admits it wasn't part of the original MOU and Turner's on record saying it was effing stoopid to hand over the moolah before cutting a deal on access.
Anyhow as I said, you go bang that brit drum and see if you can get some more jobs for Turner out of this. Every other country and every state in the union is looking for an angle so why shouldn't you? But puleeze cut the sanctimonious bullcrap that this is about anything but money & jobs.
For me it's deja vu all over again. I was around when computer source code was pulled. Customers pissed and moaned then. Partial answer was interfaces for customer written plug-ins. I'm sure aerospace will do similar. If EF is sending out source code today, I'll guarantee they're not happy that chunks are being lifted straight into other folks programs and will follow the exact same path. Interestingly enough, 99.9% of customers despite their protests never did their own plugs. 3rd party business never really flowered either. Customers figured out sharpish that OEM provides better quality at lower prices. Now there's something for Drayson to mull over.
According to your Minister, no penalties per se for reducing Typhoon orders and T3 numbers will be established during partner negotiations in a year or two. BTW reducing UK workshare is not a "penalty" if UK orders are cut. Not unless you reckon the world owes the UK a living. Of course that would explain some of your other comments.
You are mistaken that JSF TLC targets are same as F-16.
I did not quote "ancient prices", I quoted current forecasts. Lockheed is setting similar price expectations. And no, they're not varying wildly. And yes I did read it. You could too. The idea that Lockheed/JPO/Administration is sandbagging to get signatures is absurd.
The UK contribution to JSF R&D is as stable as you can get - it's fixed and will be paid off in full this year. You do realize that the GAO bible under your pillow only talks about the US???? any doom & gloom there does not impact your R&D bill. And you do realise "amortised" doesn't mean that's when the bill comes due?
Soooo if we accept your claim that all Typhoon R&D is committed (which it is NOT), any future financial choice would be between JSF UPC & Typhoon UPC. Right?
Two months ago Ingram said Typhoon UPC is £64.8m. Your claim that the NAO showed a £20m hike is incorrect. It never showed T1/T2 UPC before and explained why.
OK, NAO & Ingram could be wrong. HMG mistooks are common enough. However I'm still not convinced thin air £45m is credible. Unless you're 'arry Potter, you don't know T3 costs.
But let's pretend Typhoon will be £45m each. At $45m, F-35A is still half price.
Your closing "thought" is barking. What logic explains the US stiffing half of NATO into buying jets that don't work. Do your C-17's work????
Anyhow as I said, you go bang that brit drum and see if you can get some more jobs for Turner out of this. Every other country and every state in the union is looking for an angle so why shouldn't you? But puleeze cut the sanctimonious bullcrap that this is about anything but money & jobs.
For me it's deja vu all over again. I was around when computer source code was pulled. Customers pissed and moaned then. Partial answer was interfaces for customer written plug-ins. I'm sure aerospace will do similar. If EF is sending out source code today, I'll guarantee they're not happy that chunks are being lifted straight into other folks programs and will follow the exact same path. Interestingly enough, 99.9% of customers despite their protests never did their own plugs. 3rd party business never really flowered either. Customers figured out sharpish that OEM provides better quality at lower prices. Now there's something for Drayson to mull over.
According to your Minister, no penalties per se for reducing Typhoon orders and T3 numbers will be established during partner negotiations in a year or two. BTW reducing UK workshare is not a "penalty" if UK orders are cut. Not unless you reckon the world owes the UK a living. Of course that would explain some of your other comments.
You are mistaken that JSF TLC targets are same as F-16.
I did not quote "ancient prices", I quoted current forecasts. Lockheed is setting similar price expectations. And no, they're not varying wildly. And yes I did read it. You could too. The idea that Lockheed/JPO/Administration is sandbagging to get signatures is absurd.
The UK contribution to JSF R&D is as stable as you can get - it's fixed and will be paid off in full this year. You do realize that the GAO bible under your pillow only talks about the US???? any doom & gloom there does not impact your R&D bill. And you do realise "amortised" doesn't mean that's when the bill comes due?
Soooo if we accept your claim that all Typhoon R&D is committed (which it is NOT), any future financial choice would be between JSF UPC & Typhoon UPC. Right?
Two months ago Ingram said Typhoon UPC is £64.8m. Your claim that the NAO showed a £20m hike is incorrect. It never showed T1/T2 UPC before and explained why.
OK, NAO & Ingram could be wrong. HMG mistooks are common enough. However I'm still not convinced thin air £45m is credible. Unless you're 'arry Potter, you don't know T3 costs.
But let's pretend Typhoon will be £45m each. At $45m, F-35A is still half price.
Your closing "thought" is barking. What logic explains the US stiffing half of NATO into buying jets that don't work. Do your C-17's work????
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, in kiddie terms no greater than postage stamp, please explain:
Why dont the US want to transfer the technology for a JOINT, and im not just talking inter-service here, aircraft? Fair enough I could see them being worried if Pakistan or Indo wanted to buy some, but why are they squabbling about transfering the technology to their oldest and most war tested allies? Espesically when everyone is potentially going to be (or hopefully) fighting "together" for the fore-seeable future.
It even makes basic monetary sense, the more aircraft sold, the more money those making the supposed limited transfer technology can make, even if it is licensed.
Why dont the US want to transfer the technology for a JOINT, and im not just talking inter-service here, aircraft? Fair enough I could see them being worried if Pakistan or Indo wanted to buy some, but why are they squabbling about transfering the technology to their oldest and most war tested allies? Espesically when everyone is potentially going to be (or hopefully) fighting "together" for the fore-seeable future.
It even makes basic monetary sense, the more aircraft sold, the more money those making the supposed limited transfer technology can make, even if it is licensed.
The UK always needed the technology/software access it's now asking for.
According to Lockheed there's no problem, and we'll get what we need 'just in time' anyway.
Unfortunately, however, Technology transfer has already proved problematic on this and other programmes (eg RADEOS) so you can hardly blame us if we're not taking these bland assurances at face value.
There is no doubt that an OEM will sometimes provide better quality at lower prices, but only when it suits, and we need to be able to undertake EOCs and UORs, and to integrate kit when we require it. We need the flexibility to be able to support, sustain, upgrade and integrate using our own resources - not that we intend to go that route all of the time.
This isn't "sanctimonious bullcrap about money & jobs" - though of course those are vital, it's also about having a capability we can use when we need it, in the ways in which we need to use it. It's not about buying jets that don't work, it's about buying jets that won't work the way we want them to, over which we don't have 'operational sovereignty'.
I haven't spoken to Drayson about Tranche 3 penalties (I haven't spoken to the bloke at all), and Lord Bach was never, ever, willing to talk about T3 at all, but I have spoken to people at the highest levels within EF GmbH and NETMA, and I'm perfectly aware of the repercussions of ANY unilateral withdrawal from any part of the programme.
According to people I've spoken to who have good access to the programme JSF's LO technologies make it unlikely that the aircraft will meet its support cost targets, and those targets are broadly comparable to today's frontline aircraft, while Typhoon's are an order of magnitude lower. To deny simple fact seems much more like nationalistic tub-thumping than anything I've read from the pro Typhoon lobby.
"Two months ago Ingram said Typhoon UPC is £64.8m. Your claim that the NAO showed a £20m hike is incorrect. It never showed T1/T2 UPC before and explained why."
Ingram merely quoted the 2005 NAO MPR, and made it abundantly clear that that was the source for his parliamentary answer. The 2004 NAO MPR quoted a UPC of £49.1 m but it was also revealed that the full cost of the UK's 55 Tranche 1 aircraft to be £2.5 Bn, representing a unit production cost of £45.45 m.
You'll be aware that the UPC within each Tranche is to be reduced, as you'd expect.
The £64.8 m figure is out of kilter with all previously released figures (UK, Austrian, German, etc.) by about the same amount, and the exact basis on which it was calculated has not been revealed, beyond the statement that this "reflects the costs agreed for Tranche 1 and Tranche 2 only."
If this figure were an accurate UPC, it would mean that the UK was paying £20 m more per jet than Austria, which is contractually impossible, and which would have resulted in a firestorm of fury and recrimination.
You choose to believe a unique figure (Ingram explicitely quoted it as coming from the 2005 MPR, so it's a single source figure) while many other more credible sources give another lower figure (the same lower figure).
I suspect that this figure will be explained fully within the next few weeks.
On the other hand, if JSF costs were remotely reliable, Lockheed would be undertaking to honour a price band for the aircraft it is now expecting its partners to commit to, and wouldn't be waiting until 2011. It can't, of course, because there are simply too many uncertainties in JSF, making any current price prediction useless. At least with Typhoon we can underpin price estimates by referring to prices that have actually been paid by customers for real aircraft.
And because the US will have to claw back the massive increases in R&D spending and the reduced production totals from somewhere, no-one should put money on anything but massive price rises for JSF.
According to Lockheed there's no problem, and we'll get what we need 'just in time' anyway.
Unfortunately, however, Technology transfer has already proved problematic on this and other programmes (eg RADEOS) so you can hardly blame us if we're not taking these bland assurances at face value.
There is no doubt that an OEM will sometimes provide better quality at lower prices, but only when it suits, and we need to be able to undertake EOCs and UORs, and to integrate kit when we require it. We need the flexibility to be able to support, sustain, upgrade and integrate using our own resources - not that we intend to go that route all of the time.
This isn't "sanctimonious bullcrap about money & jobs" - though of course those are vital, it's also about having a capability we can use when we need it, in the ways in which we need to use it. It's not about buying jets that don't work, it's about buying jets that won't work the way we want them to, over which we don't have 'operational sovereignty'.
I haven't spoken to Drayson about Tranche 3 penalties (I haven't spoken to the bloke at all), and Lord Bach was never, ever, willing to talk about T3 at all, but I have spoken to people at the highest levels within EF GmbH and NETMA, and I'm perfectly aware of the repercussions of ANY unilateral withdrawal from any part of the programme.
According to people I've spoken to who have good access to the programme JSF's LO technologies make it unlikely that the aircraft will meet its support cost targets, and those targets are broadly comparable to today's frontline aircraft, while Typhoon's are an order of magnitude lower. To deny simple fact seems much more like nationalistic tub-thumping than anything I've read from the pro Typhoon lobby.
"Two months ago Ingram said Typhoon UPC is £64.8m. Your claim that the NAO showed a £20m hike is incorrect. It never showed T1/T2 UPC before and explained why."
Ingram merely quoted the 2005 NAO MPR, and made it abundantly clear that that was the source for his parliamentary answer. The 2004 NAO MPR quoted a UPC of £49.1 m but it was also revealed that the full cost of the UK's 55 Tranche 1 aircraft to be £2.5 Bn, representing a unit production cost of £45.45 m.
You'll be aware that the UPC within each Tranche is to be reduced, as you'd expect.
The £64.8 m figure is out of kilter with all previously released figures (UK, Austrian, German, etc.) by about the same amount, and the exact basis on which it was calculated has not been revealed, beyond the statement that this "reflects the costs agreed for Tranche 1 and Tranche 2 only."
If this figure were an accurate UPC, it would mean that the UK was paying £20 m more per jet than Austria, which is contractually impossible, and which would have resulted in a firestorm of fury and recrimination.
You choose to believe a unique figure (Ingram explicitely quoted it as coming from the 2005 MPR, so it's a single source figure) while many other more credible sources give another lower figure (the same lower figure).
I suspect that this figure will be explained fully within the next few weeks.
On the other hand, if JSF costs were remotely reliable, Lockheed would be undertaking to honour a price band for the aircraft it is now expecting its partners to commit to, and wouldn't be waiting until 2011. It can't, of course, because there are simply too many uncertainties in JSF, making any current price prediction useless. At least with Typhoon we can underpin price estimates by referring to prices that have actually been paid by customers for real aircraft.
And because the US will have to claw back the massive increases in R&D spending and the reduced production totals from somewhere, no-one should put money on anything but massive price rises for JSF.
Reacher,
1) Because they want to bolster LM's competitive and monopolistic position. If the JSF line at (say) Lossie can incorporate a UOR integrating a new weapon, then that's potential work for Lockheed lost. And what would happen if we integrated a weapon that might compete with a US offering?
2) Because when it comes to sharing 'good old American know how' they draw no distinction between the UK and any other ally, and simply don't trust us.
As has been clear when UK officers have had difficulty gaining access to essential information in Iraq, and on countless programmes, where difficulties with technology transfer have often severely impacted on capability, cost and timescale.
Bigger than a postage stamp, sorry!
1) Because they want to bolster LM's competitive and monopolistic position. If the JSF line at (say) Lossie can incorporate a UOR integrating a new weapon, then that's potential work for Lockheed lost. And what would happen if we integrated a weapon that might compete with a US offering?
2) Because when it comes to sharing 'good old American know how' they draw no distinction between the UK and any other ally, and simply don't trust us.
As has been clear when UK officers have had difficulty gaining access to essential information in Iraq, and on countless programmes, where difficulties with technology transfer have often severely impacted on capability, cost and timescale.
Bigger than a postage stamp, sorry!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 58
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jackonicko
Reacher,
1) Because they want to bolster LM's competitive and monopolistic position. If the JSF line at (say) Lossie can incorporate a UOR integrating a new weapon, then that's potential work for Lockheed lost. And what would happen if we integrated a weapon that might compete with a US offering?
2) Because when it comes to sharing 'good old American know how' they draw no distinction between the UK and any other ally, and simply don't trust us.
As has been clear when UK officers have had difficulty gaining access to essential information in Iraq, and on countless programmes, where difficulties with technology transfer have often severely impacted on capability, cost and timescale.
1) Because they want to bolster LM's competitive and monopolistic position. If the JSF line at (say) Lossie can incorporate a UOR integrating a new weapon, then that's potential work for Lockheed lost. And what would happen if we integrated a weapon that might compete with a US offering?
2) Because when it comes to sharing 'good old American know how' they draw no distinction between the UK and any other ally, and simply don't trust us.
As has been clear when UK officers have had difficulty gaining access to essential information in Iraq, and on countless programmes, where difficulties with technology transfer have often severely impacted on capability, cost and timescale.
The US considers the lines between defence contractors in the UK and those of other Euro countries to be too blurred in too many areas (e.g. Thales, EADS etc).
With many of the Euro countries continuing to sell armaments and other high-tech wares to China, India and other 'non-aligned' states, the US probably thinks it's just a matter of time before something slips through the net and falls into the hands of the Acme State Reverse Engineering Company in downtown Shanghai!
Magoo
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
It's all about, and has always been about intellectual property, not classification levels
A government pays for the development of a technology. They will have the property rights - but also classify it, because the prospective enemy doesn´t care about the first.
A nation such as the UK will want the ability to quickly adapt/modify the aircraft for national security/war fighting reasons. The foreign manufacture will want to retain the capability for profit and future sales reasons.
It just depends on your point of view.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Orac, ah the pure and simple english rose doing it all for national security and the selfish yankee swine just thinking of his filthy profit....the train is coming, fast, fast, untie her before it's too late, she must be saved !!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko, I swear you’re tailor-made for a noo labor cabinet post, you shift ground quicker than a one legged irish fiddler.
Do love the clichés and labor-speak. “Sovereign independence” is a classic. Brings up all the right images of plucky queen bess launching armada to fight off Goering’s hordes. Nostalgia ain’t what it used to be. Now what does it say here in the fine print: UK won’t indulge in major ops except as part of a US lead coalition. Ah well.
I doubt if I've gotten you off your crap financials for good but I suppose I should be grateful that you're now just comparing production costs and given up on the carpet baggers best friend – amortization.
Your comments on JSF price projections being “not remotely reliable” & “useless” are as ridiculous as before. Do you really think the US government is giving bogus price predictions to the UK, Canada, Australia, Norway, Turkey & Denmark??? Do you really think Lockheed gives useless price projections when it bids on other UK contracts? If so, WTF does the UK keep doing business with them?
Your theme song that the US will have to “claw back massive increases” in US R&D costs from the UK is just flat wrong. No matter how you sing it, the UK has a fixed price JSF R&D contract. Fixed price means price is fixed. Fixed, fixed, I tell you (manic laughter)
I understand your opinion that NAO screwed Typhoons current production cost. And it’s been a year now and they’ve not fixed the mistake. And your Minister still quotes them believing them to be correct. Got that. Clearly NAO doesn’t have the same stamp of infallibility as the GAO (more offstage laughter).
Anyhoo, you’re right about one thing, it’s T3 production costs that are relevant here. You think they’ll dramatically decline. The EF rich and powerful have whispered such things in your ear so it must be true. I agree we’ve got a better handle on Typhoon pricing but won’t final T3 pricing depend on how much is added to bring them up to JSF A-G capability levels? And how big will T3 be? All in all, given EF’s past history of managing costs, I’d say room to doubt your EF buddies promises.
Anyhow to get price competitive with JSF-A, Typhoon T3 will have to drop to £25m per. I think it’s pretty safe to assume that ain’t gonna happen. Nah, much more likely JSF will remain half the price and will scoop the F-16 follow on business.
For JSF TLC, give the USMC a holler. They’ve got some rather different ideas than you.
On technology access, far from blaming you, I said I encourage the UK in using its current leverage to get what it wants. It’s a big bad world out there and you should use every edge you have. But I do find your image of some poor Scottish RAF grunt struggling to rewrite FCS software with frozen fingers as bombs fall whence all but he had fled, to be a total crock. The question is who will get the call: Lockheed or Bae. If there’s a choice, look for maintenance costs to skyrocket as service levels quickly diverge.
I find it mildly amusing that one plank in the “we want it all and we won’t wait” campaign is that the US should trust its best ally with all the technology yet at the same time monopolistic Lockheed can’t be trusted to upgrade in a timely or affordable manner. No conflict there. Are you aware that the UK buys a shedload of kit from Lockheed & other yankee companies that in different scenarios could be just as vital. You think you have sovereign thingie on all of them? Pal, have I got noos for you.
Most sense was John Farley on this topic. In response to why is the UK asking for this on JSF and not for the other 101 bits of Yankee kit in brit service, the answer came “because we can” (I paraphrase).
By the way “Because when it comes to sharing 'good old American know how' they draw no distinction between the UK and any other ally, and simply don't trust us” is total horse manure. UK gets more US classified data than anyone else and you ought to know that. Also love the snide dig at US technology, tad jealous maybe?
You should also know the congressman in whose fiefdom the waiver lies, asked the UK to pass laws to prevent technology transfer to bad guys instead of relying on the coin flip of the minister/goverment du jour. Tony said no. So go and make babies elsewhere was the response. Suprising?
I’ll end with a tip: scratch Willy from your resume & speed dial. Just like everyone else.
Do love the clichés and labor-speak. “Sovereign independence” is a classic. Brings up all the right images of plucky queen bess launching armada to fight off Goering’s hordes. Nostalgia ain’t what it used to be. Now what does it say here in the fine print: UK won’t indulge in major ops except as part of a US lead coalition. Ah well.
I doubt if I've gotten you off your crap financials for good but I suppose I should be grateful that you're now just comparing production costs and given up on the carpet baggers best friend – amortization.
Your comments on JSF price projections being “not remotely reliable” & “useless” are as ridiculous as before. Do you really think the US government is giving bogus price predictions to the UK, Canada, Australia, Norway, Turkey & Denmark??? Do you really think Lockheed gives useless price projections when it bids on other UK contracts? If so, WTF does the UK keep doing business with them?
Your theme song that the US will have to “claw back massive increases” in US R&D costs from the UK is just flat wrong. No matter how you sing it, the UK has a fixed price JSF R&D contract. Fixed price means price is fixed. Fixed, fixed, I tell you (manic laughter)
I understand your opinion that NAO screwed Typhoons current production cost. And it’s been a year now and they’ve not fixed the mistake. And your Minister still quotes them believing them to be correct. Got that. Clearly NAO doesn’t have the same stamp of infallibility as the GAO (more offstage laughter).
Anyhoo, you’re right about one thing, it’s T3 production costs that are relevant here. You think they’ll dramatically decline. The EF rich and powerful have whispered such things in your ear so it must be true. I agree we’ve got a better handle on Typhoon pricing but won’t final T3 pricing depend on how much is added to bring them up to JSF A-G capability levels? And how big will T3 be? All in all, given EF’s past history of managing costs, I’d say room to doubt your EF buddies promises.
Anyhow to get price competitive with JSF-A, Typhoon T3 will have to drop to £25m per. I think it’s pretty safe to assume that ain’t gonna happen. Nah, much more likely JSF will remain half the price and will scoop the F-16 follow on business.
For JSF TLC, give the USMC a holler. They’ve got some rather different ideas than you.
On technology access, far from blaming you, I said I encourage the UK in using its current leverage to get what it wants. It’s a big bad world out there and you should use every edge you have. But I do find your image of some poor Scottish RAF grunt struggling to rewrite FCS software with frozen fingers as bombs fall whence all but he had fled, to be a total crock. The question is who will get the call: Lockheed or Bae. If there’s a choice, look for maintenance costs to skyrocket as service levels quickly diverge.
I find it mildly amusing that one plank in the “we want it all and we won’t wait” campaign is that the US should trust its best ally with all the technology yet at the same time monopolistic Lockheed can’t be trusted to upgrade in a timely or affordable manner. No conflict there. Are you aware that the UK buys a shedload of kit from Lockheed & other yankee companies that in different scenarios could be just as vital. You think you have sovereign thingie on all of them? Pal, have I got noos for you.
Most sense was John Farley on this topic. In response to why is the UK asking for this on JSF and not for the other 101 bits of Yankee kit in brit service, the answer came “because we can” (I paraphrase).
By the way “Because when it comes to sharing 'good old American know how' they draw no distinction between the UK and any other ally, and simply don't trust us” is total horse manure. UK gets more US classified data than anyone else and you ought to know that. Also love the snide dig at US technology, tad jealous maybe?
You should also know the congressman in whose fiefdom the waiver lies, asked the UK to pass laws to prevent technology transfer to bad guys instead of relying on the coin flip of the minister/goverment du jour. Tony said no. So go and make babies elsewhere was the response. Suprising?
I’ll end with a tip: scratch Willy from your resume & speed dial. Just like everyone else.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've just come back from a tour of French defence industries and, whilst I don't wish to open up the can of worms that is the relative merits of such companies, one major theme was apparent throughout the entire visit - each company proudly proclaimed that they could produce their flagship products without sourcing any subsystems or parts from the US. They are very happy to let Uncle Sam have his intelectual property rights because they are fully aware that there is no way that he is going to play nicely with the other kids in the playground and share fairly. Instead of moping around they have gone off and done their own thing. Whilst there is a lot scope for commonality in defence there is an old saying regarding eggs and baskets.
Bear
Bear
"Do love the clichés and labor-speak. “Sovereign independence” is a classic."
Would be if I'd said it.
I repeated that well known 'Noo Labor' man Jock Stirrup's phrase, however. "Operational Sovereignty."
And while it's less easy to incorporate UORs by SEM/STF on a software driven platform like JSF, it's not impossible, and we do need to be able to do so, just as we need to be able to repair leading edges, etc. without a return to works.
And I can't think of any other US supplied platform (with the exception of the C-17, where the terms of the lease would complicate mattters) which we could not modify if required, and for which we do not enjoy the level of operational sovereignty we require.
If you seriously believe that the US will maintain the JSF prices at their currently stated level (and if you believe that F-35, unlike C-130J, F-22 and grey Merlin's mission kit, will encounter zero price growth) and if you seriously believe that cost increases and the effect of declining orders will all be taken care of by the US taxpayer, and not passed on to foreign customers, then I'll have several pints of whatever you're drinking, and I promise that I'll keep the lid on this coffee pot if ever you wake up. Reality will be a nasty shock for you, I'm sure.
If the US Government and Lockmart seriously believed that they could maintain these prices, then they'd offer a guaranteed unit price ceiling to those nations signing up now. They have not and will not. They can't go back and take more for SDD, so they'll have to recover the costs in production prices.
As for Typhoon, you clearly don't "understand your opinion that NAO screwed Typhoons current production cost" because that's not what I'm saying. I'm just pointing out that the 2005 MPR figure is £20 m out of kilter with the 2004 figure, the figure separately given for T1, the figures quoted by Germany, Italy and Spain (whose prices have to match ours, contractually) and for Austria (which have to be higher).
Neither you nor I know exactly how the MoD cam up with the new figure because neither they nor the NAO have yet explained it. But we do know that the £45-49.1m UPC is the accurate ballpark figure.
As for support and through life costs, I have spoken to the Marines, and the Navy, and the USAF, and I suspect to people from those services who are closer to the program than you are.
As to my supposedly snide dig about sharing 'good old American know how' I was being largely serious, and the underlying dig was that this was a programme which has some important elements that are based in no small measure on 'good old UK know how' - and you ought to know that! A tad jealous, perhaps - but better than being more than a tad ignorant and arrogant.
As to your tip, Willy was never on my speed dial. I was on his!
Would be if I'd said it.
I repeated that well known 'Noo Labor' man Jock Stirrup's phrase, however. "Operational Sovereignty."
And while it's less easy to incorporate UORs by SEM/STF on a software driven platform like JSF, it's not impossible, and we do need to be able to do so, just as we need to be able to repair leading edges, etc. without a return to works.
And I can't think of any other US supplied platform (with the exception of the C-17, where the terms of the lease would complicate mattters) which we could not modify if required, and for which we do not enjoy the level of operational sovereignty we require.
If you seriously believe that the US will maintain the JSF prices at their currently stated level (and if you believe that F-35, unlike C-130J, F-22 and grey Merlin's mission kit, will encounter zero price growth) and if you seriously believe that cost increases and the effect of declining orders will all be taken care of by the US taxpayer, and not passed on to foreign customers, then I'll have several pints of whatever you're drinking, and I promise that I'll keep the lid on this coffee pot if ever you wake up. Reality will be a nasty shock for you, I'm sure.
If the US Government and Lockmart seriously believed that they could maintain these prices, then they'd offer a guaranteed unit price ceiling to those nations signing up now. They have not and will not. They can't go back and take more for SDD, so they'll have to recover the costs in production prices.
As for Typhoon, you clearly don't "understand your opinion that NAO screwed Typhoons current production cost" because that's not what I'm saying. I'm just pointing out that the 2005 MPR figure is £20 m out of kilter with the 2004 figure, the figure separately given for T1, the figures quoted by Germany, Italy and Spain (whose prices have to match ours, contractually) and for Austria (which have to be higher).
Neither you nor I know exactly how the MoD cam up with the new figure because neither they nor the NAO have yet explained it. But we do know that the £45-49.1m UPC is the accurate ballpark figure.
As for support and through life costs, I have spoken to the Marines, and the Navy, and the USAF, and I suspect to people from those services who are closer to the program than you are.
As to my supposedly snide dig about sharing 'good old American know how' I was being largely serious, and the underlying dig was that this was a programme which has some important elements that are based in no small measure on 'good old UK know how' - and you ought to know that! A tad jealous, perhaps - but better than being more than a tad ignorant and arrogant.
As to your tip, Willy was never on my speed dial. I was on his!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Too far North - hardly a RAF base that isn't these days...
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Boogeyboard
A bad workman always blames his tools/or political master. Just buck up your ideas, stop crying into your G&T and get on with the job for heaven's sake. It's what your paid to do.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado
Age: 53
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RonO
Chill out mon brave. You are right about a great many things, but don't let a few misinformed dick-wads get you down or otherwise distract you from the certainty that depite the fact that your country f*cked us over Suez, the UK is your one true ally (measured in blood and treasure) and desrves a bit of respect. So lay-off Queen Bess, if only because a large part of your military-industrial infrastructure is located in 'Virginia'.
The bald truth which I and my countrymen are naturally reluctant to admit is that we are simply not trustworthy: our prime defence contractor is a corporate tart that will sell anybody's secrets (including our own) at any price to anyone; our govt will not proscribe UK military sales to China because it doesn't make financial sense and, as long as we can get away with it without seriously jeopardising our strategic relationship with the US, any penalty paid in terms of our own military capability is probably worth it; and although our military are entirely honourable and trustworthy, they have been immasculated by the bodies politic and economic.
As I have opined on other threads I don't think JSF is what we need - unless we feel obliged to try and make some sort of meaningful Day 1 contribution to the ubiquitous 'US-led Coalition Campaign', which we clearly do. However, why not make a meaningful Day 30 contribution instead - I'm sure Willy, or maybe it'll be Jeb by then (and you rebelled against our system of inherited privelege?!) will greatly appreciate it. Whatever the UPC, or JSF's forecast or actual TLC, running a single fleet of Typhoon with a quasi-national design/support authority has got to be cheaper and more flexible (perhaps only just) than running two seperate aircraft types with all the associated transatlantic IPR bollox (and I am not under-estimating the challenges stemming from all the pan-European IPR bollox).
As you rightly identify, the UOR argument is utter pap. The UK gov doesn't have the minerals to underwrite any risk, technical or otherwise, on any platform in any situation short of General War; the idea that that sort of work would be done/underwritten at huge expense by anyone other than LM is complete ar$e. Besides, what new or even old weapons system are we going to be able to afford or want to integrate onto JSF that won't already be in the weapons integration programme, or for which clearances can't be read-across with an acceptable degree of risk? Stormshadow, BVRAAM, or perhaps some other weapon designed to compensate for a lack of stealth? Maybe integrating ASRAAM would be cheaper than buying AIM-9X - not. These ideas advanced by the same sort of barking mad, buy-British-bugger-the-integration-and- performance-cost strokers that decided to Spey the Phantom.
However, an entirely valid consideration for Typhoon . . . we are going to have to spend a bootful of money that we don't currently have on integrating a number of different weapons onto Typhoon, perhaps under UOR, and if not, in a timescale which, if he knew/could accept the truth, would probably make Jackonicko physically ill. That's the investment that needs to be amortised. . . and another good reason for wishing you every luck with JSF and your next campaign. . .
And let's hear it for Benedict Arnold, or 001 as we like to call him.
GTP
The bald truth which I and my countrymen are naturally reluctant to admit is that we are simply not trustworthy: our prime defence contractor is a corporate tart that will sell anybody's secrets (including our own) at any price to anyone; our govt will not proscribe UK military sales to China because it doesn't make financial sense and, as long as we can get away with it without seriously jeopardising our strategic relationship with the US, any penalty paid in terms of our own military capability is probably worth it; and although our military are entirely honourable and trustworthy, they have been immasculated by the bodies politic and economic.
As I have opined on other threads I don't think JSF is what we need - unless we feel obliged to try and make some sort of meaningful Day 1 contribution to the ubiquitous 'US-led Coalition Campaign', which we clearly do. However, why not make a meaningful Day 30 contribution instead - I'm sure Willy, or maybe it'll be Jeb by then (and you rebelled against our system of inherited privelege?!) will greatly appreciate it. Whatever the UPC, or JSF's forecast or actual TLC, running a single fleet of Typhoon with a quasi-national design/support authority has got to be cheaper and more flexible (perhaps only just) than running two seperate aircraft types with all the associated transatlantic IPR bollox (and I am not under-estimating the challenges stemming from all the pan-European IPR bollox).
As you rightly identify, the UOR argument is utter pap. The UK gov doesn't have the minerals to underwrite any risk, technical or otherwise, on any platform in any situation short of General War; the idea that that sort of work would be done/underwritten at huge expense by anyone other than LM is complete ar$e. Besides, what new or even old weapons system are we going to be able to afford or want to integrate onto JSF that won't already be in the weapons integration programme, or for which clearances can't be read-across with an acceptable degree of risk? Stormshadow, BVRAAM, or perhaps some other weapon designed to compensate for a lack of stealth? Maybe integrating ASRAAM would be cheaper than buying AIM-9X - not. These ideas advanced by the same sort of barking mad, buy-British-bugger-the-integration-and- performance-cost strokers that decided to Spey the Phantom.
However, an entirely valid consideration for Typhoon . . . we are going to have to spend a bootful of money that we don't currently have on integrating a number of different weapons onto Typhoon, perhaps under UOR, and if not, in a timescale which, if he knew/could accept the truth, would probably make Jackonicko physically ill. That's the investment that needs to be amortised. . . and another good reason for wishing you every luck with JSF and your next campaign. . .
And let's hear it for Benedict Arnold, or 001 as we like to call him.
GTP
RonO,
The Marines have embraced the V-22 Osprey and the Harrier...thus they have been known to go with bad choices of gear.
The Marines have embraced the V-22 Osprey and the Harrier...thus they have been known to go with bad choices of gear.
General P,
I'd take your opinion that "the UOR argument is utter pap" and that the "UK gov doesn't have the minerals to underwrite any risk, technical or otherwise, on any platform in any situation short of General War" rather more seriously if only we hadn't incorporated UORs on most platforms in most operations we've undertaken since the Falklands.
And if only you had the faintest clue as to what you were talking about.
Stormshadow is planned for integration on JSF (albeit not for years) and so is ASRAAM. Meteor isn't.
As to the relative expense of integration of ASRAAM vice -9X, you're comparing an in-service weapon, already integrated on multiple platforms, versus a paper weapon.
Sometimes UK weapons and systems are the right answer (Skyflash might provide a useful historic example, or Storm Shadow, or Sea Eagle), and insisting that US is best is the kind of barking mad nonsense that you criticise.
Historically, I'd say that when we've bought mature US kit, it has been very successful, but recent acquisitions of less mature kit (C-130J, the Merlin mission system, etc), US industry has proved less impressive.
I'd take your opinion that "the UOR argument is utter pap" and that the "UK gov doesn't have the minerals to underwrite any risk, technical or otherwise, on any platform in any situation short of General War" rather more seriously if only we hadn't incorporated UORs on most platforms in most operations we've undertaken since the Falklands.
And if only you had the faintest clue as to what you were talking about.
Stormshadow is planned for integration on JSF (albeit not for years) and so is ASRAAM. Meteor isn't.
As to the relative expense of integration of ASRAAM vice -9X, you're comparing an in-service weapon, already integrated on multiple platforms, versus a paper weapon.
Sometimes UK weapons and systems are the right answer (Skyflash might provide a useful historic example, or Storm Shadow, or Sea Eagle), and insisting that US is best is the kind of barking mad nonsense that you criticise.
Historically, I'd say that when we've bought mature US kit, it has been very successful, but recent acquisitions of less mature kit (C-130J, the Merlin mission system, etc), US industry has proved less impressive.
Last edited by Jackonicko; 25th May 2006 at 22:19.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GTP
I think you're a bit wide of the mark re. Spey Phantom. Quite apart from the operational reasons for needing a more powerful engine (and the clear performance advantages in many areas) there were balance of trade/foreign reserves issues, which still have some relevance to procurement to this day
Jacko
Bit confused by your ASRAAM/AIM-9X remark. Aren't both 'in-service weapons, already integrated on multiple platforms' ??
I think you're a bit wide of the mark re. Spey Phantom. Quite apart from the operational reasons for needing a more powerful engine (and the clear performance advantages in many areas) there were balance of trade/foreign reserves issues, which still have some relevance to procurement to this day
Jacko
Bit confused by your ASRAAM/AIM-9X remark. Aren't both 'in-service weapons, already integrated on multiple platforms' ??