Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

For everything else UK defence-related that doesn't fit into any of the sections above.
User avatar
mrclark303
Donator
Posts: 813
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by mrclark303 »

Tempest414 wrote: 15 Feb 2023, 08:29
mrclark303 wrote: 14 Feb 2023, 18:29
Tempest414 wrote: 14 Feb 2023, 16:04
mrclark303 wrote: 14 Feb 2023, 14:54
SW1 wrote: 14 Feb 2023, 14:16 I’d disagree on the original apache purchase because it was commonising engines with a fully supported supply chain in country and a fully sovereign DAS system which resulted in a superior product in the region it deployed to for a number of years.

The question that should of be asked after that was should we have taken the Japanese decision and not purchased the e version at all
I see your point SW1 and you could add the value back to the treasury....

However, even taking that and the happy coincidence of the added performance from the RR engines in the sandbox into account, the cost of our D models, in comparison to the US Army version was said to be a quite horrifying between 2 and 3 times the unit cost, because we insisted on UK engines and assembly.





That's an insane waste of money by any metric...
In many ways our D model was the E model and what is now the E should have been the F there are so many things on our D's that have informed the E. It should also be noted our E's have extra works over the US E's around better protection of working parts at sea

It should also be said that when I was last at Wattisham the first air crews were coming back from training on the E and were saying that the new rotors and engines helped a lot but didn't fully compensate for the raw power of the RR engines
A few points Tempest, as far as I am aware, our E models are absolutely bog standard US Army models, diverted from US multi year orders, perhaps I'm wrong there...

The uprated US engine is I believe more powerful than the RR engine of our old D models.

I would concur that our unique D model probably did influence the E model development, increased power and basic maritime mods.
No the T700's new engines are some 250 to 300 SHP lower than our old D's but as said the new gearbox and blades make a lot of that up

the UK E's still have some UK only kit on them and as said more work has been done on the UK airframes and some other parts around maritime ops
Thanks Tempest, I didn't that.

If our E models have specific UK modifications, then their very low unit price is even more remarkable and a stark contrast to the outrageous price the UK tax payer was ripped off by, regarding our D models.
These users liked the author mrclark303 for the post:
Tempest414

TheLoneRanger
Member
Posts: 331
Joined: 01 Jul 2020, 19:15
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by TheLoneRanger »

Why are the D Models being retired so early? Have they run out of airframe life ? ( not followed this topic so i am curious ).

Is it the same scenario as the Typhoon Trance 1's where we have lots of airframe life left, but because we cannot "upgrade" them - we just retire them even though we can still use them for CAPS/Airdefence/training/pilot currency etc ?

Look how long countries like Israel hold onto their kit - and you have ask what is wrong with the UK MOD getting the full lifespan out of platforms.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by Tempest414 »

mrclark303 wrote: 15 Feb 2023, 08:53
Tempest414 wrote: 15 Feb 2023, 08:29
mrclark303 wrote: 14 Feb 2023, 18:29
Tempest414 wrote: 14 Feb 2023, 16:04
mrclark303 wrote: 14 Feb 2023, 14:54
SW1 wrote: 14 Feb 2023, 14:16 I’d disagree on the original apache purchase because it was commonising engines with a fully supported supply chain in country and a fully sovereign DAS system which resulted in a superior product in the region it deployed to for a number of years.

The question that should of be asked after that was should we have taken the Japanese decision and not purchased the e version at all
I see your point SW1 and you could add the value back to the treasury....

However, even taking that and the happy coincidence of the added performance from the RR engines in the sandbox into account, the cost of our D models, in comparison to the US Army version was said to be a quite horrifying between 2 and 3 times the unit cost, because we insisted on UK engines and assembly.





That's an insane waste of money by any metric...
In many ways our D model was the E model and what is now the E should have been the F there are so many things on our D's that have informed the E. It should also be noted our E's have extra works over the US E's around better protection of working parts at sea

It should also be said that when I was last at Wattisham the first air crews were coming back from training on the E and were saying that the new rotors and engines helped a lot but didn't fully compensate for the raw power of the RR engines
A few points Tempest, as far as I am aware, our E models are absolutely bog standard US Army models, diverted from US multi year orders, perhaps I'm wrong there...

The uprated US engine is I believe more powerful than the RR engine of our old D models.

I would concur that our unique D model probably did influence the E model development, increased power and basic maritime mods.
No the T700's new engines are some 250 to 300 SHP lower than our old D's but as said the new gearbox and blades make a lot of that up

the UK E's still have some UK only kit on them and as said more work has been done on the UK airframes and some other parts around maritime ops
Thanks Tempest, I didn't that.

If our E models have specific UK modifications, then their very low unit price is even more remarkable and a stark contrast to the outrageous price the UK tax payer was ripped off by, regarding our D models.
But we do have to accept that those UK parts in the E were paid for within the D program
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
mrclark303

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by Tempest414 »

TheLoneRanger wrote: 15 Feb 2023, 09:21 Why are the D Models being retired so early? Have they run out of airframe life ? ( not followed this topic so i am curious ).

Is it the same scenario as the Typhoon Trance 1's where we have lots of airframe life left, but because we cannot "upgrade" them - we just retire them even though we can still use them for CAPS/Airdefence/training/pilot currency etc ?

Look how long countries like Israel hold onto their kit - and you have ask what is wrong with the UK MOD getting the full lifespan out of platforms.
All of Our D were sent to the US and rebuilt as E so not retired but rebuilt upgraded to E
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post (total 2):
Scimitar54TheLoneRanger

TheLoneRanger
Member
Posts: 331
Joined: 01 Jul 2020, 19:15
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by TheLoneRanger »

Tempest414 wrote: 15 Feb 2023, 09:49
TheLoneRanger wrote: 15 Feb 2023, 09:21 Why are the D Models being retired so early? Have they run out of airframe life ? ( not followed this topic so i am curious ).

Is it the same scenario as the Typhoon Trance 1's where we have lots of airframe life left, but because we cannot "upgrade" them - we just retire them even though we can still use them for CAPS/Airdefence/training/pilot currency etc ?

Look how long countries like Israel hold onto their kit - and you have ask what is wrong with the UK MOD getting the full lifespan out of platforms.
All of Our D were sent to the US and rebuilt as E so not retired but rebuilt upgraded to E
thanks - will make me sleep a bit better knowing that !!!

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

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by mrclark303 »

TheLoneRanger wrote: 15 Feb 2023, 19:12
Tempest414 wrote: 15 Feb 2023, 09:49
TheLoneRanger wrote: 15 Feb 2023, 09:21 Why are the D Models being retired so early? Have they run out of airframe life ? ( not followed this topic so i am curious ).

Is it the same scenario as the Typhoon Trance 1's where we have lots of airframe life left, but because we cannot "upgrade" them - we just retire them even though we can still use them for CAPS/Airdefence/training/pilot currency etc ?

Look how long countries like Israel hold onto their kit - and you have ask what is wrong with the UK MOD getting the full lifespan out of platforms.
All of Our D were sent to the US and rebuilt as E so not retired but rebuilt upgraded to E
thanks - will make me sleep a bit better knowing that !!!
Just to add, the rebuild effectively means reusing some dynamic and avionics components, plus as Tempest said, UK specific mods, in a brand new airframe.

The original D airframes assembled by Westlands were not worn out as such, they were an evolutionary cul-de-sac, bespoke solution.

In reality, it was 'far' cheaper to come into alignment with the US Army, than attempt another UK specific upgrade path, based on the E model.

It's a stark reminder of the dangers of small numbers of a bespoke platform in the digital age.

Modern avionics require technology refresh on a regular basis, i.e every 10 years, as obsolescence and difficulty in supporting aging avionics becomes an increasingly problem.

Had Nimrod MR4A survived (by example), we would now be staring down the barrel of an impending upgrade that would have cost a billion for a fleet of 9 airframes!

If Ajax survives, that will be a recurring drain on the defence budget too......

User avatar
Ian Hall
Member
Posts: 490
Joined: 18 Jun 2023, 14:55
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by Ian Hall »

Gtal wrote: 24 Aug 2021, 10:36
J. Tattersall wrote:
Gtal wrote:At least when the Germans deal with Russia they take their Project™ into account and generally looped in.
Indeed, pity the poor Ukrainians https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine ... ssurances/
Is the Ukraine in the EU? NO. Ergo why should the Ukraine's whining feature much in Germany's considerations on it's and the EU's Russia policy?
And the Ukraine didn't get fucked by Germany. They got betrayed by the US.
After being encouraged and egged on by the US for YEARS they really believed the US would stand with them to the end.. but once the US finally realized it couldn't actually stop Nordstream short of an act of war, they just turned around and symbolically made up with Germany so as not to appear to have failed it's objective.

Edit: It really seems to be difficult to comprehend that not doing what the US's transatlanticist "policy" sect wants is the exact opposite of being weak or dependent.
If Germany can execute it's percieved interests against unprecedented openly hostile bipartisan (even under Trump) US opposition (still the most powerful country in the world - for now), Europe can deal with Russia too.
Looking back at some Integrated Review posts this does now appear to be an unfortunate choice of words.

User avatar
Ian Hall
Member
Posts: 490
Joined: 18 Jun 2023, 14:55
United Kingdom

Re: Integrated Review (previously SDSR 2020)

Post by Ian Hall »

A follow-on to Nordstream comments above.


Post Reply