| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 Bledlow |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 57 ( 1-May-2008 20:30:53) |
Jim WH wrote: Indeed. And it's very exportable, & could keep British helicopter manufacturing chugging along nicely for some time.
|
||
|
Rich C |
FLynx | ||
|
Posts: 430 ( 1-May-2008 20:48:07) |
I'm afraid that the entire focus of defence planning has to be what is required right now.... because it's right now that we're fighting two wars,
and the Afghan mission at least looks like it's going to be long-term.
It's nice to have plans for the future, but on current funding C3, FRC (Lift) etc are never going to be more than paper plans. The only reason IPTs aren't being scrapped wholesale is political - it would give the game away - there is absolutely no funding available. I don't belittle the importance of keeping a skills base in the UK, but that can't be allowed to be the driver when it comes to what precious little resources the military have. Current front line requirements have to take absolute priority, but, as usual, a few votes in the south-west will probably be more important than giving the armed forces what they actually need. |
||
 Zen9 |
|||
|
Posts: 3489 ( 2-May-2008 01:07:59) |
Well thanks to Bug for a few numbers the following should be considered in any discussion about prices.
Bahrain will buy 9 UH-60M helicopters; according to Sikorsky's June 2007 announcement, they will cost up to $204 million with included add-ons, spares, and support |
||
|
Jim WH |
|||
|
Posts: 905 ( 2-May-2008 04:11:44) |
Well that's great Rich, but the difficulty with scrapping future planing to pay for what is going on now, is the issue of lead time. Basically, even if
Future Lynx were scrapped right now, an an urgent requirement let out for medium lift helicopters, what could actually be done? We could get some UH-60 of
NH-90 in about 3 years (by begging borrowing or stealing production slots from somebody else mind you), we could then wait a year whilst crews (air and ground)
were trained in how to use them, and then probably wait a while longer whilst enough were put into service to deploy them.
5 years. And that is thoroughly optimistic, and it doesn't even begin to consider the very substantial costs involved; as Bug over at T5C has demonstrated, the cost of a plain vanilla UH-60M is close £11.5 million a piece (and not one penny of that cost would come back to HMG as taxes). And if you were to factor in the cost of Anglacising the design (radios, RTM-322 etc., necessary to make it a useful type in Afghanistan) then you'd be looking at a good deal more. So, answer that Rich, because for the present your arguments hinge on a fallacy: that acquisition of Future Lynx instead of a medium battlefield helicopter is depriving the troops in the field now. |
||
|
used to be remf |
|||
|
Posts: 460 ( 2-May-2008 10:33:13) |
"'m afraid that the entire focus of defence planning has to be what is required right now.... because it's right now that we're fighting two
wars.................. I don't belittle the importance of keeping a skills base in the UK, but that can't be allowed to be the driver when it comes to
what precious little resources the military have. Current front line requirements have to take absolute priority"
We spend about 2.1% of GDP on Defence. A pittance. If we are fighting two wars we should fund the forces properly, and that includes not mortgaging away future strategic defence procurement. |
||
|
Rob |
|||
|
Posts: 608 ( 2-May-2008 11:05:19) |
Here some stats on the FLynx:
Mass: 5790kgs (increasable to 6250kgs) Speed: 296kph Range: 740kms Seats: 2+9 (rather surprised by this, 9 passengers seems a lot?) Link. http://www.agustawestland.com/dindoc/LX070504_web.pdf Also interestingly, AgustaWestland don't seem to know about a cut, which makes a cut less likely. Bob Ainsworth (Minister of State (Armed Forces), Ministry of Defence; Coventry North East, Labour) | Hansard source Link. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2008-04-30a.202001.h |
||
|
Nathan |
Re: mortgaging away future strategic procurement | ||
|
Posts: 2249 ( 2-May-2008 13:58:54) |
used to be remf wrote:
That is exactly the problem that we are seeing here. We need to fund the armed forces for the long-term and maintain adequate balanced forces precisely because when (as it always does) the unexpected happens, you have to fight the war with what is available. If you just wait 'till the fighting has started and then go and order major items, in most cases, they won't be ready until after the war. Everybody knew years ago that the UK had inadequate battlefield helicopter lift. Wasn't there a CDS report even? We should have done something then. We should be doing more now. In response to Rich C's posts: It is quite beyond me why anybody would think that cancelling a UK helicopter programme that won't deliver any helicopters for a few years and replacing it with a US programme that won't deliver any helicopters for a few years has any relevance to getting more transport helcopters into Afghanistan now. In any case, whatever (if any) projects get canned aren't being dropped to free up immediate cash for big enhancements for current operations but just to balance the books for the future without having to find any more money for defence. |
||
|
Obi Wan Russell |
|||
|
Posts: 190 ( 2-May-2008 14:51:22) |
Let us not forget that as a historical fact no money cut from one defnce project has EVER been re allocated to another part. Something the RAF fanboys
especially don't seem to appreciate, whenever they get on the "cancel the carriers, abolish the FAA and we can have more toys!" bandwagon. Not
gonna happen. Since the RAF justified the retention of the Harrier force by throwing their lot in with the Navy and all this 'Jointery' guff if the
carriers go then the treasury will argue that the Harriers are a luxury too, and will go the way of the Jaguar force. If FLynx gets canned there will be no
replacement program at all for at least ten years until things get seriously bad and the bodybags force the government of the day to scrabble for something in
a hurry that costs twice as much for half as many.
|
||
|
Rob |
|||
|
Posts: 609 ( 2-May-2008 17:18:12) |
Janes is reporting that the UK is close to concluding a deal for the Puma upgrade. I hope they'll also upgrade more Sea Kings with Carson Blades. The ones
(about 12) that have been upgraded are in Afghanistan iirc.
According to a late 2007 Flight International article the MoD might upgrade up to 48 Sea Kings (including the AEW ones) with Carson blades and the new tail rotor. A decision is expected in mid 2008.
Last Edited By: Rob
2-May-2008 17:29:53.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
hulahoop7 |
|||
|
Posts: 1098 ( 2-May-2008 19:47:26) |
Apparently its given the kings a 'new lease of life' and made a substantial improvement.... Now how many old ASW types do we still have in storage?
|
||
