Merlin Costs
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you enjoy your job, then why so bitter?
You are obviously of the "we don't need pingers/baggers/lynx right at this moment, so they are obviously totally a waste of money" school of thought, and I use the word "thought" ironically.
There could easily come a day when you are very glad of the pingers abilities, who knows in todays world political climate. Don't abuse them just because they currently have no use in a sandy war zone. Most would gladly get involved if there was money for a DAS.
Incidentally, you assume incorrectly. From your name, I would guess we have been on the same Sqn.
Wetpants..........
You are obviously of the "we don't need pingers/baggers/lynx right at this moment, so they are obviously totally a waste of money" school of thought, and I use the word "thought" ironically.
There could easily come a day when you are very glad of the pingers abilities, who knows in todays world political climate. Don't abuse them just because they currently have no use in a sandy war zone. Most would gladly get involved if there was money for a DAS.
Incidentally, you assume incorrectly. From your name, I would guess we have been on the same Sqn.
Wetpants..........
To clarify,
Extract from Hansard 5 Dec 2002:
Merlin Helicopters 5 Dec 2002 : Column 928W
Mr. Keetch: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Government is on target to deliver the remainder of the 44 Royal Navy Merlin helicopters that are due for delivery by December 2002; what the in-service date is of
those remaining aircraft; if he will outline the overall cost of the Merlin Helicopter Programme; and if he will make a statement. [85358]
Dr. Moonie: All 44 of the Royal Navy Merlin Mkl helicopters have been delivered. The final aircraft was delivered on 2 December 2002.
The overall cost of the Merlin Mkl Helicopter programme is £4.183 billion.
ppruners,
The figures quoted earlier in the thread presumably are just for the aircraft.
Since the 4.1 billion project covered research and development, test flying, ship mods, training facilities, simulators, hangars, manpower issues, manufacturing costs and profit etc etc yet all items essential to develop and purchase the thing. The plain and simple answer to the thread is to divide 4.1 billion by 44 (or so), which is a v scary number. Frighten yourself more by dividing 4.1 billion by the number actually servicable or fully mission capable today !!!!!
It is only government money after all which has gone back into UK industry in the main. I believe it is a really nice bit of kit and has more world leading features, sensors and capabilities than any other military helicopter. Thats what quality defence from all potential threats costs these days.
pp
Extract from Hansard 5 Dec 2002:
Merlin Helicopters 5 Dec 2002 : Column 928W
Mr. Keetch: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Government is on target to deliver the remainder of the 44 Royal Navy Merlin helicopters that are due for delivery by December 2002; what the in-service date is of
those remaining aircraft; if he will outline the overall cost of the Merlin Helicopter Programme; and if he will make a statement. [85358]
Dr. Moonie: All 44 of the Royal Navy Merlin Mkl helicopters have been delivered. The final aircraft was delivered on 2 December 2002.
The overall cost of the Merlin Mkl Helicopter programme is £4.183 billion.
ppruners,
The figures quoted earlier in the thread presumably are just for the aircraft.
Since the 4.1 billion project covered research and development, test flying, ship mods, training facilities, simulators, hangars, manpower issues, manufacturing costs and profit etc etc yet all items essential to develop and purchase the thing. The plain and simple answer to the thread is to divide 4.1 billion by 44 (or so), which is a v scary number. Frighten yourself more by dividing 4.1 billion by the number actually servicable or fully mission capable today !!!!!
It is only government money after all which has gone back into UK industry in the main. I believe it is a really nice bit of kit and has more world leading features, sensors and capabilities than any other military helicopter. Thats what quality defence from all potential threats costs these days.
pp
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just because we don't need Merlin HM1, Typhoon, T45, challenger II now it doesn't mean we won't need them in the Future.
I note Challey II has seen active service in the last few years and as has been mentioned there are many countries with submarines... some of whom may not be our friends this time next week.
Yes budgets are tight and the main focus has to be on current ops but it should not be at the expense of all other capabilities. The UK armed forces has become very very unbalanced and that could cause us major problems in the future when our lightly equipped forces ISTAR assets detect comming over the horizon a heavy force we havn't the capability to stop.
I note Challey II has seen active service in the last few years and as has been mentioned there are many countries with submarines... some of whom may not be our friends this time next week.
Yes budgets are tight and the main focus has to be on current ops but it should not be at the expense of all other capabilities. The UK armed forces has become very very unbalanced and that could cause us major problems in the future when our lightly equipped forces ISTAR assets detect comming over the horizon a heavy force we havn't the capability to stop.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: heathcliff
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Googling the HoC Written Questions/Answers came up with some interesting pages on all sorts of subjects, in particular on 16 May 2007 this:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/...5-16a.136177.h
Regarding how many new helos being bought and the number being worked on!
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/...5-16a.136177.h
Regarding how many new helos being bought and the number being worked on!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: England
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nurse,
A valid point, but I think what us 'near sighted' contributors to this thread are criticising is not so much the equipment itself, but the inordinate amount of time that the MOD allows the procurement process to take.
This is often because we would rather buy an inferior/not yet available British product than an off the shelf foreign product that is available immediately. I am all for supporting British industry, but it must not be of a higher priority than on time capability, after all it's our lives that are at risk if we are poorly equipped.
I think that Challenger ll is probably the exception to the above examples, but Typhoon, MRA4 and T45's are horrendously expensive and long long overdue:
We could have had F15E's in around 1997 when Typhoon was first supposed to be available.
We could have had a MP platform based on a modern airliner. Again around the turn of the century and they wouldn't have cost c£300 million plus for each one.
I don't know too much about the T45's other that they are late and Very expensive.
None of this is to say that the above kit is no good, but with a Defence Budget that is ever more under pressure, can we afford to be paying (and waiting) for it?
This is why we are buying more and more equipment under UOR's. Not because it is the ideal way to procure, but it is the only way to get kit when we need it.
A valid point, but I think what us 'near sighted' contributors to this thread are criticising is not so much the equipment itself, but the inordinate amount of time that the MOD allows the procurement process to take.
This is often because we would rather buy an inferior/not yet available British product than an off the shelf foreign product that is available immediately. I am all for supporting British industry, but it must not be of a higher priority than on time capability, after all it's our lives that are at risk if we are poorly equipped.
I think that Challenger ll is probably the exception to the above examples, but Typhoon, MRA4 and T45's are horrendously expensive and long long overdue:
We could have had F15E's in around 1997 when Typhoon was first supposed to be available.
We could have had a MP platform based on a modern airliner. Again around the turn of the century and they wouldn't have cost c£300 million plus for each one.
I don't know too much about the T45's other that they are late and Very expensive.
None of this is to say that the above kit is no good, but with a Defence Budget that is ever more under pressure, can we afford to be paying (and waiting) for it?
This is why we are buying more and more equipment under UOR's. Not because it is the ideal way to procure, but it is the only way to get kit when we need it.
AW, agree that it would be nice to be buying off the shelf stuff but economically it just makes no sense, and it's money that the guys with the purse strings care about. If we buy from westlands etc then it's 40>50% cheaper than the face value in the long run, as HMG gets all the tax straight back in to the coffers, from the tax on the company, the tax on the wages their employees earn and the tax on the money their employees subsequently spend.
For small projects (eg body armour!) this really shouldn't be a factor as it's peanuts in the grand scheme, but when it comes to projects on the scale of T45/Merlin (and to a lesser extent Typhoon, as it's multinational and therefore the reaped revenue will presumably be less) the amount of money regained is huge.
For small projects (eg body armour!) this really shouldn't be a factor as it's peanuts in the grand scheme, but when it comes to projects on the scale of T45/Merlin (and to a lesser extent Typhoon, as it's multinational and therefore the reaped revenue will presumably be less) the amount of money regained is huge.
“If we buy from westlands etc then it's 40>50% cheaper than the face value in the long run, as HMG gets all the tax straight back in to the coffers”
Agree. Not forgetting aircraft tonnage determines whether or not VAT is payable. There’s also the minor point that Westland deliver airworthy aircraft, unlike some I could mention.
Agree. Not forgetting aircraft tonnage determines whether or not VAT is payable. There’s also the minor point that Westland deliver airworthy aircraft, unlike some I could mention.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given the state of our AD destroyer Fleet and the fact its well past renewal as are most naval surface escorts I think the money is being well spent. It is also preserving British jobs/industry which unfortunatley falls into the role of supporting UK govt policy.
I agree of the shelf would be a better option for alot of kit I note Panther is off the shelf as are the new logistic vehicles. And there are vehicles that should have been purchased to replace Saxon and FV432 many years ago.
Nimrod MR4 could have had the avionics fitted to an Airbus or beoing airframe. And do we need A400m why not just get more C17.
But I view with increasing concern the conversion of our armed forces to a Light role counter insurgencey force and the knives comming out to cut conventional projects to support this.
The Army is getting dangerously out of balance and should have been expended in the last defence review. The Airforce is getting to the point were there will not be suficient transport assets to move ground forces let alone support them and the Navy has a great amphibious capibility that will soon be able to go nowhere as there will be insuficient escorts. Except of course the grand plan is the UK joining a Eurozone defence force.
I agree of the shelf would be a better option for alot of kit I note Panther is off the shelf as are the new logistic vehicles. And there are vehicles that should have been purchased to replace Saxon and FV432 many years ago.
Nimrod MR4 could have had the avionics fitted to an Airbus or beoing airframe. And do we need A400m why not just get more C17.
But I view with increasing concern the conversion of our armed forces to a Light role counter insurgencey force and the knives comming out to cut conventional projects to support this.
The Army is getting dangerously out of balance and should have been expended in the last defence review. The Airforce is getting to the point were there will not be suficient transport assets to move ground forces let alone support them and the Navy has a great amphibious capibility that will soon be able to go nowhere as there will be insuficient escorts. Except of course the grand plan is the UK joining a Eurozone defence force.
Nimrod MR4 could have had the avionics fitted to an Airbus or beoing airframe.
Just that simple, eh? How many Airbus or Boeing aircraft are fitted with suitable radar systems, bomb bays etc or are marinised and strengthened for extended low level maritime operations?
And do we need A400m why not just get more C17.
Cost, basically. It seems that the MoD might just about be able to buy the existing 4 C-17s the RAF is leasing and add a fifth. But it certainly could not afford to buy the same number of C-17s as A400Ms under current plans. The C-17 is an excellent airframe, but numbers of assets are needed, not just individual platform capability.
The C-17 was in competititon with the An-124 as the Short Term Strategic Airlifter until the A400M is ready. The A400M is intended to replace the ageing C-130K in roughly similar numbers to meet the RAF's global tactical transport needs.
Just that simple, eh? How many Airbus or Boeing aircraft are fitted with suitable radar systems, bomb bays etc or are marinised and strengthened for extended low level maritime operations?
And do we need A400m why not just get more C17.
Cost, basically. It seems that the MoD might just about be able to buy the existing 4 C-17s the RAF is leasing and add a fifth. But it certainly could not afford to buy the same number of C-17s as A400Ms under current plans. The C-17 is an excellent airframe, but numbers of assets are needed, not just individual platform capability.
The C-17 was in competititon with the An-124 as the Short Term Strategic Airlifter until the A400M is ready. The A400M is intended to replace the ageing C-130K in roughly similar numbers to meet the RAF's global tactical transport needs.
“And do we need A400m why not just get more C17”
It’s been mentioned on another thread that the lack of heavy lift has been recognised, but that the “solution”, enshrined in various URDs e.g. FRES, is to place an unhealthily large reliance on the US heavy fleet. A convenient solution, which relegates us to the equivalent of their National Guard in the eyes of the US.
As to the question in hand, I can’t imagine where the Merlin figures came from, or that they are remotely accurate. They almost certainly don’t take into account the avionics were largely designed and ready in the mid-late 80s, but the overall programme slipped some years. That meant “Merlin” kit which was ready for an early ISD had to be routinely updated, especially sensors; but there was no “real” platform to trial the updates on. For example, sonics technology on SK6 was romping away from that destined for Merlin. So, other aircraft and avionic programmes benefited from the Merlin delay by getting capabilities they would otherwise have never seen – but had to pay for it. It is these costs which are probably hidden. As are the significant costs of extending the life of other ASW assets. And the unquantifiable cost of not having Merlin Mk1 in its envisaged secondary role – Commando, to supplement Mk4.
This is not a criticism. It is recognition that in many ways the air vehicle is just a taxi for the avionics / mission systems, albeit a very expensive one, especially if you amortise development costs across 42(?) aircraft instead of the planned 103. You cannot simply say “Merlin costs £XX” due to parallel, interrelated and interdependent equipment development and production costs. What I mean by this is that some Merlin kit was a development of that fitted to Sea King Mk5. In turn, Mk6 was in many ways an advancement on early Merlin designs, and Merlin had to struggle to catch up. Some would say still struggling. And one day it may even catch up with ASaC. In effect, Sea King, SHAR and Lynx paid for much of the primary capability in Merlin. As SHAR did for Typhoon. And so on. Oops, I’ve described joined up thinking – it must have been accidental.
It’s been mentioned on another thread that the lack of heavy lift has been recognised, but that the “solution”, enshrined in various URDs e.g. FRES, is to place an unhealthily large reliance on the US heavy fleet. A convenient solution, which relegates us to the equivalent of their National Guard in the eyes of the US.
As to the question in hand, I can’t imagine where the Merlin figures came from, or that they are remotely accurate. They almost certainly don’t take into account the avionics were largely designed and ready in the mid-late 80s, but the overall programme slipped some years. That meant “Merlin” kit which was ready for an early ISD had to be routinely updated, especially sensors; but there was no “real” platform to trial the updates on. For example, sonics technology on SK6 was romping away from that destined for Merlin. So, other aircraft and avionic programmes benefited from the Merlin delay by getting capabilities they would otherwise have never seen – but had to pay for it. It is these costs which are probably hidden. As are the significant costs of extending the life of other ASW assets. And the unquantifiable cost of not having Merlin Mk1 in its envisaged secondary role – Commando, to supplement Mk4.
This is not a criticism. It is recognition that in many ways the air vehicle is just a taxi for the avionics / mission systems, albeit a very expensive one, especially if you amortise development costs across 42(?) aircraft instead of the planned 103. You cannot simply say “Merlin costs £XX” due to parallel, interrelated and interdependent equipment development and production costs. What I mean by this is that some Merlin kit was a development of that fitted to Sea King Mk5. In turn, Mk6 was in many ways an advancement on early Merlin designs, and Merlin had to struggle to catch up. Some would say still struggling. And one day it may even catch up with ASaC. In effect, Sea King, SHAR and Lynx paid for much of the primary capability in Merlin. As SHAR did for Typhoon. And so on. Oops, I’ve described joined up thinking – it must have been accidental.
E Sheep
“Apart from the tailrotor?”
Sorry, that was my oblique way of reminding readers of CDPs’ rulings that PMs and contractors can regard airworthiness, and sustaining airworthiness, as optional – but Westland have never, to my knowledge, taken advantage of these rulings by knowingly delivering an unsafe aircraft or equipment. Unlike others. Regardless of what anyone thinks of their products, I respect them for this.
Sorry to state verifiable facts on a rumour forum!
“Apart from the tailrotor?”
Sorry, that was my oblique way of reminding readers of CDPs’ rulings that PMs and contractors can regard airworthiness, and sustaining airworthiness, as optional – but Westland have never, to my knowledge, taken advantage of these rulings by knowingly delivering an unsafe aircraft or equipment. Unlike others. Regardless of what anyone thinks of their products, I respect them for this.
Sorry to state verifiable facts on a rumour forum!
Or the line is closing because Boeing is trying to make the DoD realise that if they want more C17 or an OTS option to replace C5A, then they have to make a "decision" and stick to it.
Jane's is reporting this week that Boeing are confident of getting a small NATO order to keep the line viable for a bit longer.
Jane's is reporting this week that Boeing are confident of getting a small NATO order to keep the line viable for a bit longer.
Exactly, Mr Boffin - the big B wants the AF to buy lots more C-17s and cancel most of its C-5 upgrades to pay for them. LockMart and some Washington heavyweights (literally in the case of Sen. Edward Kennedy, many of whose constituents are employed keeping C-5s glued together) disagree. Result - when it finally dawns on people that most Army kit has outgrown the C-130, the only option left will be the (horrors) A400M. Go BEAGS!