Re: Leonardo (Agusta-Westland)
Posted: 09 Mar 2023, 01:11
Took a while...is this the Wildcat order mentioned in August?
Just the 3 helos...
Just the 3 helos...
News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.
https://ukdefenceforum.net/
Yes AW101 was mentioned in August as well (presuming they are talking about the same customer). Everyone seems to think its Algeria.Jensy wrote: ↑09 Mar 2023, 15:13 Was there not also a mention of additional AW101s?
I'm guessing this is for Algeria. They've got an existing fleet of newish ASW Super Lynx that might need supplementing, rather than replacing, for their rather lofty naval ambitions.
I'm might be misremembering but I think I saw one of their final aircraft on the line in 2013, alongside the first Wildcats.
Morocco might be a possibility. Considering the modest order.Timmymagic wrote: ↑09 Mar 2023, 15:59Yes AW101 was mentioned in August as well (presuming they are talking about the same customer). Everyone seems to think its Algeria.Jensy wrote: ↑09 Mar 2023, 15:13 Was there not also a mention of additional AW101s?
I'm guessing this is for Algeria. They've got an existing fleet of newish ASW Super Lynx that might need supplementing, rather than replacing, for their rather lofty naval ambitions.
I'm might be misremembering but I think I saw one of their final aircraft on the line in 2013, alongside the first Wildcats.
No hard feelings, it's the way the game is played.
I'm not so sure, Leonardo have a UK base, not for altruistic reasons, but because the UK is the largest European procurer of military helicopters. It's that simpleJensy wrote: ↑07 Aug 2023, 21:43No hard feelings, it's the way the game is played.
Successive UK governments have had opportunities to secure the UK helicopter industry. Each have either failed or had no interest to begin with. With little regard for UK taxpayer investments.
Nearly everything goes back to the fallout from the Westland Affair.
British business culture has a proud tradition of selling off assets far too willingly, far too rushed and for far too little. Defence is no different.
Leonardo has been better to this country than it ever needed to be.
I'm not sure, I think state ownership just encourages an attitude of Joe tax payer will pick up the tab no matter what....GarethDavies1 wrote: ↑08 Aug 2023, 12:35 Leonardo being partly owned by Italian Govt, which is a model we should be following.
Well, it's a tail wagging the dog issue again, there's a good reason the UK spends upwards of 50 billion a year on its small armed forces, but still struggles to field new equipment.SW1 wrote: ↑08 Aug 2023, 18:09 So if high end military supply companies need to stand and fall on their own products then i assume they can sell those products to whom ever wants them no government interference so they can get a return on their investment in making those products?
It isn’t a black or white argument. Our problem often is we jump around too much from one fad to the next rather getting big into the industrialisation of products we do make and rolling them out across the board. We don’t continue to invest in and iterate in build designs.
Wasn’t industry that selected and developed boxer in 2003 then walked away for 20 years before deciding to order it. It wasn’t industry that decided not to spend a penny on challenger for 20 years and it wasn’t industry that decided it wanted to refurbish 20 year old warriors rather than building new hulls before walking away and it wasn’t industry that selected Ajax and then decided to redesigned it.mrclark303 wrote: ↑08 Aug 2023, 22:04Well, it's a tail wagging the dog issue again, there's a good reason the UK spends upwards of 50 billion a year on its small armed forces, but still struggles to field new equipment.SW1 wrote: ↑08 Aug 2023, 18:09 So if high end military supply companies need to stand and fall on their own products then i assume they can sell those products to whom ever wants them no government interference so they can get a return on their investment in making those products?
It isn’t a black or white argument. Our problem often is we jump around too much from one fad to the next rather getting big into the industrialisation of products we do make and rolling them out across the board. We don’t continue to invest in and iterate in build designs.
Just look at our absolutely creaking Amoured ability, with obsolete Warriors and ageing Chally 2 at its heart and Bulldogs that are as old as some of the soldiers grandparents!
We invest billions to buy tiny numbers of high end bespoke equipment and as a result our armed forces suffer and the money is syphoned away by defence contractors.
A long winded way of saying that our armed forces is now so small, the requirements so very limited, you have to think long and hard about developing or buying off the shelf.
The Australians have a similar problem, small armed forces, but Christ, they are well equipped for bear!
Super Hornet, Growler and F35A, makes the RAF look decidedly under equipped!
And we spend 'way' more.
Yep I know ITAR, but it doesn't seem to worry the Australians.....
Come along now SW1, are you seriously trying to say the RAF has a better fast jet line up than Australia at the moment?SW1 wrote: ↑08 Aug 2023, 22:29Wasn’t industry that selected and developed boxer in 2003 then walked away for 20 years before deciding to order it. It wasn’t industry that decided not to spend a penny on challenger for 20 years and it wasn’t industry that decided it wanted to refurbish 20 year old warriors rather than building new hulls before walking away and it wasn’t industry that selected Ajax and then decided to redesigned it.mrclark303 wrote: ↑08 Aug 2023, 22:04Well, it's a tail wagging the dog issue again, there's a good reason the UK spends upwards of 50 billion a year on its small armed forces, but still struggles to field new equipment.SW1 wrote: ↑08 Aug 2023, 18:09 So if high end military supply companies need to stand and fall on their own products then i assume they can sell those products to whom ever wants them no government interference so they can get a return on their investment in making those products?
It isn’t a black or white argument. Our problem often is we jump around too much from one fad to the next rather getting big into the industrialisation of products we do make and rolling them out across the board. We don’t continue to invest in and iterate in build designs.
Just look at our absolutely creaking Amoured ability, with obsolete Warriors and ageing Chally 2 at its heart and Bulldogs that are as old as some of the soldiers grandparents!
We invest billions to buy tiny numbers of high end bespoke equipment and as a result our armed forces suffer and the money is syphoned away by defence contractors.
A long winded way of saying that our armed forces is now so small, the requirements so very limited, you have to think long and hard about developing or buying off the shelf.
The Australians have a similar problem, small armed forces, but Christ, they are well equipped for bear!
Super Hornet, Growler and F35A, makes the RAF look decidedly under equipped!
And we spend 'way' more.
Yep I know ITAR, but it doesn't seem to worry the Australians.....
Cant blame uk industry for the rank incompetence that is e7 procurement can you
Do they? How many multiple and sustained air operations are australia running at present? The equipment the RAF is using is excellent.
You continue to pursue a it’s all uk industry’s fault narrative which is bollox quite frankly. The reason nothing changes is senior figures in defence in and out of uniform need a hard look in the mirror and admit they’re rank amateurs when it comes to managing procurement programs and industrial engagement and stop blaming everyone else.
The RAF has excellent aircraft top to bottom.mrclark303 wrote: ↑09 Aug 2023, 20:20Come along now SW1, are you seriously trying to say the RAF has a better fast jet line up than Australia at the moment?SW1 wrote: ↑08 Aug 2023, 22:29Wasn’t industry that selected and developed boxer in 2003 then walked away for 20 years before deciding to order it. It wasn’t industry that decided not to spend a penny on challenger for 20 years and it wasn’t industry that decided it wanted to refurbish 20 year old warriors rather than building new hulls before walking away and it wasn’t industry that selected Ajax and then decided to redesigned it.mrclark303 wrote: ↑08 Aug 2023, 22:04Well, it's a tail wagging the dog issue again, there's a good reason the UK spends upwards of 50 billion a year on its small armed forces, but still struggles to field new equipment.SW1 wrote: ↑08 Aug 2023, 18:09 So if high end military supply companies need to stand and fall on their own products then i assume they can sell those products to whom ever wants them no government interference so they can get a return on their investment in making those products?
It isn’t a black or white argument. Our problem often is we jump around too much from one fad to the next rather getting big into the industrialisation of products we do make and rolling them out across the board. We don’t continue to invest in and iterate in build designs.
Just look at our absolutely creaking Amoured ability, with obsolete Warriors and ageing Chally 2 at its heart and Bulldogs that are as old as some of the soldiers grandparents!
We invest billions to buy tiny numbers of high end bespoke equipment and as a result our armed forces suffer and the money is syphoned away by defence contractors.
A long winded way of saying that our armed forces is now so small, the requirements so very limited, you have to think long and hard about developing or buying off the shelf.
The Australians have a similar problem, small armed forces, but Christ, they are well equipped for bear!
Super Hornet, Growler and F35A, makes the RAF look decidedly under equipped!
And we spend 'way' more.
Yep I know ITAR, but it doesn't seem to worry the Australians.....
Cant blame uk industry for the rank incompetence that is e7 procurement can you
Do they? How many multiple and sustained air operations are australia running at present? The equipment the RAF is using is excellent.
You continue to pursue a it’s all uk industry’s fault narrative which is bollox quite frankly. The reason nothing changes is senior figures in defence in and out of uniform need a hard look in the mirror and admit they’re rank amateurs when it comes to managing procurement programs and industrial engagement and stop blaming everyone else.
Really, I don't know what your choice of tipple is, but I would suggest you lay off it a bit.
Just point me in the direction of the RAF's dedicated
fast jet jamming platform that's the equivalent of the Growler, let's start there shall we....
I've looked but can't see it, perhaps it's a super stealth classified platform??
The Australians have an absolutely first class line up from top to bottom. (even better once they have got rid of their tardy European Helicopters) C17, C130J, Airbus MRTT's, F35A and two flavours of Super Hornets....
If you think the RAF's fleet is better than that, then I would love to know what your definition of 'better' is.....
You hear no complaints from the RAAF that's for sure...
The Thypoon isn't even getting an ESA radar until 2030, then only 40 of them, it's bloody pathetic quite frankly....
The relevance of current operations to force line up and bang for your buck is what exactly SW1?SW1 wrote: ↑09 Aug 2023, 20:44The RAF has excellent aircraft top to bottom.mrclark303 wrote: ↑09 Aug 2023, 20:20Come along now SW1, are you seriously trying to say the RAF has a better fast jet line up than Australia at the moment?SW1 wrote: ↑08 Aug 2023, 22:29Wasn’t industry that selected and developed boxer in 2003 then walked away for 20 years before deciding to order it. It wasn’t industry that decided not to spend a penny on challenger for 20 years and it wasn’t industry that decided it wanted to refurbish 20 year old warriors rather than building new hulls before walking away and it wasn’t industry that selected Ajax and then decided to redesigned it.mrclark303 wrote: ↑08 Aug 2023, 22:04Well, it's a tail wagging the dog issue again, there's a good reason the UK spends upwards of 50 billion a year on its small armed forces, but still struggles to field new equipment.SW1 wrote: ↑08 Aug 2023, 18:09 So if high end military supply companies need to stand and fall on their own products then i assume they can sell those products to whom ever wants them no government interference so they can get a return on their investment in making those products?
It isn’t a black or white argument. Our problem often is we jump around too much from one fad to the next rather getting big into the industrialisation of products we do make and rolling them out across the board. We don’t continue to invest in and iterate in build designs.
Just look at our absolutely creaking Amoured ability, with obsolete Warriors and ageing Chally 2 at its heart and Bulldogs that are as old as some of the soldiers grandparents!
We invest billions to buy tiny numbers of high end bespoke equipment and as a result our armed forces suffer and the money is syphoned away by defence contractors.
A long winded way of saying that our armed forces is now so small, the requirements so very limited, you have to think long and hard about developing or buying off the shelf.
The Australians have a similar problem, small armed forces, but Christ, they are well equipped for bear!
Super Hornet, Growler and F35A, makes the RAF look decidedly under equipped!
And we spend 'way' more.
Yep I know ITAR, but it doesn't seem to worry the Australians.....
Cant blame uk industry for the rank incompetence that is e7 procurement can you
Do they? How many multiple and sustained air operations are australia running at present? The equipment the RAF is using is excellent.
You continue to pursue a it’s all uk industry’s fault narrative which is bollox quite frankly. The reason nothing changes is senior figures in defence in and out of uniform need a hard look in the mirror and admit they’re rank amateurs when it comes to managing procurement programs and industrial engagement and stop blaming everyone else.
Really, I don't know what your choice of tipple is, but I would suggest you lay off it a bit.
Just point me in the direction of the RAF's dedicated
fast jet jamming platform that's the equivalent of the Growler, let's start there shall we....
I've looked but can't see it, perhaps it's a super stealth classified platform??
The Australians have an absolutely first class line up from top to bottom. (even better once they have got rid of their tardy European Helicopters) C17, C130J, Airbus MRTT's, F35A and two flavours of Super Hornets....
If you think the RAF's fleet is better than that, then I would love to know what your definition of 'better' is.....
You hear no complaints from the RAAF that's for sure...
The Thypoon isn't even getting an ESA radar until 2030, then only 40 of them, it's bloody pathetic quite frankly....
So to my original statement how many sustained air operations are the Australian airforce running at present and on how many continents are they doing them on?
The royal airforce has a highly capable fastjet fleet able to conduct air superiority, long range strike and close air support.mrclark303 wrote: ↑10 Aug 2023, 08:45The relevance of current operations to force line up and bang for your buck is what exactly SW1?SW1 wrote: ↑09 Aug 2023, 20:44The RAF has excellent aircraft top to bottom.mrclark303 wrote: ↑09 Aug 2023, 20:20Come along now SW1, are you seriously trying to say the RAF has a better fast jet line up than Australia at the moment?SW1 wrote: ↑08 Aug 2023, 22:29Wasn’t industry that selected and developed boxer in 2003 then walked away for 20 years before deciding to order it. It wasn’t industry that decided not to spend a penny on challenger for 20 years and it wasn’t industry that decided it wanted to refurbish 20 year old warriors rather than building new hulls before walking away and it wasn’t industry that selected Ajax and then decided to redesigned it.mrclark303 wrote: ↑08 Aug 2023, 22:04Well, it's a tail wagging the dog issue again, there's a good reason the UK spends upwards of 50 billion a year on its small armed forces, but still struggles to field new equipment.SW1 wrote: ↑08 Aug 2023, 18:09 So if high end military supply companies need to stand and fall on their own products then i assume they can sell those products to whom ever wants them no government interference so they can get a return on their investment in making those products?
It isn’t a black or white argument. Our problem often is we jump around too much from one fad to the next rather getting big into the industrialisation of products we do make and rolling them out across the board. We don’t continue to invest in and iterate in build designs.
Just look at our absolutely creaking Amoured ability, with obsolete Warriors and ageing Chally 2 at its heart and Bulldogs that are as old as some of the soldiers grandparents!
We invest billions to buy tiny numbers of high end bespoke equipment and as a result our armed forces suffer and the money is syphoned away by defence contractors.
A long winded way of saying that our armed forces is now so small, the requirements so very limited, you have to think long and hard about developing or buying off the shelf.
The Australians have a similar problem, small armed forces, but Christ, they are well equipped for bear!
Super Hornet, Growler and F35A, makes the RAF look decidedly under equipped!
And we spend 'way' more.
Yep I know ITAR, but it doesn't seem to worry the Australians.....
Cant blame uk industry for the rank incompetence that is e7 procurement can you
Do they? How many multiple and sustained air operations are australia running at present? The equipment the RAF is using is excellent.
You continue to pursue a it’s all uk industry’s fault narrative which is bollox quite frankly. The reason nothing changes is senior figures in defence in and out of uniform need a hard look in the mirror and admit they’re rank amateurs when it comes to managing procurement programs and industrial engagement and stop blaming everyone else.
Really, I don't know what your choice of tipple is, but I would suggest you lay off it a bit.
Just point me in the direction of the RAF's dedicated
fast jet jamming platform that's the equivalent of the Growler, let's start there shall we....
I've looked but can't see it, perhaps it's a super stealth classified platform??
The Australians have an absolutely first class line up from top to bottom. (even better once they have got rid of their tardy European Helicopters) C17, C130J, Airbus MRTT's, F35A and two flavours of Super Hornets....
If you think the RAF's fleet is better than that, then I would love to know what your definition of 'better' is.....
You hear no complaints from the RAAF that's for sure...
The Thypoon isn't even getting an ESA radar until 2030, then only 40 of them, it's bloody pathetic quite frankly....
So to my original statement how many sustained air operations are the Australian airforce running at present and on how many continents are they doing them on?
Your refusal to acknowledge the painfully bleeding obvious, that Australia has a much more capable and rounded fixed wing capability is extremely telling, a gritted teeth agreement perhaps....
Now, want to compare how much this capability has cost the Australians compared to the UK?
I wouldn't if I were you, it shows you just how we spend £50 billion and get fu*k all for our money....
But no, let's stick to a no ITAR position, because that's clearly 'far' more important than actually giving the RAF the tools for the job....
The tail still wags the dog .
Australia fast jet fleet ( Existing+ on order) :SW1 wrote: ↑10 Aug 2023, 09:10The royal airforce has a highly capable fastjet fleet able to conduct air superiority, long range strike and close air support.mrclark303 wrote: ↑10 Aug 2023, 08:45The relevance of current operations to force line up and bang for your buck is what exactly SW1?SW1 wrote: ↑09 Aug 2023, 20:44The RAF has excellent aircraft top to bottom.mrclark303 wrote: ↑09 Aug 2023, 20:20Come along now SW1, are you seriously trying to say the RAF has a better fast jet line up than Australia at the moment?SW1 wrote: ↑08 Aug 2023, 22:29Wasn’t industry that selected and developed boxer in 2003 then walked away for 20 years before deciding to order it. It wasn’t industry that decided not to spend a penny on challenger for 20 years and it wasn’t industry that decided it wanted to refurbish 20 year old warriors rather than building new hulls before walking away and it wasn’t industry that selected Ajax and then decided to redesigned it.mrclark303 wrote: ↑08 Aug 2023, 22:04Well, it's a tail wagging the dog issue again, there's a good reason the UK spends upwards of 50 billion a year on its small armed forces, but still struggles to field new equipment.SW1 wrote: ↑08 Aug 2023, 18:09 So if high end military supply companies need to stand and fall on their own products then i assume they can sell those products to whom ever wants them no government interference so they can get a return on their investment in making those products?
It isn’t a black or white argument. Our problem often is we jump around too much from one fad to the next rather getting big into the industrialisation of products we do make and rolling them out across the board. We don’t continue to invest in and iterate in build designs.
Just look at our absolutely creaking Amoured ability, with obsolete Warriors and ageing Chally 2 at its heart and Bulldogs that are as old as some of the soldiers grandparents!
We invest billions to buy tiny numbers of high end bespoke equipment and as a result our armed forces suffer and the money is syphoned away by defence contractors.
A long winded way of saying that our armed forces is now so small, the requirements so very limited, you have to think long and hard about developing or buying off the shelf.
The Australians have a similar problem, small armed forces, but Christ, they are well equipped for bear!
Super Hornet, Growler and F35A, makes the RAF look decidedly under equipped!
And we spend 'way' more.
Yep I know ITAR, but it doesn't seem to worry the Australians.....
Cant blame uk industry for the rank incompetence that is e7 procurement can you
Do they? How many multiple and sustained air operations are australia running at present? The equipment the RAF is using is excellent.
You continue to pursue a it’s all uk industry’s fault narrative which is bollox quite frankly. The reason nothing changes is senior figures in defence in and out of uniform need a hard look in the mirror and admit they’re rank amateurs when it comes to managing procurement programs and industrial engagement and stop blaming everyone else.
Really, I don't know what your choice of tipple is, but I would suggest you lay off it a bit.
Just point me in the direction of the RAF's dedicated
fast jet jamming platform that's the equivalent of the Growler, let's start there shall we....
I've looked but can't see it, perhaps it's a super stealth classified platform??
The Australians have an absolutely first class line up from top to bottom. (even better once they have got rid of their tardy European Helicopters) C17, C130J, Airbus MRTT's, F35A and two flavours of Super Hornets....
If you think the RAF's fleet is better than that, then I would love to know what your definition of 'better' is.....
You hear no complaints from the RAAF that's for sure...
The Thypoon isn't even getting an ESA radar until 2030, then only 40 of them, it's bloody pathetic quite frankly....
So to my original statement how many sustained air operations are the Australian airforce running at present and on how many continents are they doing them on?
Your refusal to acknowledge the painfully bleeding obvious, that Australia has a much more capable and rounded fixed wing capability is extremely telling, a gritted teeth agreement perhaps....
Now, want to compare how much this capability has cost the Australians compared to the UK?
I wouldn't if I were you, it shows you just how we spend £50 billion and get fu*k all for our money....
But no, let's stick to a no ITAR position, because that's clearly 'far' more important than actually giving the RAF the tools for the job....
The tail still wags the dog .
Typhoon is a highly capable aircraft as is f35b. Your either ignorance or bias is quite telling. The RAAF has around 80 fastjets the RAF currently around 160.
The RAF is currently conducting several sustained combat air operations at significant distance from the U.K. which at the end of the day is what you acquire and train a force structure to do, it is how you measure bangs for buck or whatever other analogy you care to use. The RAAF is currently doing none.
The RAF is able to design and integrate what it wants from it own defensive and offensive capabilities from its own threat library and industry on its main fastjet aircraft the Australians cannot. The U.K. has sovereignty of capability in this regard the Australians do not.
Go to Luton or the air warfare centre or warton or Edinburgh and show me the equivalent in Australia.