I am not sure whether the F18 will perform the role better than JSF. What I do know is that I was extremely proud to know that our two new carriers were to field ground breaking new aircraft.

It saddens me that we are now going to purchase a 30 plus year old design (that lost to the F16) to project UK power overseas.

I an extremely proud of the UK armed forces. I can't help but feel sad that our branches have been "pruned" by the mismanagement of our welfare and immigration policies.

:(

Best,

SSS

And before I get nailed by the realists;

Lightning, Buc, TSR, Hunter, Concorde et al.

Can you apply a fiscal value to national pride?

Sorry for the rant.

Best,

SSS

Lost to the F-16? You better have a closer look at history, the F-16 only just won the USAF fly off but did not even get off the drawing board for the Navy, turning it into a carrier capable aircraft was considered way to hard. The basic configuration might be 30 years old (have another look at it's history, it's more like 40) but it has been redesigned, has new engines and avionics and is proven to work. And the best thing about it is it's not French! :rolleyes:

I first saw the Eurofighter mockup model in the Missile museum at RAF Newton and that was 1982, and we are only now building up it's numbers and capability ie Air to ground to that of the F18 A/E which it has from the start.

Makes way for a small batch of Growlers!(que..you live in the north east, there aren't any small growlers jokes)

Shouldn't that be ... will be cabable of, hopefully.

Also let's remember what the F22 was capable of at the same period in it's development .. on paper, great. Now in service, when reallity kicks in, not a lot.

The SuperHornet is not a legacy platform, it's widely accepted to be a 4.5 generation aircraft and it's proven, it's available, oh and compared to the F35 it's cheap.

Superhornet is a re-worked design of a legacy aircraft with a newer radar - call it 4.5 Gen if it makes you and Boeing feel better about where it really lies in the future - next we'll be seeing 4.75 gen, 4.99.... For the long game it is a bridge capability if you wish to upgrade your older F-18 while awaiting F-35 or simply cannot afford to buy an entire fleet of 5th Gen.

I believe that when F-35 production ramps up we'll be surprised at how reasonable the flyaway cost is for what you get. You want legacy then fine, it will cost less because Boeing are being pushed out of the fighter market by Lockheed for what will be the THE future long-term western strike platform. Hell I bet they even subsidise the cost from their airliner sales just to make it attractive.

AOA won't win a war of the future so why buy into it now?

With the cuts that are coming the only time we will see Brits in an F35 they will be on an exchange posting.

Unfortunately the Government spending and value for money is different from yours or mine.

Money spent is money gone. Money that would be spent is money that can be saved from future spending.

If you had just serviced your second car for Mrs R, new exhaust, new tyres etc etc you would hardly get rid of it simply to save running costs and replace it with a new one would you?

It doesn't matter how good the F35 COULD be. We are a bankrupt little island off Europe. We can't AFFORD it:ugh:

Once again posting with trepidation, as a guest... but -

If we want a new ground attack aircraft, why don't we just bloody well make one, while we've at least the shade of the ability to do it? It strikes me that Typhoon is essentially a British aircraft which could have been done without outside involvement, to the net benefit of the project in terms of reduced wrangling over the specification. Keeping it in house means that it doesn't have make a huge dent in the balance of payments, provides lots of employment, and, what d'you know, other people (well, Saudi) might buy them, to overall positive fiscal effect.

Oh, and don't dither over the spec, keep changing the spec, change the spec when you don't understand what the full consequences will be, or sign up to some ridiculous deal whereby government money covers every possible mistake the manufacturers make. Then you might get something with decent clarity of purpose, in a timely manner, within a respectable distance of the original quote.

And you might actually be able to take some schoolkids to RAF Little Wrinklybum and show them one, and those of them which wish to be engineers on such highly diverting projects would have an ice cube's chance in hell of actually becoming such.

Is there anything wrong with this picture? Serious question.

Phil,

Welcome - always good to get an external view.

Yes, a few things.

Well, the MoD/RAF is notorious for changing specs and off-take numbers, as well as for writing rubbish contracts and stuffing themselves. So this is a pretty major problem.

See above. And what threat environment do you want this new jet to work in? Unless reasonably benign at ML, then it starts to get rather pricey VERY quickly - we're not talking about zero-timed Hunters with Litening pods, I'm guessing.

Extremely unlikely to provide "overall positive fiscal effect" (which I assume means a profit). The only way you can demonstrate that most aircraft exports make a profit is to write off large portions of the R&D and then show that you've made a profit on the incremental sales. I'd be interested to see the costs for Al Yamamah (sp?) to see if we actually made any cash on the Saudi Tornado deals if you were to include the cost of the Tornado R&D.

Of course, if you write off the R&D, then you could even make Concorde profitable.... but it didn't do much for the taxpayers or the BAC shareholders.

Maybe I'm being too pessimistic, and I'd love to be proved wrong, but....

S41

GK

LM has been claiming a couple of sets of numbers.

One is a $49.5 million unit recurring flyaway cost (URFC) that does include the engine. A few snags, though. You are not going to get the airplane for the URFC because there are always non-recurring costs in there for "ancillary equipment" (things like weapon pylons/adapters). It's priced in 2002 dollars, and you don't have any of those. It's also not the price today, but an average if you build 2,200 jets between now and 2037. And from a UK viewpoint, it's also worth remembering that the F-35B and F-35C are and always have been much more expensive than the F-35A.

And indeed, this chart that they use all the time omits the engine.

https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&i...f_gb50nq3a0&zw

So I suggest you take your talk of slander and go back to f16.net.

Did you notice ORAC's post?

The one where he cites You see that? include the costs of procuring airframes; engines;

If LM is citing "unit flyaway cost", then it HAS to include the cost of the engine!

Where can WE see "this chart that they use all the time" that "omits the engine."? You conveniently "forgot" to provide a link.

And since I have never been on f16.net, I laugh at you.

Try to belittle me because I call you on your BS?

F/A-18 ?
 

I'm new to the forum but have read with interest the views of many regarding the possible purchase of the F/A-18 Silent Hornet by the UK. Although this will be decided above our pay grade, a small thought to ponder. Passive stealth is a perishable quality, with the improvements in electronic detection stealth technologies become less effective. The Russians are currently experimenting with wing leading edge 'anti stealth ' radars built into their next generation fighter to counter the F-35 and F-22 reduced RCS stealth capabilities. Without its stealth capability the F-35 becomes an aircraft that lacks payload, range and speed, all qualities needed in a good fighter if it is to survive in a hostile environment.
An aircraft supported by a modern EW platform will stand as good a chance as any of 'getting through' to it's target so, maybe a package that includes F/A-18 SH and E/A-18 G's might not be such a bad purchase in these financially stressful times. We will have to wait and see what our lords and masters decide!

Anyone?

Is there something strange about the link? Was that very large chart invisible? Or is GK suggesting that I fabricated it? If so, I hope he will come out and say as much directly.

I logged out and could still see it, so if anyone can help GK it would be useful.

Meanwhile, here is some more discussion:

Lockheed: F-35 Can Compete On Cost | AVIATION WEEK

Yes, as I noted above, there is a cost that can be presented as $60 million, although it is based on URFC (which nobody much ever used until now), and won't apply until at least 2018-2019 delivery dates, and is the A-model that the RN is not going to get, and depends on all the international partners sticking to their delivery dates, even though IOC and testing have slipped.

I have been keeping schtoom about this one for a week or so just in case - not wanting to blow my own trumpet but I am distantly related to a VVIP ( no names no clues or I get a black Omega tail ) and we had a very interesting natter at a little family shindig. Said VVIP has a big input into the upcoming pain.

I voiced the side of the end user of kit - bloody industry etc and VVIP voiced the point of MOD/RAF keep buggering about with the spec.

We agreed on this, make no mistake - said VVIP is damn clever and well aware of various things and while there is going to be pain, oodles of, the gubmint is trying to walk the line between getting us out of debt and keeping us a viable nation with the needs of everybody, mil included.

Don't believe all you read in the mail or torygraph....

I wish I could say more but I can't - just keep faith with each other and STOP THE BLOODY INFIGHTING.

I also would like f-18g over a dave we might never see. All of you fretting that we wouldn't have the best shiny toy - we've managed it ever since we began haven't we?

LO - No chart visible....
 

LO,

I can't access your chart on my system either - but I can see that you have posted something, and I don't doubt your integrity!!!

I have a little experience of this, from the supplier side, so I can't disagree - but it seems a little lame to posit this as an reason why we can't be trusted to make our own aircraft. I mean, fix it! Easier said than done I'm sure but good grief.

Sorry, ML? Medium level? Remember, I ain't got no Cranwell. But this depends what you want, which is a tricky question, of course. The thing is, this does speak back to the "stop fiddling with the spec" issue. Tornado seems from what I've read to be a superbly successful ground attack device and it is not doing anything like what it was originally designed to do. At some point, it's necessary (and fiscally responsible) to decide on something and let someone make it without constantly trying to ensure it's perfectly optimised for whatever might be happening next Wednesday, which, by the time the thing takes flight, will be out of date in any case.

Well, no, that's specifically why I didn't say profit; selling them is aimed at amortising the cost of having some yourself. But really, again, isn't this hopelessly lame excuse? I appreciate the US military-industrial complex is a rather special case, but I suspect that there was a time when outfits like English Electric and Blackburn would have been surprised to hear that it's impossible to run a business building military aircraft.

Sure, fine, but if you're going to make them anyway, why not ensure that UK government spending is at least spent and taxed and re-spent in the UK.

No?

P

Thanks, Biggus - let's try this.

Lockheed Martin Chart

Apologies for annoying Sendspace link, but it's the best I can do right now.

CS - We're not to believe the Mail or the Torygraph... but the story that started all this was in the Times.

So I have to download and install someone's downloader program (that I know nothing about... either program or company) in order to download that file to see your chart... very nice.

You can't just put up a link to where you found it.


Perhaps you are referring to one of the charts here?

F-35 JSF Program: When is ?Affordability? Not?

And yes, URF... not the same designation.

And with the clear labeling of the differences I don't see anything to support any accusation of deception and underhandedness.


Of course, Airpower Australia is the same group that insists that Australia should have bought the more-expensive F-22... which is not even available for export (and which blindly refuses to even acknowledge that fact).

So, baseless accusations of deception and skullduggery are only to be expected from them... too bad you believe them.

As a Canadian I was distressed when the government announced we were committing to the F35. The one huge advantage to the CF18E/F is there is cost certainty. Nobody knows what the final unit costs for the F35 will be but if the cost do not increase from the latest upward revison, (now at least 1.5 times the cost of a F18E) it will be the first modern military aircraft program that manged that feat from this (early) point in its development.

Finally how good is good enough. Who is the realisitic enemy that cannot not be defeated by a generation 4.5 fighter now or even 20 yrs from now ?

In the last 40 years the kill ratio for Western Airforces is in the order of 100 to zero.

The F35 is not just about shooting down enemy SUs / MIGs, it's primarily about getting in an out of places safely.

But only, it would seem, when used in conjunction with the Next Generation Jammer (NGJ) - which may not be made available to other F-35 purchasers....

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.....

Someone remind me what the point of us paying to be Tier 1 partners was again?

Now, you know that ALL F35's will be "equal" it's in the contract, :*:*

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.

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

"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.

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....

Point is that F35 does not need NGJ. Sure, it 'could' provide some added capability, depending on what that actually is, but NGJ is a program that would have applicability to many platforms such as F-18G for self-protection. My point is that NGJ is a separate program which UK have not bought into - it has nothing to do with the F-35 contract so your argument in terms of platform parity is sadly a bit flawed there.

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.

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!

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.

LO, do you have the original doc for that graphic?

Bollocks

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.

I love this analogy.


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 :ok:

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.....:)

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.......

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.

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?

:sad::8