Royal Navy to Buy F18F
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The F35 is not just about shooting down enemy SUs / MIGs, it's primarily about getting in an out of places safely.
Will F-35 Customers Get Advanced Jammer?
...........The Navy and the Office of the Secretary of Defense have not made any decisions regarding the release of Next Generation Jammer technology, although the NGJ is expected to be vital to the strike aircraft’s survival in heavily defended enemy airspace (see p. 48)......
Still to be determined is whether the NGJ system will be exportable to other JSF-buying nations.....
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still to be determined is whether the NGJ system will be exportable to other JSF-buying nations.....
GK - I was not accusing anyone of underhandedness. Most of the numbers out of LockMart have been appropriately labeled and qualified. However, once those get more widely reported (as in the post to which I originally responded) the qualifiers get stripped away.
LM says that eventually, at full rate, the F-35A will cost as much as a comparably equipped F/A-18E/F. Who knows, they may accomplish this (despite derisive snorts from St Louis). But to talk of a $60-$65 million price in the context of the RN's deal is misleading, because the UK will be buying B-models off the later LRIP batches and the early MYPs, if the whole shebang stays on schedule.
LM says that eventually, at full rate, the F-35A will cost as much as a comparably equipped F/A-18E/F. Who knows, they may accomplish this (despite derisive snorts from St Louis). But to talk of a $60-$65 million price in the context of the RN's deal is misleading, because the UK will be buying B-models off the later LRIP batches and the early MYPs, if the whole shebang stays on schedule.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Wenatchee, WA
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rakshasa,
Reasons for paying to be a Level 1 partner:
Getting in early has meant that over a hundred UK suppliers are now involved with building the aircraft and we have a very significant piece of the industrial participation. So when the US and other nations buy 3000+ airframes, the money the UK Treasury makes in tax on the sales of all those components will more than cover the UK money that's been invested so far and will also pay for the UK airplane buy. In simple terms, over the life of the program the UK government gets the airplanes for free, and should make a tidy profit (or if you're a cynic, you could say that there's plenty of margin for cost growth). You'll find it hard/impossible to get a deal like that if you buy any other airplane - F-18, Rafale, or Typhoon.
It also gets us a lot more access to the Program, at an earlier stage, than any of the other Partners.
Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
Reasons for paying to be a Level 1 partner:
Getting in early has meant that over a hundred UK suppliers are now involved with building the aircraft and we have a very significant piece of the industrial participation. So when the US and other nations buy 3000+ airframes, the money the UK Treasury makes in tax on the sales of all those components will more than cover the UK money that's been invested so far and will also pay for the UK airplane buy. In simple terms, over the life of the program the UK government gets the airplanes for free, and should make a tidy profit (or if you're a cynic, you could say that there's plenty of margin for cost growth). You'll find it hard/impossible to get a deal like that if you buy any other airplane - F-18, Rafale, or Typhoon.
It also gets us a lot more access to the Program, at an earlier stage, than any of the other Partners.
Regards,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sussex
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"In simple terms, over the life of the program the UK government gets the airplanes for free, and should make a tidy profit "
... probably none of which will make its way back into the defence budget as an offset. Even a fraction of the total would be, erm, helpful.
... probably none of which will make its way back into the defence budget as an offset. Even a fraction of the total would be, erm, helpful.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Umm, where did I put the Garmin?
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SSSETOWTF, Thanks for the breakdown. It easy to forget the commercial aspects of the deal when thinking purely in terms of defence and as Cold Says, You'd think or hope that some of the lovely tax revenue might find its way back to the Defence Budget.
Of course if it did, we'd also have a plentiful supply of flying pigs to strap bombs to....
Of course if it did, we'd also have a plentiful supply of flying pigs to strap bombs to....
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Back of beyond!
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Still to be determined is whether the NGJ system will be exportable to other JSF-buying nations.....
Now, you know that ALL F35's will be "equal" it's in the contract,
Still to be determined is whether the NGJ system will be exportable to other JSF-buying nations.....
Now, you know that ALL F35's will be "equal" it's in the contract,
Completely agree with SSSETOWTF's points on industrial share aspects too - tends to get overlooked on what Level 1 partner status gives UK.
SSSETOWTF
Can you expand on that calculation? The biggest UK-domiciled piece of JSF is part of the airframe - let's say 15 per cent by value of airframe and systems, which may be 35 per cent of the whole deliverable air system. So the VAT on that is one per cent of the value of the complete air system... so to make our money back on 138 aircraft they would have to sell (click click whirr) 13800 jets.
Yes, there are also the ejection seats and other bits, and some of the B propulsion system (but the Bs are never going to be more than 15 per cent of the production run), and some of the F136 if it doesn't get canceled, but a lot of the RR propulsion work is being done in Indianapolis. Likewise, BAE's biggest chunk of the system is in Nashua.
Can you expand on that calculation? The biggest UK-domiciled piece of JSF is part of the airframe - let's say 15 per cent by value of airframe and systems, which may be 35 per cent of the whole deliverable air system. So the VAT on that is one per cent of the value of the complete air system... so to make our money back on 138 aircraft they would have to sell (click click whirr) 13800 jets.
Yes, there are also the ejection seats and other bits, and some of the B propulsion system (but the Bs are never going to be more than 15 per cent of the production run), and some of the F136 if it doesn't get canceled, but a lot of the RR propulsion work is being done in Indianapolis. Likewise, BAE's biggest chunk of the system is in Nashua.
Let us say that MOD wants to buy a new tank. There are two options available. One is a German tank costing £6M each, and one a British tank costing £10M each (the numbers are made up!!). The actual performance of each tank is broadly similar.
Which should MOD buy.....?
Its obvious isn't it, the German one. That is the approach the new CDS says he will take when he is in office.
However, let us look at it more closely.
For every German tank we buy, £6M goes out of the UK economy to Germany and, unless the Germans use some British parts in their tanks, that is the last we ever see of it.
Looking at the British tank. It is built by a firm in Swindon say. For every tank we buy £10M circulates in the UK economy:
The tank firm makes a profit - and pays the government Corporation tax.
The tank firms workers get paid - and pay income tax to the Government
The firm and workers both pay national insurance contributions to the government
The workers spend their money in Swindon shops - and pay VAT to the government as they shop
The Swindon shops in turn pay VAT, their workers pay income tax, etc....
The tank firm employs UK subcontractors, each of which pays corporation tax, national insurance, their workers, VAT, their workers pay income tax, etc, etc......
How much of that £10M the government has spent on each tank comes back to it one way or another in taxes. Probably over 40% I would say.
So from the UK plc point of view the British tank is probably actually "cheaper", and far better for the country as a whole. However, that doesn't help the MOD budget which is not getting any benefit from having "bought British", and is simply paying £4M per tank more than it wants to!
Which should MOD buy.....?
Its obvious isn't it, the German one. That is the approach the new CDS says he will take when he is in office.
However, let us look at it more closely.
For every German tank we buy, £6M goes out of the UK economy to Germany and, unless the Germans use some British parts in their tanks, that is the last we ever see of it.
Looking at the British tank. It is built by a firm in Swindon say. For every tank we buy £10M circulates in the UK economy:
The tank firm makes a profit - and pays the government Corporation tax.
The tank firms workers get paid - and pay income tax to the Government
The firm and workers both pay national insurance contributions to the government
The workers spend their money in Swindon shops - and pay VAT to the government as they shop
The Swindon shops in turn pay VAT, their workers pay income tax, etc....
The tank firm employs UK subcontractors, each of which pays corporation tax, national insurance, their workers, VAT, their workers pay income tax, etc, etc......
How much of that £10M the government has spent on each tank comes back to it one way or another in taxes. Probably over 40% I would say.
So from the UK plc point of view the British tank is probably actually "cheaper", and far better for the country as a whole. However, that doesn't help the MOD budget which is not getting any benefit from having "bought British", and is simply paying £4M per tank more than it wants to!
Exantai, it may have escaped your notice but Rolls-Royce build a rather superb nuclear reactor that is presently pushing the Royal Navy's nuclear submarines around the world's oceans. No need for American involvement whatsoever.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Riverside, CA, USA
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks, Biggus - let's try this.
Lockheed Martin Chart
Apologies for annoying Sendspace link, but it's the best I can do right now.
Lockheed Martin Chart
Apologies for annoying Sendspace link, but it's the best I can do right now.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
ts obvious isn't it, the German one. That is the approach the new CDS says he will take when he is in office.
However, let us look at it more closely.
For every German tank we buy, £6M goes out of the UK economy to Germany and, unless the Germans use some British parts in their tanks, that is the last we ever see of it.
However, let us look at it more closely.
For every German tank we buy, £6M goes out of the UK economy to Germany and, unless the Germans use some British parts in their tanks, that is the last we ever see of it.
I think you'll find that every country buying such equipment insists on offsets against other parts or products built in country - in many cases in excess, up to 130%, of the purchase price.
Let us say that MOD wants to buy a new tank. There are two options available. One is a German tank costing £6M each, and one a British tank costing £10M each (the numbers are made up!!). The actual performance of each tank is broadly similar.
Which should MOD buy.....?
Which should MOD buy.....?
The chances of the UK tank having similar performance on paper are good [in reality - zero]. Because all UK companies know the MOD is a cash cow, we then get bumraped over spares, upgrades and through life support.
Two things scream out at me here.....
1. Why German, and not US?
2. Why is the economy in Swindon [ or anywhere else] as important, or more important, than a soldiers life?
Right, first of all I'm just a pond life JO on a flying base, I'm not a senior officer, and I have not worked in MOD at any stage.....
In my last post I was trying to point out what I believed (possibly incorrectly) to be the financial return for the UK of "buying British". It was also partly to point out that LO's calculation of having to sell 13800 jets before the UK government got sufficient return (tax) from various UK companies involvement in the project for the 138 we might buy to be "free" was probably very pessimistic.....
Having said that:
Deliverance
Half my point was that the government doesn't return any of the benefits to any department that buys British, whether that be Defence, transport, agriculture, etc, etc..... Departments are encouraged to buy British to help the UK economy, but it doesn't help the departments individual budgets, in fact it may hinder them. Any benefit to the country goes into the general pot (in the same way that your road tax doesn't pay for roads) rather than any attempt (which would probably be a nightmare to manage) to "credit" an individual departments budget.
Minigun
I was trying to keep the example as simple as possible. To that end I stated (however unrealistically) that the performance of each tank was similar - so a soldier is as safe/unsafe in one as in the other. In which case (your point 2), how is a soldiers life effected by the choice made in my hypothetical case?
Why Germany and not the US? Why not, its a hypothetical example for goodness sake. I could have picked Spain, Denmark, Brazil, etc and it wouldn't matter. It was just an overseas country vs the UK. The US was just too obvious and boring to pick.... Anyway, the Germans make good tanks
Why Swindon? Why not, it was the first name that popped into my head, and no, I'm not based at Lyneham.
It was a hypothetical example of a UK vs overseas purchase of military equipment, and the money recouped by the UK government in each case. Don't get so bogged down in unimportant details.
ORAC
No need to swear.
Whilst I was aware, and have read about, industrial offsets, I thought they were more usual in larger scale projects. I didn't realize they were as common as you seem to imply. Does this mean that the much trumpeted sale of Hawks to India, mentioned in Cameron's recent visit there with a trade delegation, is actually going to cost the UK more than it earns us (in that we have had to agree to offsets with India)? In which case I wouldn't have thought it was worth celebrating!
Gents, I tried to put down my thoughts on why the government is keen to "buy british" whenever possible, without the individual government departments involved getting any benefit. I tried to pick a simple example. As I wrote it I could see more any more ways in which the money spent makes its way back to the Treasury. I may have been wrong, and stand ready to be corrected (ORACs comment re offsets?). This is a discussion forum after all.....
In my last post I was trying to point out what I believed (possibly incorrectly) to be the financial return for the UK of "buying British". It was also partly to point out that LO's calculation of having to sell 13800 jets before the UK government got sufficient return (tax) from various UK companies involvement in the project for the 138 we might buy to be "free" was probably very pessimistic.....
Having said that:
Deliverance
Half my point was that the government doesn't return any of the benefits to any department that buys British, whether that be Defence, transport, agriculture, etc, etc..... Departments are encouraged to buy British to help the UK economy, but it doesn't help the departments individual budgets, in fact it may hinder them. Any benefit to the country goes into the general pot (in the same way that your road tax doesn't pay for roads) rather than any attempt (which would probably be a nightmare to manage) to "credit" an individual departments budget.
Minigun
I was trying to keep the example as simple as possible. To that end I stated (however unrealistically) that the performance of each tank was similar - so a soldier is as safe/unsafe in one as in the other. In which case (your point 2), how is a soldiers life effected by the choice made in my hypothetical case?
Why Germany and not the US? Why not, its a hypothetical example for goodness sake. I could have picked Spain, Denmark, Brazil, etc and it wouldn't matter. It was just an overseas country vs the UK. The US was just too obvious and boring to pick.... Anyway, the Germans make good tanks
Why Swindon? Why not, it was the first name that popped into my head, and no, I'm not based at Lyneham.
It was a hypothetical example of a UK vs overseas purchase of military equipment, and the money recouped by the UK government in each case. Don't get so bogged down in unimportant details.
ORAC
No need to swear.
Whilst I was aware, and have read about, industrial offsets, I thought they were more usual in larger scale projects. I didn't realize they were as common as you seem to imply. Does this mean that the much trumpeted sale of Hawks to India, mentioned in Cameron's recent visit there with a trade delegation, is actually going to cost the UK more than it earns us (in that we have had to agree to offsets with India)? In which case I wouldn't have thought it was worth celebrating!
Gents, I tried to put down my thoughts on why the government is keen to "buy british" whenever possible, without the individual government departments involved getting any benefit. I tried to pick a simple example. As I wrote it I could see more any more ways in which the money spent makes its way back to the Treasury. I may have been wrong, and stand ready to be corrected (ORACs comment re offsets?). This is a discussion forum after all.....
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Offsets In International Arms Trade - Need For A National Policy
......The British defense industry was quick to grasp the increasing importance of offsets. The British Defense Manufacturers Offset Group was established in 1990. The members exchange knowledge on offsets and share expertise to deal with different countries. It is also creating a data bank wherein the offset policies of the major arms buying countries have been compiled to enable the members to negotiate effectively.
In addition, the Defense Export Services Organization under the British Ministry of Defense provides support and offset advice to British arms exporters. It also administers the policies for seeking offsets from the producers who export to Britain. The British call it Industrial Participation (IP). Under the British IP policy, a minimum of 100 per cent offset is essential for all contracts over 50 million pounds for French and German companies, and 10 million pounds for all others. It further stipulates that offsets have to be defense related, new and of equivalent technical quality; and have to be fulfilled within the period of the main contract and at no extra cost. It permits both direct and indirect offsets. Incidentally, the UK’s offset benefits exceed 5 billion pounds, with the USA being the main provider.......
......The British defense industry was quick to grasp the increasing importance of offsets. The British Defense Manufacturers Offset Group was established in 1990. The members exchange knowledge on offsets and share expertise to deal with different countries. It is also creating a data bank wherein the offset policies of the major arms buying countries have been compiled to enable the members to negotiate effectively.
In addition, the Defense Export Services Organization under the British Ministry of Defense provides support and offset advice to British arms exporters. It also administers the policies for seeking offsets from the producers who export to Britain. The British call it Industrial Participation (IP). Under the British IP policy, a minimum of 100 per cent offset is essential for all contracts over 50 million pounds for French and German companies, and 10 million pounds for all others. It further stipulates that offsets have to be defense related, new and of equivalent technical quality; and have to be fulfilled within the period of the main contract and at no extra cost. It permits both direct and indirect offsets. Incidentally, the UK’s offset benefits exceed 5 billion pounds, with the USA being the main provider.......
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No point trying to point out common sense to this lot Biggus () their views are, for some, way to firmly entrenched to cede any debate.
On the grander front, I feel that in a decade (or two) these times will be viewed by military historians as the point when the RAF consolidated it's loss of direction in the pursuit of "air power", having been led along a certain path by leaders whose mindsets were purely one dimensional and motivated by a strong helping of presumptuousness.
) their views are, for some, way to firmly entrenched to cede any debate.On the grander front, I feel that in a decade (or two) these times will be viewed by military historians as the point when the RAF consolidated it's loss of direction in the pursuit of "air power", having been led along a certain path by leaders whose mindsets were purely one dimensional and motivated by a strong helping of presumptuousness.
A lesson from history?
Excuse this thought from an aging civvy.
It seems to me that we've been here before. way back in the 1960's Hawker's were building this super VTOL jet called P1154. It was Mach 2 capable, V/Stol, and was planned to be bought by the RN and RAF in large numbers - save costs, interoperable etc.
The the Navy pulled out and bought the Phantom. The RAF then cancelled as it was too expensive and bought....more Phantoms. Anyone else get a feeling of deja vu here?
It seems to me that we've been here before. way back in the 1960's Hawker's were building this super VTOL jet called P1154. It was Mach 2 capable, V/Stol, and was planned to be bought by the RN and RAF in large numbers - save costs, interoperable etc.
The the Navy pulled out and bought the Phantom. The RAF then cancelled as it was too expensive and bought....more Phantoms. Anyone else get a feeling of deja vu here?
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 82
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KKBUK - post 196 - Nuclear propulsion
Thanks for the memory jog re the Trident boats being Roller powered, I had forgotten that. So that leads to an image of the CV hulls being stepped, 4 x Rollers stacked two high; when the hull is on the step - no worries about STOL or Ski Jumps - lots of problems solved - maybe creating a few more!! - but still leaving the F/A 18 the winner and more reduced costs. 
As an aside and an example of where leading technology can lead you ;
A few year back I went on board a Trident boat at Faslane, walked along the deck to the large hatch, where to my surprise, the hole in the deck was surrounded by a fence of scaffold tubes to stop anyone falling in, with a wooden builders ladder to climb up, then reverse position and descend down via another longer wooden ladder to get onboard, all secured by ropes.
In the meantime, yes, as usual with Rolls, those engines are magnificent and would be ideal for the CV's with minimal expense in design - or did the last lot sell off the division involved when they got rid of all our nuclear design and manufacturing capability to the rest of the world, before placing requirements for same, out for bidding. (Thank God they hav'nt tried to nationalise and produce our Beer yet - but keep looking, some bright s*d might).
However, and with apologies to Mods for major thread creep, but, if a boat can be carried on a ship - but not a ship on a boat - it'll take a hell of a ship to carry a Trident Sub.
As an aside and an example of where leading technology can lead you ;
A few year back I went on board a Trident boat at Faslane, walked along the deck to the large hatch, where to my surprise, the hole in the deck was surrounded by a fence of scaffold tubes to stop anyone falling in, with a wooden builders ladder to climb up, then reverse position and descend down via another longer wooden ladder to get onboard, all secured by ropes.
In the meantime, yes, as usual with Rolls, those engines are magnificent and would be ideal for the CV's with minimal expense in design - or did the last lot sell off the division involved when they got rid of all our nuclear design and manufacturing capability to the rest of the world, before placing requirements for same, out for bidding. (Thank God they hav'nt tried to nationalise and produce our Beer yet - but keep looking, some bright s*d might).
However, and with apologies to Mods for major thread creep, but, if a boat can be carried on a ship - but not a ship on a boat - it'll take a hell of a ship to carry a Trident Sub.