New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)

Contains threads on Joint Service equipment of the past, present and future.

It's February 2024 - Which way is NMH going to go?

Please note that results are sorted by decreasing number of votes received.

Leonardo AW-149
11
61%
Sikorsky S-70M Black Hawk
4
22%
Programme cancelled
2
11%
Airbus H-175M
1
6%
Boeing MH-139 (back from the dead?)
0
No votes
Puma kept in service till next-gen
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 18

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 813
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)

Post by mrclark303 »

tomuk wrote: 06 Jun 2023, 03:33
mrclark303 wrote: 06 Jun 2023, 02:14
mr.fred wrote: 05 Jun 2023, 18:15
mrclark303 wrote: 05 Jun 2023, 15:32 I simply don't buy into the view of UK manufacturing draws expenditure back into UK coffers, (it might do), but those coffers are separate from the MOD budget, so your defence budget buys you less and less and the military continue to contract in an ever decreasing death spiral....
If the MoD budget is based on being a percentage of GDP and GDP goes up, what do you think will happen to the MoD budget?
Interesting take on it, now look a little further, the actual 'effect' on GDP from defence related UK procurement is massively less than the drain on the actual defence budget driven by that politically driven policy.

You actually support tail wagging the dog procurement?
I think there needs to be a balance on the one hand I really can't support needlessly spaffing money away on wholly home grown bespoke equipment\programmes for the sake of 'UK jobs' etc but I'm also very much against spaffing money away on US made equipment FMS style where we get no benefit of the wages, taxes or profits generated by the purchase.

There should be some offset whether that be directly as in the programme F35 style where BAE, Rolls and others are in the supply chain or on unrelated item ie we buy £1bn of armoured vehicles they buy £250m of missiles for example.
I agree, it's not one or the other...

Take Poland for example, we could do a deal on an additional T31 and more Sky Saber Systems in exchange for 40 S70M's.

That way we get the needed helicopters ( the Army and RAF get the helicopter they want) and UK manufacturing gets a boost...
Anyone have issues with that as proposed deal?

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1184
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)

Post by new guy »

mrclark303 wrote: 06 Jun 2023, 11:47
tomuk wrote: 06 Jun 2023, 03:33
mrclark303 wrote: 06 Jun 2023, 02:14
mr.fred wrote: 05 Jun 2023, 18:15
mrclark303 wrote: 05 Jun 2023, 15:32 I simply don't buy into the view of UK manufacturing draws expenditure back into UK coffers, (it might do), but those coffers are separate from the MOD budget, so your defence budget buys you less and less and the military continue to contract in an ever decreasing death spiral....
If the MoD budget is based on being a percentage of GDP and GDP goes up, what do you think will happen to the MoD budget?
Interesting take on it, now look a little further, the actual 'effect' on GDP from defence related UK procurement is massively less than the drain on the actual defence budget driven by that politically driven policy.

You actually support tail wagging the dog procurement?
I think there needs to be a balance on the one hand I really can't support needlessly spaffing money away on wholly home grown bespoke equipment\programmes for the sake of 'UK jobs' etc but I'm also very much against spaffing money away on US made equipment FMS style where we get no benefit of the wages, taxes or profits generated by the purchase.

There should be some offset whether that be directly as in the programme F35 style where BAE, Rolls and others are in the supply chain or on unrelated item ie we buy £1bn of armoured vehicles they buy £250m of missiles for example.
I agree, it's not one or the other...

Take Poland for example, we could do a deal on an additional T31 and more Sky Saber Systems in exchange for 40 S70M's.

That way we get the needed helicopters ( the Army and RAF get the helicopter they want) and UK manufacturing gets a boost...
Anyone have issues with that as proposed deal?
good, but in that specific scenario Poland gets a better deal.
These users liked the author new guy for the post:
mrclark303

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)

Post by mr.fred »

mrclark303 wrote: 06 Jun 2023, 02:14 Interesting take on it, now look a little further, the actual 'effect' on GDP from defence related UK procurement is massively less than the drain on the actual defence budget driven by that politically driven policy.
Is it?

mrclark303 wrote: 06 Jun 2023, 02:14 You actually support tail wagging the dog procurement?
I think that procurement of all types, not just defence, should be based on a more holistic approach than the current stovepipes. Not sure if that fits the phrase du jour for you, but I'd say it much more nuanced than that.
Related thought: is the dog the MoD or the realm it's supposed to be defending?
These users liked the author mr.fred for the post:
SW1

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 813
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)

Post by mrclark303 »

new guy wrote: 06 Jun 2023, 16:21
mrclark303 wrote: 06 Jun 2023, 11:47
tomuk wrote: 06 Jun 2023, 03:33
mrclark303 wrote: 06 Jun 2023, 02:14
mr.fred wrote: 05 Jun 2023, 18:15
mrclark303 wrote: 05 Jun 2023, 15:32 I simply don't buy into the view of UK manufacturing draws expenditure back into UK coffers, (it might do), but those coffers are separate from the MOD budget, so your defence budget buys you less and less and the military continue to contract in an ever decreasing death spiral....
If the MoD budget is based on being a percentage of GDP and GDP goes up, what do you think will happen to the MoD budget?
Interesting take on it, now look a little further, the actual 'effect' on GDP from defence related UK procurement is massively less than the drain on the actual defence budget driven by that politically driven policy.

You actually support tail wagging the dog procurement?
I think there needs to be a balance on the one hand I really can't support needlessly spaffing money away on wholly home grown bespoke equipment\programmes for the sake of 'UK jobs' etc but I'm also very much against spaffing money away on US made equipment FMS style where we get no benefit of the wages, taxes or profits generated by the purchase.

There should be some offset whether that be directly as in the programme F35 style where BAE, Rolls and others are in the supply chain or on unrelated item ie we buy £1bn of armoured vehicles they buy £250m of missiles for example.
I agree, it's not one or the other...

Take Poland for example, we could do a deal on an additional T31 and more Sky Saber Systems in exchange for 40 S70M's.

That way we get the needed helicopters ( the Army and RAF get the helicopter they want) and UK manufacturing gets a boost...
Anyone have issues with that as proposed deal?
good, but in that specific scenario Poland gets a better deal.
Only an idea, give em half a frigate then...🤣

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 813
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)

Post by mrclark303 »

mr.fred wrote: 06 Jun 2023, 18:58
mrclark303 wrote: 06 Jun 2023, 02:14 Interesting take on it, now look a little further, the actual 'effect' on GDP from defence related UK procurement is massively less than the drain on the actual defence budget driven by that politically driven policy.
Is it?

Yes, massively so Fred...

mrclark303 wrote: 06 Jun 2023, 02:14 You actually support tail wagging the dog procurement?
I think that procurement of all types, not just defence, should be based on a more holistic approach than the current stovepipes. Not sure if that fits the phrase du jour for you, but I'd say it much more nuanced than that.
Related thought: is the dog the MoD or the realm it's supposed to be defending?
Well the dogs the MOD

The tail is the clinch of politicians and industrialists who manipulate procurement for their own ends...

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)

Post by SW1 »

mrclark303 wrote: 06 Jun 2023, 19:24
mr.fred wrote: 06 Jun 2023, 18:58
mrclark303 wrote: 06 Jun 2023, 02:14 Interesting take on it, now look a little further, the actual 'effect' on GDP from defence related UK procurement is massively less than the drain on the actual defence budget driven by that politically driven policy.
Is it?

Yes, massively so Fred...

mrclark303 wrote: 06 Jun 2023, 02:14 You actually support tail wagging the dog procurement?
I think that procurement of all types, not just defence, should be based on a more holistic approach than the current stovepipes. Not sure if that fits the phrase du jour for you, but I'd say it much more nuanced than that.
Related thought: is the dog the MoD or the realm it's supposed to be defending?
Well the dogs the MOD

The tail is the clinch of politicians and industrialists who manipulate procurement for their own ends...
Those manipulative Industrialist like Lockheed Martin and Boeing?

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)

Post by mr.fred »

mrclark303 wrote: 06 Jun 2023, 19:24 Yes, massively so Fred...
Would you care to give examples?

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 813
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)

Post by mrclark303 »

mr.fred wrote: 06 Jun 2023, 21:24
mrclark303 wrote: 06 Jun 2023, 19:24 Yes, massively so Fred...
Would you care to give examples?
Only generally, simply put while there might be beneficial results for the economy if we buy British in defence procurement, that doesn't help the defence budget, defence pays the price.

The net effect on GDP of a British procurement policy might be an increase of 2% ( being generous), what would that equate to in an increased defence budget, an extra 30,000,000 or so??

So spending many billions more on UK biased procurement would probably be enough to buy you a Hawk trainer in follow on economic benefits....

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)

Post by Ron5 »

tomuk wrote: 06 Jun 2023, 03:33
mrclark303 wrote: 06 Jun 2023, 02:14
mr.fred wrote: 05 Jun 2023, 18:15
mrclark303 wrote: 05 Jun 2023, 15:32 I simply don't buy into the view of UK manufacturing draws expenditure back into UK coffers, (it might do), but those coffers are separate from the MOD budget, so your defence budget buys you less and less and the military continue to contract in an ever decreasing death spiral....
If the MoD budget is based on being a percentage of GDP and GDP goes up, what do you think will happen to the MoD budget?
Interesting take on it, now look a little further, the actual 'effect' on GDP from defence related UK procurement is massively less than the drain on the actual defence budget driven by that politically driven policy.

You actually support tail wagging the dog procurement?
I think there needs to be a balance on the one hand I really can't support needlessly spaffing money away on wholly home grown bespoke equipment\programmes for the sake of 'UK jobs' etc but I'm also very much against spaffing money away on US made equipment FMS style where we get no benefit of the wages, taxes or profits generated by the purchase.

There should be some offset whether that be directly as in the programme F35 style where BAE, Rolls and others are in the supply chain or on unrelated item ie we buy £1bn of armoured vehicles they buy £250m of missiles for example.
God no. Offsets don't work and are a totally crappy idea.

"We want offsets for buying 138 F-35"

"OK here's 5% worth of manufacturing for all built"

...

"Hey you've only bought 30, gimme back 4% manufacturing"

"Err, mumble, mumble, still our intent old boy. You can trust us"

Kinda like how Typhoon, Jaguar, Lynx, etc etc production was split based on initial expected volumes which vanished when pen had to be put to contracts.
These users liked the author Ron5 for the post:
Clive F

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 813
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)

Post by mrclark303 »

Ron5 wrote: 08 Jun 2023, 13:54
tomuk wrote: 06 Jun 2023, 03:33
mrclark303 wrote: 06 Jun 2023, 02:14
mr.fred wrote: 05 Jun 2023, 18:15
mrclark303 wrote: 05 Jun 2023, 15:32 I simply don't buy into the view of UK manufacturing draws expenditure back into UK coffers, (it might do), but those coffers are separate from the MOD budget, so your defence budget buys you less and less and the military continue to contract in an ever decreasing death spiral....
If the MoD budget is based on being a percentage of GDP and GDP goes up, what do you think will happen to the MoD budget?
Interesting take on it, now look a little further, the actual 'effect' on GDP from defence related UK procurement is massively less than the drain on the actual defence budget driven by that politically driven policy.

You actually support tail wagging the dog procurement?
I think there needs to be a balance on the one hand I really can't support needlessly spaffing money away on wholly home grown bespoke equipment\programmes for the sake of 'UK jobs' etc but I'm also very much against spaffing money away on US made equipment FMS style where we get no benefit of the wages, taxes or profits generated by the purchase.

There should be some offset whether that be directly as in the programme F35 style where BAE, Rolls and others are in the supply chain or on unrelated item ie we buy £1bn of armoured vehicles they buy £250m of missiles for example.
God no. Offsets don't work and are a totally crappy idea.

"We want offsets for buying 138 F-35"

"OK here's 5% worth of manufacturing for all built"

...

"Hey you've only bought 30, gimme back 4% manufacturing"

"Err, mumble, mumble, still our intent old boy. You can trust us"

Kinda like how Typhoon, Jaguar, Lynx, etc etc production was split based on initial expected volumes which vanished when pen had to be put to contracts.
I would agree that vague offsets don't work, but say for example a direct swap of Sky Saber and T31 for a fleet of Polish UH70's plus support.

A contract of equivalent value ( however that pans out kit wise) and legally binding with one of our closest and most important NATO allies.

The problem is?

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)

Post by SW1 »

mrclark303 wrote: 08 Jun 2023, 14:22
Ron5 wrote: 08 Jun 2023, 13:54
tomuk wrote: 06 Jun 2023, 03:33
mrclark303 wrote: 06 Jun 2023, 02:14
mr.fred wrote: 05 Jun 2023, 18:15
mrclark303 wrote: 05 Jun 2023, 15:32 I simply don't buy into the view of UK manufacturing draws expenditure back into UK coffers, (it might do), but those coffers are separate from the MOD budget, so your defence budget buys you less and less and the military continue to contract in an ever decreasing death spiral....
If the MoD budget is based on being a percentage of GDP and GDP goes up, what do you think will happen to the MoD budget?
Interesting take on it, now look a little further, the actual 'effect' on GDP from defence related UK procurement is massively less than the drain on the actual defence budget driven by that politically driven policy.

You actually support tail wagging the dog procurement?
I think there needs to be a balance on the one hand I really can't support needlessly spaffing money away on wholly home grown bespoke equipment\programmes for the sake of 'UK jobs' etc but I'm also very much against spaffing money away on US made equipment FMS style where we get no benefit of the wages, taxes or profits generated by the purchase.

There should be some offset whether that be directly as in the programme F35 style where BAE, Rolls and others are in the supply chain or on unrelated item ie we buy £1bn of armoured vehicles they buy £250m of missiles for example.
God no. Offsets don't work and are a totally crappy idea.

"We want offsets for buying 138 F-35"

"OK here's 5% worth of manufacturing for all built"

...

"Hey you've only bought 30, gimme back 4% manufacturing"

"Err, mumble, mumble, still our intent old boy. You can trust us"

Kinda like how Typhoon, Jaguar, Lynx, etc etc production was split based on initial expected volumes which vanished when pen had to be put to contracts.
I would agree that vague offsets don't work, but say for example a direct swap of Sky Saber and T31 for a fleet of Polish UH70's plus support.

A contract of equivalent value ( however that pans out kit wise) and legally binding with one of our closest and most important NATO allies.

The problem is?
So Poland get to manufacture Blackhawk domestically because it is buying 32 standard and 8-16 SF configured aircraft but the manufacturer won’t manufacture in the U.K. and we have to buy from the polish production line because check notes we want about 40 a/c?

Clive F
Member
Posts: 176
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 12:48
United Kingdom

Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)

Post by Clive F »

Had Tarzan not got involved in 1985 we may still have a production line of Blackhawks we could have added to.
These users liked the author Clive F for the post:
Ron5

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)

Post by tomuk »

mrclark303 wrote: 08 Jun 2023, 14:22
Ron5 wrote: 08 Jun 2023, 13:54
tomuk wrote: 06 Jun 2023, 03:33
mrclark303 wrote: 06 Jun 2023, 02:14
mr.fred wrote: 05 Jun 2023, 18:15
mrclark303 wrote: 05 Jun 2023, 15:32 I simply don't buy into the view of UK manufacturing draws expenditure back into UK coffers, (it might do), but those coffers are separate from the MOD budget, so your defence budget buys you less and less and the military continue to contract in an ever decreasing death spiral....
If the MoD budget is based on being a percentage of GDP and GDP goes up, what do you think will happen to the MoD budget?
Interesting take on it, now look a little further, the actual 'effect' on GDP from defence related UK procurement is massively less than the drain on the actual defence budget driven by that politically driven policy.

You actually support tail wagging the dog procurement?
I think there needs to be a balance on the one hand I really can't support needlessly spaffing money away on wholly home grown bespoke equipment\programmes for the sake of 'UK jobs' etc but I'm also very much against spaffing money away on US made equipment FMS style where we get no benefit of the wages, taxes or profits generated by the purchase.

There should be some offset whether that be directly as in the programme F35 style where BAE, Rolls and others are in the supply chain or on unrelated item ie we buy £1bn of armoured vehicles they buy £250m of missiles for example.
God no. Offsets don't work and are a totally crappy idea.

"We want offsets for buying 138 F-35"

"OK here's 5% worth of manufacturing for all built"

...

"Hey you've only bought 30, gimme back 4% manufacturing"

"Err, mumble, mumble, still our intent old boy. You can trust us"

Kinda like how Typhoon, Jaguar, Lynx, etc etc production was split based on initial expected volumes which vanished when pen had to be put to contracts.
I would agree that vague offsets don't work, but say for example a direct swap of Sky Saber and T31 for a fleet of Polish UH70's plus support.

A contract of equivalent value ( however that pans out kit wise) and legally binding with one of our closest and most important NATO allies.

The problem is?
Offsets aren't necessarily the best but they are better than nothing. Their benefit to UK has varied over the years, in your example of F35 we have done quite while although our workshare was dependent on more than just buying 138, some money and knowhow was contributed too.

On Merlin if the old wives tales are true allocating the workshare lumbered us with a main gearbox made of gorgonzola but we still have the FAL. The more recent one I can't work out at all is JLTV where we requested to but over 2,500 of the things with nothing at all in return.

GarethDavies1
Member
Posts: 86
Joined: 26 May 2021, 11:45
United Kingdom

Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)

Post by GarethDavies1 »

Its the bullshitting I don't like, as the F-35 workshare is a percentage allocated to British companies which end up producing stuff in the US - Lift fan!

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)

Post by tomuk »

GarethDavies1 wrote: 08 Jun 2023, 17:10 Its the bullshitting I don't like, as the F-35 workshare is a percentage allocated to British companies which end up producing stuff in the US - Lift fan!
Are some of the the lift system components not made in Bristol? There was a grand opening in 2018 when they reached a certain level of production. The US plants are still Rolls Royce owned so revenues and profit will accrue to the UK parent.

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 813
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)

Post by mrclark303 »

SW1 wrote: 08 Jun 2023, 14:43
mrclark303 wrote: 08 Jun 2023, 14:22
Ron5 wrote: 08 Jun 2023, 13:54
tomuk wrote: 06 Jun 2023, 03:33
mrclark303 wrote: 06 Jun 2023, 02:14
mr.fred wrote: 05 Jun 2023, 18:15
mrclark303 wrote: 05 Jun 2023, 15:32 I simply don't buy into the view of UK manufacturing draws expenditure back into UK coffers, (it might do), but those coffers are separate from the MOD budget, so your defence budget buys you less and less and the military continue to contract in an ever decreasing death spiral....
If the MoD budget is based on being a percentage of GDP and GDP goes up, what do you think will happen to the MoD budget?
Interesting take on it, now look a little further, the actual 'effect' on GDP from defence related UK procurement is massively less than the drain on the actual defence budget driven by that politically driven policy.

You actually support tail wagging the dog procurement?
I think there needs to be a balance on the one hand I really can't support needlessly spaffing money away on wholly home grown bespoke equipment\programmes for the sake of 'UK jobs' etc but I'm also very much against spaffing money away on US made equipment FMS style where we get no benefit of the wages, taxes or profits generated by the purchase.

There should be some offset whether that be directly as in the programme F35 style where BAE, Rolls and others are in the supply chain or on unrelated item ie we buy £1bn of armoured vehicles they buy £250m of missiles for example.
God no. Offsets don't work and are a totally crappy idea.

"We want offsets for buying 138 F-35"

"OK here's 5% worth of manufacturing for all built"

...

"Hey you've only bought 30, gimme back 4% manufacturing"

"Err, mumble, mumble, still our intent old boy. You can trust us"

Kinda like how Typhoon, Jaguar, Lynx, etc etc production was split based on initial expected volumes which vanished when pen had to be put to contracts.
I would agree that vague offsets don't work, but say for example a direct swap of Sky Saber and T31 for a fleet of Polish UH70's plus support.

A contract of equivalent value ( however that pans out kit wise) and legally binding with one of our closest and most important NATO allies.

The problem is?
So Poland get to manufacture Blackhawk domestically because it is buying 32 standard and 8-16 SF configured aircraft but the manufacturer won’t manufacture in the U.K. and we have to buy from the polish production line because check notes we want about 40 a/c?
Well providing we sell the requisite numbers of UK manufactured defence equipment to them, I don't see the issue, it's a win win.

User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 813
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)

Post by mrclark303 »

GarethDavies1 wrote: 08 Jun 2023, 17:10 Its the bullshitting I don't like, as the F-35 workshare is a percentage allocated to British companies which end up producing stuff in the US - Lift fan!
Back end, lift fan and some systems are manufactured in the UK I believe....

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)

Post by SW1 »

mrclark303 wrote: 08 Jun 2023, 19:56
GarethDavies1 wrote: 08 Jun 2023, 17:10 Its the bullshitting I don't like, as the F-35 workshare is a percentage allocated to British companies which end up producing stuff in the US - Lift fan!
Back end, lift fan and some systems are manufactured in the UK I believe....
We may make the lift fan blades here.

But Plainfield build them

https://manufacturing-today.com/news/ro ... field-ind/

The F35 will be the world’s first operational supersonic short takeoff/vertical landing aircraft, which will affordably re­place the aging fleets of AV-8B Harriers and Sea Harriers for the U.S. Marine Corps and U.K. Royal Air Force and Royal Navy while also supporting existing and expanding requirements for the modern fighter. The factory in Plainfield is the only site in the world to assemble a LiftFan, Gallo says

Once the fans are built, they are tested at another Rolls-Royce facility just eight miles away from the new Plainfield factory, Gallo says.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)

Post by SW1 »

mrclark303 wrote: 08 Jun 2023, 19:55
SW1 wrote: 08 Jun 2023, 14:43
mrclark303 wrote: 08 Jun 2023, 14:22
Ron5 wrote: 08 Jun 2023, 13:54
tomuk wrote: 06 Jun 2023, 03:33
mrclark303 wrote: 06 Jun 2023, 02:14
mr.fred wrote: 05 Jun 2023, 18:15
mrclark303 wrote: 05 Jun 2023, 15:32 I simply don't buy into the view of UK manufacturing draws expenditure back into UK coffers, (it might do), but those coffers are separate from the MOD budget, so your defence budget buys you less and less and the military continue to contract in an ever decreasing death spiral....
If the MoD budget is based on being a percentage of GDP and GDP goes up, what do you think will happen to the MoD budget?
Interesting take on it, now look a little further, the actual 'effect' on GDP from defence related UK procurement is massively less than the drain on the actual defence budget driven by that politically driven policy.

You actually support tail wagging the dog procurement?
I think there needs to be a balance on the one hand I really can't support needlessly spaffing money away on wholly home grown bespoke equipment\programmes for the sake of 'UK jobs' etc but I'm also very much against spaffing money away on US made equipment FMS style where we get no benefit of the wages, taxes or profits generated by the purchase.

There should be some offset whether that be directly as in the programme F35 style where BAE, Rolls and others are in the supply chain or on unrelated item ie we buy £1bn of armoured vehicles they buy £250m of missiles for example.
God no. Offsets don't work and are a totally crappy idea.

"We want offsets for buying 138 F-35"

"OK here's 5% worth of manufacturing for all built"

...

"Hey you've only bought 30, gimme back 4% manufacturing"

"Err, mumble, mumble, still our intent old boy. You can trust us"

Kinda like how Typhoon, Jaguar, Lynx, etc etc production was split based on initial expected volumes which vanished when pen had to be put to contracts.
I would agree that vague offsets don't work, but say for example a direct swap of Sky Saber and T31 for a fleet of Polish UH70's plus support.

A contract of equivalent value ( however that pans out kit wise) and legally binding with one of our closest and most important NATO allies.

The problem is?
So Poland get to manufacture Blackhawk domestically because it is buying 32 standard and 8-16 SF configured aircraft but the manufacturer won’t manufacture in the U.K. and we have to buy from the polish production line because check notes we want about 40 a/c?
Well providing we sell the requisite numbers of UK manufactured defence equipment to them, I don't see the issue, it's a win win.
Poland values industrial resilience polish manufacturer is prerequisite for there purchases.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)

Post by tomuk »

SW1 wrote: 08 Jun 2023, 21:09
mrclark303 wrote: 08 Jun 2023, 19:56
GarethDavies1 wrote: 08 Jun 2023, 17:10 Its the bullshitting I don't like, as the F-35 workshare is a percentage allocated to British companies which end up producing stuff in the US - Lift fan!
Back end, lift fan and some systems are manufactured in the UK I believe....
We may make the lift fan blades here.

But Plainfield build them

https://manufacturing-today.com/news/ro ... field-ind/

The F35 will be the world’s first operational supersonic short takeoff/vertical landing aircraft, which will affordably re­place the aging fleets of AV-8B Harriers and Sea Harriers for the U.S. Marine Corps and U.K. Royal Air Force and Royal Navy while also supporting existing and expanding requirements for the modern fighter. The factory in Plainfield is the only site in the world to assemble a LiftFan, Gallo says

Once the fans are built, they are tested at another Rolls-Royce facility just eight miles away from the new Plainfield factory, Gallo says.
https://www.aero-mag.com/f-35-liftworks ... on-bristol
The ‘LiftWorks’ facility, which has opened at the Rolls-Royce site in Bristol, makes the ‘LiftSystem’ to provide F-35 fighter jets with a fan propulsion system that allows them to take off over short distances, hover, swivel mid-air and land vertically.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)

Post by SW1 »

tomuk wrote: 08 Jun 2023, 21:15
SW1 wrote: 08 Jun 2023, 21:09
mrclark303 wrote: 08 Jun 2023, 19:56
GarethDavies1 wrote: 08 Jun 2023, 17:10 Its the bullshitting I don't like, as the F-35 workshare is a percentage allocated to British companies which end up producing stuff in the US - Lift fan!
Back end, lift fan and some systems are manufactured in the UK I believe....
We may make the lift fan blades here.

But Plainfield build them

https://manufacturing-today.com/news/ro ... field-ind/

The F35 will be the world’s first operational supersonic short takeoff/vertical landing aircraft, which will affordably re­place the aging fleets of AV-8B Harriers and Sea Harriers for the U.S. Marine Corps and U.K. Royal Air Force and Royal Navy while also supporting existing and expanding requirements for the modern fighter. The factory in Plainfield is the only site in the world to assemble a LiftFan, Gallo says

Once the fans are built, they are tested at another Rolls-Royce facility just eight miles away from the new Plainfield factory, Gallo says.
https://www.aero-mag.com/f-35-liftworks ... on-bristol
The ‘LiftWorks’ facility, which has opened at the Rolls-Royce site in Bristol, makes the ‘LiftSystem’ to provide F-35 fighter jets with a fan propulsion system that allows them to take off over short distances, hover, swivel mid-air and land vertically.
Yes we have component manufacture here eg blades and system repairs.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)

Post by Ron5 »

mrclark303 wrote: 08 Jun 2023, 14:22
Ron5 wrote: 08 Jun 2023, 13:54
tomuk wrote: 06 Jun 2023, 03:33
mrclark303 wrote: 06 Jun 2023, 02:14
mr.fred wrote: 05 Jun 2023, 18:15
mrclark303 wrote: 05 Jun 2023, 15:32 I simply don't buy into the view of UK manufacturing draws expenditure back into UK coffers, (it might do), but those coffers are separate from the MOD budget, so your defence budget buys you less and less and the military continue to contract in an ever decreasing death spiral....
If the MoD budget is based on being a percentage of GDP and GDP goes up, what do you think will happen to the MoD budget?
Interesting take on it, now look a little further, the actual 'effect' on GDP from defence related UK procurement is massively less than the drain on the actual defence budget driven by that politically driven policy.

You actually support tail wagging the dog procurement?
I think there needs to be a balance on the one hand I really can't support needlessly spaffing money away on wholly home grown bespoke equipment\programmes for the sake of 'UK jobs' etc but I'm also very much against spaffing money away on US made equipment FMS style where we get no benefit of the wages, taxes or profits generated by the purchase.

There should be some offset whether that be directly as in the programme F35 style where BAE, Rolls and others are in the supply chain or on unrelated item ie we buy £1bn of armoured vehicles they buy £250m of missiles for example.
God no. Offsets don't work and are a totally crappy idea.

"We want offsets for buying 138 F-35"

"OK here's 5% worth of manufacturing for all built"

...

"Hey you've only bought 30, gimme back 4% manufacturing"

"Err, mumble, mumble, still our intent old boy. You can trust us"

Kinda like how Typhoon, Jaguar, Lynx, etc etc production was split based on initial expected volumes which vanished when pen had to be put to contracts.
I would agree that vague offsets don't work, but say for example a direct swap of Sky Saber and T31 for a fleet of Polish UH70's plus support.

A contract of equivalent value ( however that pans out kit wise) and legally binding with one of our closest and most important NATO allies.

The problem is?
Do you think UK defense procurement is slow and unwieldy?

One of the very best things about UK-US defense procurement is the total lack of any time working out bullshit offsets.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)

Post by Ron5 »

tomuk wrote: 08 Jun 2023, 16:01 Offsets aren't necessarily the best but they are better than nothing.
So, so, not true. Same with work share depending on future orders. Total waste of time & money.

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1184
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)

Post by new guy »

Ron5 wrote: 09 Jun 2023, 15:01
tomuk wrote: 08 Jun 2023, 16:01 Offsets aren't necessarily the best but they are better than nothing.
So, so, not true. Same with work share depending on future orders. Total waste of time & money.
how so.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: New Medium Helicopter [NMH] - (RAF & AAC)

Post by tomuk »

Ron5 wrote: 09 Jun 2023, 15:01
tomuk wrote: 08 Jun 2023, 16:01 Offsets aren't necessarily the best but they are better than nothing.
So, so, not true. Same with work share depending on future orders. Total waste of time & money.
Well if you are the one supplying all the gear under FMS with no offsets and taking all the money and jobs am sure its fine.

Post Reply