Contracts at risk in crisis over budget

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
Rob		#11	[-]
Posts: 604 (29-Apr-2008 17:32:47) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Future Lynx shouldn't be cut, end of. Development is basically finished, prototype is under construction with next year being its first flight. With Future Lynx, we have a great UK product that is gaining exports basically year after year (last year: Algeria for 4 Super Lynx 300, this year likely: Malaysia for another 6 Super Lynx 300), it is a great complement to EH101 and the AW149 will also be developed/produced in the UK due to the SPA with AgustaWestland. Cutting Future Lynx is insane and that's why I doubt it will be cut.
Bledlow		#12	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 55 (29-Apr-2008 17:34:15) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	hulahoop7 wrote: Why is PAAMS so expensive on the type 45 / Horizon, but cheap when on a CdG or a FREMM? Surely we could fit a 'cheaper' version to a big hull too?? CdG & FREMM don't have full PAAMS, they have cut-down systems.
CVA02		#13	[-]
Posts: 382 (29-Apr-2008 19:43:54) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Anthony58 wrote: By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent Douglas Carswell, a Tory MP who has written a paper on scrapping the Lynx deal with the Italian firm Finmeccanica, said: "This is a bad deal and the sooner we get out of it the better. "We could announce, for example, that we would buy the same amount of helicopters from Sikorsky - and still have £580 million to spend addressing funding shortages elsewhere in the Armed Forces." He added that the Sikorsky Seahawk helicopters would be available within 12 months. The Lynx is not expected in service until 2013. The American-built Seahawks would cost £6 million, or the MoD could buy the well-regarded EADS Eurocopter at £4.5 million each rather than the £14 million for each Lynx. l The Lynx has always suffered from high unit costs, which managed to sink any commercial variants or export sales of past land-based variants. According to these figures, the larger, more capable Seahawks could replace the future Lynx, while saving enough money to fund the early replacement of the Sea King HC.4 fleets with Knighthawks! By all means, the Lynx should be canceled. This sort of wasteful, make-work procurement project is at the heart of the defence funding crisis.
Rob		#14	[-]
Posts: 605 (29-Apr-2008 21:18:18) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	That is if you want to believe some Tory MP who probably doesn't have a clue. Does he know that nearly half the 1 billion has been spent on design and development which is 80% complete? Production unit cost is about 7 million pounds. Does this Tory MP know if the Seahawk comes with an AESA as does the Navy Future Lynx? Has this Tory MP calculated taxes that come back to the UK through the 4000 strong workforce? Has this guy factored in the investment by Finmeccanica in the form of EH101/AW149 shift to the UK? Etc... . Very funny, 70x6 = 420, 1000-420 = 580. The maths of that Tory is very basic, where is the tax factor, where is the fact that millions have already been spent? What about cancellation fees? Last Edited By: Rob 29-Apr-2008 21:22:21. Edited 1 times.
Rich C	FLynx	#15	[-]
Posts: 428 (30-Apr-2008 05:43:57) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Sorry Rob, but FLynx is shockingly bad value for money. The armed forces equipment budget is hopelesly underfunded. Yes, it should be increased, but even that wouldn't make this a good deal - just more affordable. Jobs in Yeovilton and (almost negligible) export earnings shouldn't be used as an excuse for robbing the front-line. Give the forces something genuinely useful and affordable. Blackhawk can do everything Flynx can manage plus carry a useful payload in a hot and high environment, at a fraction of the cost.
cyrilranch		#16	[-]
Posts: 99 (30-Apr-2008 08:52:19) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	AESA radar contact of £20m has already been ordered with Selex which in theory could be fitted to a seahawk if ordered , but I think more likely is that if(big if) they do cancel.FLynx. The money saved will only used to pay for stuff which is already been used on the front line to balance the books. Plus no new Helio's will be ordered only the old one's revamp under low costing program .
Zen9		#17	[-]
Posts: 3484 (30-Apr-2008 11:30:43) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Having sunk the monies it would be folly to now effectively have thrown the monies away for nothing, which is what cancelation means at this stage. It will not bring back the cash spent. Its also yet another attempt to end yet another UK industry I suspect, you can't sell 'em if you don't make 'em, which means however hard it is to sell it, however pricy it is, if its not there you have no chance to sell it no matter what the price. And of course workers at Sikorsky's plants in the US will be thrilled to see UK orders simultaniously scuppering a potential rival, two for one stone perhaps? Robbing the front line is an argument, but it will lead us to utter reliance on others for every system if at its heart is the idea we must give up support and supply of ourselves. So the question must be where is the line drawn, and what will you support rather than attack.
Mikey		#18	[-]
Posts: 1426 (30-Apr-2008 11:39:00) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Everyone assumes H60 is the obvious replacement but what about NH90? This is winning a fair few competitions against H60 these days.
Zen9		#19	[-]
Posts: 3485 (30-Apr-2008 14:00:51) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Why seperate types at all, I thought the orriginal plan from who knows how long ago was all Merlin anyway, surely its logical to reduce the types in service reducing sperate training and support.
Jim WH		#20	[-]
Posts: 900 (30-Apr-2008 15:02:33) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	1. I'd love to know where the figure of £6 million per UH/MH-60 comes from. Seems bloody optimistic to me. 2. Unless the UK were to accept a MOTS UH/MH-60, then there'd be development costs to figure in. This has important implications in terms of time frame. 3. The 2013 ISD is actually of the MoD's choosing, not Westlands. 4. Future Lynx is going to be a different beast to the MH-60S and very different to the UH-60M. Fitting UH/MH-60 with appropriate sensor suites and armaments to fulfill the capability requirement envisaged for Future Lynx would be time and cost intensive process. 4.i. Part of the raison d'être of Army Future Lynx is to act as a light armed reconnaissance helicopter (to compliment the Apache fleet) in addition to it's core BLUH functions. This is fundamentally different from the light-medium battlefield helicopter role of the UH-60M. 4.ii. Did I mention that armed Blackhawks have uniformly been disappointments? And goodness only knows Sikorsky has tried it enough times. 5. Introducing the spares and stores for UH/MH-60 would be an expensive exercise, and should be factored into the £6 million sticker price in order to make a sensible comparison between the types. 6. As others have already pointed out, a considerable portion of the development costs of the Future Lynx have already been paid for, cancelling now would result in loosing all that cash, probably having to pay cancellation fees, and having to turn around and pay Sikorsky huge great wadges of cash to develop suitable UH-60/MH-60 derivatives to fill the UK's requirements. Not a very good deal IMHO. Regarding Future Lynx in general: it's a good platform for the UK. Naval Future Lynx fills a niche for which Merlin isn't entirely suited (smaller and lighter and therefore better suited to smaller combatants, cheaper to operate in the field, better suited to anti-surface missions in the littorals) and Army Future Lynx a need that the army will be developing at around 2013 (once all the current Gazelle and Lynx BLUH run out of airframe life). These roles a very important, and going with either an H-60 or an NH-90 for those missions would be a mistake.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Contracts at risk in crisis over budget

Quick Reply