Nimrod MRA.4
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Evanelpus, your last paragraph
"Whatever the (real) reasons are for the cancellation of this project, lobbying and petitions are not going to get the decision changed. This country has an alarming history of making major boo boos when it comes to our aircraft industry. Sadly, this will just be another example of it. "
Hits the nail on the head for me. I could not have put it better myself mate.
"Whatever the (real) reasons are for the cancellation of this project, lobbying and petitions are not going to get the decision changed. This country has an alarming history of making major boo boos when it comes to our aircraft industry. Sadly, this will just be another example of it. "
Hits the nail on the head for me. I could not have put it better myself mate.
Gents
As I reported the two partially built aircraft, which were hangared are now parked between the hangars and ready to be scrapped.
I'm sure there will be somebody out there who will make some money out of this fiasco, but it won't be the British tax payer.
Hunty
As I reported the two partially built aircraft, which were hangared are now parked between the hangars and ready to be scrapped.
I'm sure there will be somebody out there who will make some money out of this fiasco, but it won't be the British tax payer.
Hunty
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,974
Received 2,881 Likes
on
1,231 Posts
They were offered out to Museums but apparently had virtually no takers, on the flypast forums they are reporting only one person really enquired, perhaps RAF Kinloss should of asked for the lot of them LOL.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tragic, Billions of Tax payers cash cut into a pile of metal in less than an hour.
I hope Wikileaks one day publish the reason for this idiotic decision. Why has nobody called for a public enquiry into the waste of billions. Who decides these things or calls for an enquiry ?
I hope Wikileaks one day publish the reason for this idiotic decision. Why has nobody called for a public enquiry into the waste of billions. Who decides these things or calls for an enquiry ?
The real inquiry should be into the decision of procuring the MRA4 in the first place and the ridiculous bill that we agreed to pay - corruption at the very top with politicians, civil sevants in procurement and very senior officers that ended up working for the company.
The same corruption that led us to buy the Hawk 128 AJT when the AeroMacci was the better jet and the Typhoon and Tornado F3. And we wonder why the Forces have shrunk in size - all to pay for 'jobs' in Brough, Warton and Woodford and line the pockets of shareholders whilst the poor old British military footed the bill for late/over-priced/under-performing equipment.
That's where the inquiry should be...
LJ
The same corruption that led us to buy the Hawk 128 AJT when the AeroMacci was the better jet and the Typhoon and Tornado F3. And we wonder why the Forces have shrunk in size - all to pay for 'jobs' in Brough, Warton and Woodford and line the pockets of shareholders whilst the poor old British military footed the bill for late/over-priced/under-performing equipment.
That's where the inquiry should be...
LJ
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Just south of the Keevil gap.
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wot LJ said..
Except the part about "civil sevants in procurement" (sic)
In the mid90s, civil servants in procurement were repeatedly warning of under provision of risk funding, and particularly noted the issues regarding the re-use of the old fuselages. Last time I saw the files, they were on a Bernoulli drive at St. Giles Court, don't know what happened to them.
Like wise, the investment appraisal conducted by civil servants in procurement did not identify the Hawk 128 as the best value for money in the AJT competition, but the recommendation for the Italian job was over-ruled by Ministerial direction.
Except the part about "civil sevants in procurement" (sic)
In the mid90s, civil servants in procurement were repeatedly warning of under provision of risk funding, and particularly noted the issues regarding the re-use of the old fuselages. Last time I saw the files, they were on a Bernoulli drive at St. Giles Court, don't know what happened to them.
Like wise, the investment appraisal conducted by civil servants in procurement did not identify the Hawk 128 as the best value for money in the AJT competition, but the recommendation for the Italian job was over-ruled by Ministerial direction.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The very first post on page one of this long thread was started with tongue-in-cheek remarks about the appropriate place to begin this thread. The way things are moving along, it will, after all, end up in the 'Aviation History and Nostalgia' section.
Refer latest photos.
As one who was involved back in the 1960s, it feels like history is repeating itself, with memories of political blindness and ineptitude, not only on projects such as the P1154 and TSR2, but also the interference on civil projects too: a traumatic kick-in-the-teeth period for Britain's aircraft manufacturing companies and their employees.
Refer latest photos.
As one who was involved back in the 1960s, it feels like history is repeating itself, with memories of political blindness and ineptitude, not only on projects such as the P1154 and TSR2, but also the interference on civil projects too: a traumatic kick-in-the-teeth period for Britain's aircraft manufacturing companies and their employees.
A kick in the teeth for British aircraft manufacturing, yes, but not without their own part to play. The management of this program by the company has also been pitiful; failure to deliver on time and budget plus, in places, some poor workmanship to boot (which is one of the reasons it didn't fly after delivery in March 10 as they had to rectify things that RAF engs had found).
LJ
LJ
Join Date: May 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People may not like it, but by buying British, a lot of the taxpayers money goes back in to the British economy. Yes the Government paid £3.5+ billion for MRA4 but a large amount of that came directly back to them via tax both on company profits and individual employees. The money that didn’t come back by tax filtered down to suppliers who paid their employees etc, etc. All of the employees then spent their pay in the local economy etc etc etc.
If the government always just bought American kit the British economy would see absolutely nothing, all £3.5+ billion would leave the country and the American public would benefit from it.
Its always too easy just to look at the small picture.
A lot of people are too quick to knock British industry and then moan that there’s no jobs left in the UK unless you want to work for a supermarket.
The whole of the Aircraft industry world wide are struggling with delivering products, i.e Airbus with A380 and A400M, Boeing with 787 and 747 replacement, Lockheed with JSF. As the aircraft become more technical and the pool of experienced aerospace engineers decline (it is always hard for projects to man up with the required personnel) this problem is always going to exist.
America can always have the best kit as they throw a lot of many at it and can always justify it by buying in large multiples. But at the end of the day they still come to the UK for certain parts because we are still the world leaders in many fields.
If the government always just bought American kit the British economy would see absolutely nothing, all £3.5+ billion would leave the country and the American public would benefit from it.
Its always too easy just to look at the small picture.
A lot of people are too quick to knock British industry and then moan that there’s no jobs left in the UK unless you want to work for a supermarket.
The whole of the Aircraft industry world wide are struggling with delivering products, i.e Airbus with A380 and A400M, Boeing with 787 and 747 replacement, Lockheed with JSF. As the aircraft become more technical and the pool of experienced aerospace engineers decline (it is always hard for projects to man up with the required personnel) this problem is always going to exist.
America can always have the best kit as they throw a lot of many at it and can always justify it by buying in large multiples. But at the end of the day they still come to the UK for certain parts because we are still the world leaders in many fields.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Prestwick, Scotland
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oz42
A well written post that puts some perspective on the ''bigger picture''. Those deriding British industry would seem to rather spend taxpayers money in the USA or Italy or where-ever, and export all the jobs with them. The Nimrod MRA4 decision costs jobs up and down the length of the UK, thousands of them if one looks out 20 years, including those lost in local economies. The culling and export of British industry does nothing for the prospects of school and university leavers, and Hawk, Harrier, Typhoon and the Nimrod MR2s and MRA4s all seem / seemed to have good support with their user communities in the RAF. So some perspective and consideration of the bigger picture is indeed required, including capability loss, while not excusing what seems to have been David Cameron's personal decision with MRA4.
A well written post that puts some perspective on the ''bigger picture''. Those deriding British industry would seem to rather spend taxpayers money in the USA or Italy or where-ever, and export all the jobs with them. The Nimrod MRA4 decision costs jobs up and down the length of the UK, thousands of them if one looks out 20 years, including those lost in local economies. The culling and export of British industry does nothing for the prospects of school and university leavers, and Hawk, Harrier, Typhoon and the Nimrod MR2s and MRA4s all seem / seemed to have good support with their user communities in the RAF. So some perspective and consideration of the bigger picture is indeed required, including capability loss, while not excusing what seems to have been David Cameron's personal decision with MRA4.
Nicely argued on the money front, however...
9x Nimrod MRA4 = £3.5Bn
9x P8 Poseidon = £1.26Bn (currently estimated at US$220M ea or £140M ea at $1.6 to £1)
You do the maths - £2.25Bn saved that would pay for 11,250 nurses over 10 years or 9,000 school teachers over a similar period.
When the cost differential between COTS and "buying British" is so stark then your argument doesn't really cut it for me.
LJ
9x Nimrod MRA4 = £3.5Bn
9x P8 Poseidon = £1.26Bn (currently estimated at US$220M ea or £140M ea at $1.6 to £1)
You do the maths - £2.25Bn saved that would pay for 11,250 nurses over 10 years or 9,000 school teachers over a similar period.
When the cost differential between COTS and "buying British" is so stark then your argument doesn't really cut it for me.
LJ
Join Date: May 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LJ
That’s the point MRA4 didn’t actually cost the government £3.5bn pounds. That may be the headline figure, however they paid £3.5bn and then get x million/billion straight back in taxes via corporation tax, income tax, national insurance, plus VAT and petrol duty etc from all of the workers spending.
Therefore the real cost to the government is much lower. It’s the same when a government says it’s going to give NHS staff or the military a pay rise of x%. Everyone goes that’s really good aren’t the government being generous. But their not because they know they will already recoup a certain percentage straight back in income tax and NI. So the actual cost to the government isn’t as high as the headline figure may suggest
However by buying of the shelf from a foreign company they will see nothing back. So what they pay is the bottom line and UK plc will not benefit.
Also what happens when you want a bit of kit that’s not "off the shelf" then what are you going to do. Where are you going to go and how much do you think that nice foreign company is going to charge for it.
That’s the point MRA4 didn’t actually cost the government £3.5bn pounds. That may be the headline figure, however they paid £3.5bn and then get x million/billion straight back in taxes via corporation tax, income tax, national insurance, plus VAT and petrol duty etc from all of the workers spending.
Therefore the real cost to the government is much lower. It’s the same when a government says it’s going to give NHS staff or the military a pay rise of x%. Everyone goes that’s really good aren’t the government being generous. But their not because they know they will already recoup a certain percentage straight back in income tax and NI. So the actual cost to the government isn’t as high as the headline figure may suggest
However by buying of the shelf from a foreign company they will see nothing back. So what they pay is the bottom line and UK plc will not benefit.
Also what happens when you want a bit of kit that’s not "off the shelf" then what are you going to do. Where are you going to go and how much do you think that nice foreign company is going to charge for it.
OZ42
I've done a rough calculation of the £3.5Bn and I get the following breakdown:
Sale of aircraft £3,500,000,000
Workforce wages of say 1,500 people at £40k over 15 years is £900,000,000. (I estimated 1,500 people working on the aircraft project at any one time over the 15 years it took to roll out the delivery aircraft).
The annual NI contributions for £40kpa is £3,771 and the annual income tax is £6,705 (assuming the taxable amount is about £33,500 after the personal tax allowance).
Therefore the £10,476 of tax for 1,500 people over 15 years is £235,710,000 (£235.7M) - this is what the workforce would return to the Govt.
So £3,264,290,000 is still in the company. Corporation Tax is 28% (for large amounts associated with this type of project), so IF the company made say £500,000,000 (£500M) out of the contract then that would be £122,500,000 (£122.5M) of tax.
So a "rough order of magnitude" figure out of this sale for tax purposes would be a return of about £358.2M.
So, in this simplistic illustration the program still cost us £3.14Bn - that's a sh!t load more expensive than £1.26Bn for 9x "off the shelf" MPAs from Mr Boeing of Seattle!
The B Word
I've done a rough calculation of the £3.5Bn and I get the following breakdown:
Sale of aircraft £3,500,000,000
Workforce wages of say 1,500 people at £40k over 15 years is £900,000,000. (I estimated 1,500 people working on the aircraft project at any one time over the 15 years it took to roll out the delivery aircraft).
The annual NI contributions for £40kpa is £3,771 and the annual income tax is £6,705 (assuming the taxable amount is about £33,500 after the personal tax allowance).
Therefore the £10,476 of tax for 1,500 people over 15 years is £235,710,000 (£235.7M) - this is what the workforce would return to the Govt.
So £3,264,290,000 is still in the company. Corporation Tax is 28% (for large amounts associated with this type of project), so IF the company made say £500,000,000 (£500M) out of the contract then that would be £122,500,000 (£122.5M) of tax.
So a "rough order of magnitude" figure out of this sale for tax purposes would be a return of about £358.2M.
So, in this simplistic illustration the program still cost us £3.14Bn - that's a sh!t load more expensive than £1.26Bn for 9x "off the shelf" MPAs from Mr Boeing of Seattle!
The B Word
PS. Sorry in the excitement of my "maths in public" I missed out on my opinion on your:
Probably less than BWoS!
Sorry, flippancy aside, I believe that the "home grown" and "operational sovereignty" arguments are long gone in the western-technology global-market. For example, say I want a new data-modem for my brand spanking MPA made by Britain's finest. The technology is available from BAES Inc in the US and is covered by ITAR and BAES in the UK apply for a TAA to build it. The technical ability to build more is still protected and only US nationals can do that - so if the UK wants more and the US say no, we're stuck. So we build a one-off and the costs soar as they have done with MRA4.
The B Word
Also what happens when you want a bit of kit that’s not "off the shelf" then what are you going to do. Where are you going to go and how much do you think that nice foreign company is going to charge for it.
Sorry, flippancy aside, I believe that the "home grown" and "operational sovereignty" arguments are long gone in the western-technology global-market. For example, say I want a new data-modem for my brand spanking MPA made by Britain's finest. The technology is available from BAES Inc in the US and is covered by ITAR and BAES in the UK apply for a TAA to build it. The technical ability to build more is still protected and only US nationals can do that - so if the UK wants more and the US say no, we're stuck. So we build a one-off and the costs soar as they have done with MRA4.
The B Word
Join Date: May 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The B Word,
Then you need to factor in the money that flows down to suppliers and the suppliers of suppliers, all of their employees, plus all of the money that is then spent in the local community. As the money continues to pass down the chain and is spent it gets taxed and taxed again and again. Then there are the share dividends and capital gains on any uk share holders. It all adds up and makes the uk economy tick over.
If the money was always sent over seas the UK economy loses out and that’s why the selection of equipment is never simple.
It will be interesting to see what the P8 actually comes in at, if its on time, to cost and to spec I will be surprised but you never know miracles may happen. Does the cost of P8 being quoted also include the cost of BAMs?
Then you need to factor in the money that flows down to suppliers and the suppliers of suppliers, all of their employees, plus all of the money that is then spent in the local community. As the money continues to pass down the chain and is spent it gets taxed and taxed again and again. Then there are the share dividends and capital gains on any uk share holders. It all adds up and makes the uk economy tick over.
If the money was always sent over seas the UK economy loses out and that’s why the selection of equipment is never simple.
It will be interesting to see what the P8 actually comes in at, if its on time, to cost and to spec I will be surprised but you never know miracles may happen. Does the cost of P8 being quoted also include the cost of BAMs?