The Ministry of Defence has announced today that a total of 44 Medium helicopters are being sought to replace the ageing Puma, Bell 212, Bell 412 and Eurocopter AS365 Dauphin fleets within the British Armed Forces.
A number of major players in the European Defence Industry are expected to bid on the contract known as New Medium Helicopter (NMU), including Lockheed Martin and AceHawk Aerospace with the venerable UH-60M Blackhawk, Airbus with the H175M and Leonardo UK with the AW149.
The author of this article is Defence and Conflict Analyst @Sierra__Alpha, he can be found on Twitter by clicking here and can often be found in the UK Defence Journal as well as other publications providing an insightful view on current events.
This article is the opinion of the author and not necessarily that of the UK Defence Journal. If you would like to submit your own article on this topic or any other, please see our submission guidelines.
What were the issues with the allocated contracts connected to the Type 31 Frigates?
The issues were. Corruption, fraud, nepotism, Oxford, Cambridge, civil servants and politicians.
lol
Just get on and buy refurbished Blackhawks; cheaper, quicker to enter service and good enough for what we require (Maybe order a few new MH-60M’s for the SF community).
But it never works out cheaper Bob. The economic argument is all for the British build machine.
If we buy a US product that billion pounds has gone all spent to support the US government handing our tax pounds to a different nations tax base.
If we buy the U.K. product even if it’s more expensive almost all the money is recycled back into the U.K. tax base. All those people will be payed by this and then all give 30%-40% of their wages back to the government…they will buy stuff and pay Vat, the shops and cinemas they frequent make more jobs all of which will pay tax. The company will pay corporation tax and will use money to invest in a new assembly line…giving the U.K. the opportunity to export and make more money that was ever first invested.
If we don’t buy British our rotor industry dies and we need to cover the costs of all those out of work people and support another shattered town. We also have no ability to field rotors without another nations permission and following their rules and giving them even more money.
One way is path to growth and making the U.K. wealthier and stronger… the other a step away form the U.K. being able to keep itself a strong independent nation.
That’s the potential for sure. It’s why India, Turkey and Australia are organising acquisitions to build their own industries, I guess we have become somewhat complacent on the matter and just not vocused on building capability and instead ignored it altogether or allowed it due to piecemeal planning and inconsistent as and when equipment acquisitions with costly add ons to suit the MoD and forces generally why our defence businesses have so often slipped into foreign hands and companies there who have long term planning from their own Govts. France has truly thrived on that sort of long term commitment to its companies but has set out expectations too, to the advantage of the Nation and allowed it’s companies to expand and invest, we just make do with short-termism that puts our companies in straight jackets. We seem to be changing that now belatedly but is it already too late for our helicopter industry? This get it through the next decade malarkey just won’t wash.
Yes the French wouldnt dream of buying foreign they back their own industry I ust wish we ahd the same pride in our abilitys to make what we need
The £ to $ exchange rate keeps moving against us making US imports ever more expensive.
Not as expensive as buying a product that is not fit for purpose (Merlin cough)
Ajax – double cough, splutter and a wheeze for good measure.
Wildcat cough, cough cough…….
Fishermen’s for that cough 👍🇬🇧
Ever been into battle in one Bob .. Merlin is an outstanding price of British/Italian technology… I would far rather travel in one of those than even the old sea king… Westlands aircraft and its successors build incredible vehicle based in established and emerging technologies… I really should like to know what your 4 minutes of toilet baesd Google research has flung up
Merlin is an outstanding helicopter for what it is designed to do.
Yes, for the Navy. Didn’t do so well when we gave it to the air force and tried to use it in hot/high conditions.
Actually I gather the RAF was rather happy with it in general. They did not want to get rid of them, they were forced to.
The Merlin was designed and built as an ASW helicopter, not for transporting booties in Afghanistan
Don’t forget that AW101 built after aborted Presidential helicopter bid, are a hell of a lot better than earlier EH101.
The Norwegians bought AW101’s for their SAR fleet replacement and expansion; having spent many Years operating with Sea Kings.
its better than the exchange rate on the Euro
We have had years of this “Home grown” argument and ended up with expensive, second rate equipment as a result.
This is a minor program, for once just spend the cash up front and buy something that works.
Bob, if we are forced to buy foreign, we should insist on a 100% UK build. At least that way we supply our own spares and upgrades at our discretion. Westland Sea King being a fine example.
I have no gripe regarding joint R&D projects etc. Again, ONLY if we have our own 100% manufacturing facilities here in Great Britain. It keeps the skilled labour and the cash here. The fate of BAE Systems, Scotswood should be a lesson for us all. They built Challenger 2 tanks. 2022 and we cannot even upgrade them without help from Germany. Churchill must be spinning in his grave.
so is merlin second rate or the best rotor of its type in the world, the Lynx was well know as being a total failure ? and the wildcat is just awful. The U.K. builds some of the very best rotors in the world at a competitive price. Our major rotor manufacturer has a proven design that is aready in service that will not only deliver a great rotor but will secure our sovereignty capability for another generation. It’s not a minor programme it’s a program with profound implications for yet another high tec key industry….yes just buy whatever as long as we don’t mind being a nation beholden to another, every little decision matter everything links to everything else and this one billion pound decision now will impact on a later
decision in a decade and so on and so on…..it’s why we don’t build merchant ships anymore or any number of other key areas….the neoliberal idea of just let the present mark decide is the geopolitical death of a nation by a thousand small short term decisions.
Nothing is ever simple everything is interlinked and if you fail to understand the opportunity costs or wider consequences you make inappropriate decisions.
Well said Jonathan! It’s really a no brainer. There should be no need to explain such a simple concept. People in procurement need schooling in BOB. Buy Only British, unless there is an urgent requirement and no option but to buy foreign.
would love to buy british , the harrier was the last of the line. world beating, promoted by hawker sidley not the reluctant MOD and export sales. surely these days it requires international cooperation.
We no longer have the market to develop all of our own kit and it’s about time people realised that.
Buy in where we need to and specialise. Who knows, we might actually produce something so good that other countries will buy it.
No China or America will always produce it cheaper and all our tax pounds will be invested in other nations industrial base and tax base. It’s lazy short term neoliberalism that will see the fall of the west and our own nation into insignificance and powerlessness. Geopolitics allows for some working together, but fundamentally succeful nations always look out for their industry and trade before all other considerations. The nation that is richer and out produces will almost always win in the long term.
Do what Israel does. They have some excellent kit and a tiny population and go it alone because they can get spares have currency problems, etc.
In the sense that they specialise in what they manufacture themselves, yes.
Most of their large kit is US built (often purchased with US “aide”)
I don’t agree with that statement at all, we have one of the best aerospace industries in the world. Yes we are not making complete airliners or specific mission types jet, but we are able to build next generation fighters with incredible technology and investing heavily in drone platforms. Is it not unreasonable to expect us to be able to build helicopters at the right price and capability. I think the issues are not industry specific but to do with government/MOD for not having more oversight over planning ahead and having a shipbuilding style strategy for air platforms. And then there’s the three branches who frankly should be doing more collaboration on platforms and what the want said platforms to be able to do. We’ve got joint force helicopters that was a start to share airframes where needed but when it comes to ordering why can they come together and have a single type that can be a do it all, that would increase numbers significantly and reduce the end costs for everybody while at the same time growing the UK economy
We could indeed have a successful aircraft industry if we were more intelligent about it… For instance, we sold the Hawk around the world. However we have known for many years that the Hawk was reaching end of life and the intelligent thing would have been to develop a new replacement about 10 years ago so that is was ready to sell replace our Hawks and also available to sell to all the current Hawk operators… But other countries have been thinking about this and have Hawk replacements ready to sell around the world…
We need to be designing equipment with an export market in mind so we can make it cheaper but we end up in development hell as those in charge keep adding new requirements through the projects.
With regard to the Helicopters, I would be in full support of a homegrown replacement but we should have started that design about 8 years ago! Given that we have not got a homegrown aircraft then we need to go for the best foreign aircraft we can get for the best price we can achieve.
And do you only buy British too?
Whenever I can, yes.
So you have a British car? British TV? British Headphones? British Fridge? British Toaster? British Computer?
“Whenever I can” You do know what that means.
My last 4 new cars have been built here in England.
As I have said in other articles, it is premised on absolute success.
I’ve never seen a weapon that was first made to work perfectly in the field. MOD requires this project to go through improvements and refinements – small failures, which means it will require a larger investment than the initial cost.
As long as there is no additional performance required when introducing a foreign weapon that has completed the reliability verification and development process, there is theoretically no additional cost.
I also cheering the buy of British weapons.
I like made in britain
However, there is currently no system to MOD , to maintain and improve the reliability and excellence of British weapons.
– As I said in another article,
If the proof and maintenance of the superiority of British weapons is uncertain, insisting on British-made weapons with limited budget, time and opportunity is a high-risk speculation.
N nicely said. I suppose MoD have to think if they want a stop gap off shelf helicopter and preferably collaborate with others on a future helicopter, whilst maintaining UK skills.
Yes but that’s about good procurement, management of markets and appropriate investment control and corporate governance…the fact we have saved a few pounds to cut that capability from the MOD therefore we end up having to purchase and fund foreign industries is exactly the problem. If we don’t stop doing that we simple don’t have any industrial capability left or ability to regenerate. That’s the same for planes trains, rotors, healthcare equipment, drugs ect ect. The most successful nations on earth very carefully craft and support all their key industries and we don’t see we end up pissing away our tax tax into other nations and slowly tossing tax take….its a negative feedback cycle. The British empire knew this, China knows this and so does the US, Germany and France.
What I’m talking about is a well-planned investment and the government’s ability to look closely at it and maintain it from a long-term perspective.
Businesses are always willing to do stupid things in the eyes of others in the pursuit of profit.
Then the government that trusts the company and invests in Britain’s industry loses money, wastes time and opportunity, and suffers huge losses.
What to do? Can we reduce these mistakes?
Will the government blindly trust only companies and pour out blind money as it has been?
Not all industries can be maintained in Britain. right.
Then the government must choose and focus. High value-added technologies that cannot be replaced, such as optics, radar, and integrated circuit programming.
Personally, I think it is better to develop an IP licensing company and promote it by the government.
And I think it would be better for the government to manage small 3D printing production facilities.
China intends to do all technology-related production domestically.
-Independent technology production from all worlds.
But you don’t need to worry about this.
it’s not going to go well
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hensoldt
As a semiconductor design company, ARM, one of the world’s top five giants, is already located in the UK. But there seems to be no company like Hensoldt in the UK. It’s good for Britain to either build a Hensoldt rather than spend a lot of money to build a few helicopters for Britain, or to invest in the MOD retaining at least some of Hensoldt’s abilities.
ARM is a poor choice it was a wholely owned (successful) UK company ,it no longer is, sold off to show Britain was ‘open for business’ after Brexit.That is indicative of another Britishism that really makes me mad: Free Market Capitalism! The successful companies and tech we do develop(often backed by public money) is allowed to be bought out by other countries companies and that is held up as a success ..
Considering that ARM has grown dazzlingly with the overwhelming support of its parent company after being acquired by Softbank – [AMD, INTEL, ARM, the world’s three major main chip processor design companies]
The sale to Softbank was unavoidable. Rather, it should have purchased ARM last year and now, when the merger with Nvidia failed.
It would have been possible if the future helicopter industry, this Aticle’s purchase of helicopters, and Ajax’s project had been canceled and the addition of Apache and the upgrade of Challenger 3 had been delayed by 5 or 10 years. And it’s well worth it.
But why are you making it a zero sum game, it’s not either or we can easily do both. The money is allocated for the helicopter purchase we have a helicopter manufacturer with a very good design who will build it in the U.K. it’s a proven design that is operational in two states aready. We are not talking about investing in a risky design process here.
Without Ajax and other projects like this, Britain could have bought ARM or Hensoldt.
In fact, considering that arms trades are done like IP trades and licensing trades these days, obsessing over domestic production means not selling weapons to other countries.
I’ve said it many times,
A simple purchase is fine.
However, it was also possible to seek a direction that would more effectively benefit the industry – future growth potential; helping the real economy with overseas sales and exports.
this domestic production way cannot helping britain economy enough
Exactly!
Well said! All totally obvious to many, but there are still some in government who think otherwise and just look at short term “value for money”.
I fully support Jonathan’s missive, I am ex FAA Engineer, 40yrs, and once retired worked for Leonardo in Customer Support until 2020. Leonardo are training 150+ young apprentices and graduates, and recruiting large numbers on an annual basis; these are ‘High Tech High Wage’ jobs for Somerset which the Government laud’s in the Press. We need the AW149, we don’t need any other platform from an non UK supplier. Let’s not turn our back’s on UK Industry, across all disciplines, these are our Children\Grandchildren’s future.
Issue is these key staff where there and Leonardo stripped that capacity and moved it. UK industry had its chance and SCREWED THE TAX PAYER.
so why does a Italian company deserve a UK Contract and a 2nd rate unit.
Because the Italians have more faith in our abilities than we(estminster) do ourselves?
I suppose my counter to that is the defence budget is constantly being spread too thinly and wasted on expensive UK bespoke projects, instead of simply giving the personnel the specific kit they are actually screaming for, in a timely manner.
To me, it’s front line first, it’s not MOD’s job, let the DTI take the lead on such things, if UK companies can come up with the goods competitively, excellent, if not, then let it go.
An excellent example of such poor procurement is the Wildcat, an extremely expensive helicopter, procured in tiny numbers and highly unlikely ever to reach even 100 examples built.
It’s money just shovelled into the bin….
The thing is John it’s never that simple. A county that spavs all its money to by foreign kit is supporting another nations tax base and destroying its own… after a number of years of this it has no industry left, has no option but to buy abroad and has a ever decreasing tax base. In effect you are destroying your own capability to defend yourself.
so yes you do need to have input from the front line but if you do not have A strategic plan of how you are doing to keep your nation strong in all domains you will inevitably loss the next existentially threading general war to the nation that was building its industrial capacity. Never ever think of a nations ability to wage war and protect itself via its present military capability, that’s part of it but as the USSR, the reich and the french first republic/Empire found out it’s more than armies that are needed in large scale geopolitical conflicts.
So the front line need to say what a good rotor needs to look like and have. But it’s for HMG to plan how to spend tax pounds to ensure the future geopolitical safety and well-being of our nation.
Just an example from my own work…when working up the future strategy for an urgent and emergency care system, I take into consideration all the needs iterated by the front line teams, but I can’t just fulfill those as many teams will have mutually exclusive needs ( EDs want one thing, GP practice another, Ambulance service something else, 111 what’s this but not that’s, MIUs want this instead of the Gp practices etc etc). So you have all those front line immediate needs..then you have the need to protect the market, so I need to ensure I can keep the Gp practices in business, not destroy the business model of the 111 out of hours provider because if I swing all my resources to ED and my out of hours provider goes bankrupt I’ve lost that capability… then you need to think about your future requirements, my front line staff don’t have the time or space to be thinking about the capability we will need in a decade for the protected population..so what they ask for now may just be irreverent in 3 years and I’ve spaved away a few million in taxpayers money… then I have the strategic direction from the centre…they have a financial and national plan that I need to work my capabilities into otherwise I may open minor injuries units when the rest of the country has Urgent treatment centres and confusion the crap out of the public…finally I have strategic considerations around workforce…it takes my system 4-5 years to train an advanced nurse practitioner…I could buy an out of area solution that then removed my ACP workforce out of county and then when I need a new urgent care capability in 5 years I’m fucked and I have to keep buying the out of county solution….. its incredibly complex with interactions and unintended consequences that can ripple out for decades and I just sort out the planning for the urgent and emergency care for 800,000 people….. imaging the complexity involved in sustaining national level capabilities and infrastructure with billions of pounds of taxpayers money and the future of of the nation at stake….everything has long term consequences that take real work to understand an ensure a nation is strong, every small error weakens a nation and may lead to an existential risk in the long term….
I take your point Jonathan, the NHS is an excellent example of procurement from within our own resources, why, because it’s absolutely enormous with a huge workforce and continues to steadily expand, with a ‘huge’ and growing budget to spend.
The Mod on the other hand has shrunk dramatically over the last 50 years, halfed in size over the last 30 in fact.
During that same period, the cost of military equipment has gone through the roof, to eye watering levels of expense.
When you consider a requirement like the medium transport helicopter, we only require 40 odd, 50 at the most, so initiating a bespoke UK programme for it is bonkers in my opinion.
The development, modifications and assembly needed will see the unit price absolutely mushroom.
It’s extremely doubtful we could sell any abroad, because it will be an extremely expensive medium support Helicopter, pricing itself out of an already oversaturated market…
The defence budget will take a huge hit, all to assemble a foreign helicopter in a stripped out foreign owned factory, that no longer has the capability to design it’s own helicopters anyway.. it’s flogging a dead horse in my opinion.
Now, I wouldn’t be against the UK assembly of Polish build S70 Blackhawks, providing it didn’t push the costs through the roof.
It would be a great way of fostering and deepening defence ties with Poland and furthering our defence industrial base with a key NATO partner.
Buying UK at any cost, will simply drain our defence funds dry and leave our armed forces in an ever poorer state.
We live in an international community, so defence equipment we build has to be able to compete on an international basis, cooperative projects like Tempest are excellent examples of the right way to boost UK plc.
Is the AW149 expensive? Aside from buying second hand kit what is the new build alternative you’d buy?
As mentioned above the multiplier means a British Product will in reality cost less than the ticket price.
Morning Ben, Google tells us $18/$20 million per aircraft as it currently stands.
Then factor in the cost of the UK line and the many bespoke modifications requiring an exhaustive trials and development programme.
The ultimate unit price is anyone guess, $25/30 more perhaps???!
Export is extremely unlikely, as it will be so expensive it will effectively price itself out of the market, so little chance of recouping any money there.
Blackhawk apparently $6/8 million, ready to go, tough and mature, just like our Chinook fleet.
As mentioned in previous posts, I wouldn’t be against a buy of ex US refurbished machines as a stopgap for 10 years and buy into the US next gen programme.
Or buying Blackhawks from the Polish production line, as complete examples, or kits for UK assembly, the caviat being that as long as that doesn’t put the price through the roof.
The thing is, the MoD never get any credit from the Treasury for making choices to support UK industry. They get a fixed budget and then get slated when custom UK-only projects go over. All stick, no carrot.
If the Treasury actually recognised the principle that UK spending is recycled into the economy, they should build extra funding allowances to UK projects (So – MoD could buy 44 Blackhawks for £x, but choosing a UK supplier would release £x+20% )
Or – when doing the value for money comparisons, UK-sourced products would get a discount factor applied to recognise the recycling of spending.
“a discount factor”
Yes. This. About 50% for wholly manufacturered in the UK with a UK supply chain. With a real chance of export orders, that could even be more.
yes that’s the problem the MOD should get that funding as an offset, so if the baseline foreign buy was 1 billion and the U.K. buy would be 1.2 billion but return .5billion in tax revenue then the MOD should get that .2 billion back as a top-slice from tax take, with the rest of the .3 billion divided up as usual by the treasury.
Its a valid Point, but there is no Manufactory line @ Yeovil, Merlin’s now built in Italy. Leo have lost that edge and will have to recruit staff from its European factories to Build here. its like Ajax.
The staff are still there and Leonardo have made it clear they would open the manufacturing line in yeovil, infact a couple of years ago they promised that if the U.K. ordered the 149 they would shift the main manufacturing line to Yeovil and build all the export orders ( and 149 has a potentially large market). It’s all about negotiations for global Britain, these 40 odd rotors could have a very big impact.
I had an AW189 buzz my house twice last night. Went on flight radar the thing was going 170kts. That’s fast for a chopper. I’m assuming AW 149 could do roughly the same.
As much as I like the black hawk I don’t see what they are offering the U.K. in investment.
Money spent ina country stays in the country and keeps the skills or remakes them. If the Yeovil could show a direction into unmanned systems aswell that could be a longer term solution as well as the AW149 line.
It’s shouldn’t be all on the MOD to shoulder the jobs factor. The business department and research and development depts should be helping with the budgets for keeping it in the U.K. The treasury should also be reworking the model so that the MOD perhaps get half the tax take back as an incentive for U.K. development. Even just the business and personal tax to keep it simple. So 17% business and 40% income tax. Half of it back to the MOD to be spent on British future products.
We are seeing what happens when you lose an industry. Submarines, armoured vehicles etc. to get it back has probably cost more than it would of done to keep the industry running. Now if it’s a dead end industry let it go. Like a horse drawn carts industry, coal, oil ship boilers etc. certain systmes will always be needed for the next 50 years, vehicles, small arms, bullets, artillery, clothing, ships, subs,
Missiles, aircraft etc. got to keep a drum beat and a skill base.
Unfortunately Jonathan, the cost of moving the line, coupled with very high UK manufacturing costs would price the 149 out of the international market.
That’s assuming they can build the standard 149 alongside the no doubt, highly modified UK specific version.
In reality, it would probably go much the same way as Wildcat, a bespoke UK solution that will unlikely ever sell more than 20 examples abroad…
I think Wildcat is built in Yeovil
We then cannot upgrade it on our own terms or sell it on to a third party without permission. Then with the US it won’t be compatible with our weapon systems without horrendous expensive upgrade, or do what they intended and only buy US weapons for a US platform just look at F35 and P8
Yep buying a US or foreign rotor removed your sovereignty over your platforms, it’s one thing a lot of people forget, very good point.
The amount going in to Yeovil will be negligible. We will be paying over the odds for what we need, most of the money will be going out of the UK and we will have potentially worse aircraft that we could have had. The 149s are not going to be built in the UK just assembled here.
We should be buying the best equipment we can not just buying for the sake of having a British flag sticker in the glovebox… If we want a helicopter industry the government need to plough money into a hi-tech UK factory and commit funds to design next gen aircraft. Assembling a handful of helicopters in the UK is not going to keep the industry up to date.
The key thing is to ensure our armed forces have the best kit we can give them and Blackhawk is the better choice.
That only works up to a point. Firstly if we are building most of the product in the UK (which we will not be with the AW149) and also if the price is within a certain threshold (Which we do not know right now) and also if you actually get equipment that is good.
You failed to mention corruption, back handers and out and out fraud.
What about a British-built Black Hawk full of UK content? ..not the Leonardo version of ‘British-built’ where they think bolting blades on qualifies! Remember when they said the AW189 UKSAR machines were ‘Made in UK’?
That’s a good argument to buy British and hopefully the Uk gov see that – gets my vote – but at this time do tax payers really need this payout for such luxury?
The argument to buy British is fine as long as it doesn’t come at a higher unit cost. Too often though we are using the defence budget as a job creation budget embarking on high cost, high risk procurements (MR4 for example). This usually leads to the military either getting fewer units or having to accept equipment omissions.
Where we are buying more expensive equipment to support UK jobs then the extra cost of that should come from the department of trade budget and not the MOD budget.
Wildcat, which is mentioned in the article, is a great example. The navy variant lacks any ASW detection equipment and a data link and the army version doesn’t have the carrying capacity to be useful. Other countries are not buying Wildcat because there are more capable platforms available for the same money but our armed forces are saddled with it for job creation purposes.
Yes, but Nimrod MRA4 was b*gger*d by which ever genius decided to fit new wings to old twisted fuselages, rather than building all new. Any project can fail if some one makes a stupid choice.
Corroded ex Saudi comet fuselages that needed new bulkheads and floors ! Varying measurements due to hand built nature hence CAD built wings didn’t fit , they had to have extensive remedial work. Be like trying to turn a rusty Alfasud into a Porsche, BAE stated it was madness lol
Best car I ever had was an Alfa Sud ….. when it worked and bits weren’t falling off. And that sums up the problem things might be good but doesn’t mean a lot if they are so flawed they are rarely operable and/ or cost a fortune in supplying and running them.
Alfa Sud- god, that makes me feel old. Like having a demanding high maintenance girl friend.
The civilian version AW 189 is in service in from North Sea to the Falklands ( Bristow Helicopters in HM SAR service) even the Japanese got them and is certified by Russia to operate in Siberian cold zones.
The smaller AW 139 sold almost 2000 helicopters.
In todays industry there are no bad companies anymore. Might appear a lemon from time to time but it would be in the air news magazines fast.
Spot on JH – Should have bedded down with Yanks on the P8 right from the start.
P8 Contains a lot of the MRA4 kit, it just needed developing to be smaller, which what BAEs were trying to screw the MOD more cash for on a fixed cost contract. it was too heavy to get off the ground.
Thanks for that Johan- have a good weekend Mate.
You can blame HM Treasury for that decision.
The Issue with MRA4s was the sheer weight and size of the kit needed, and one of its problems was it was Overweight, seriously Overweight. BAEs screwed to pooch and they played poker with UK Govs. and lost big time, but not before BAEs took out the Harrier and the Invincible Class in a act of spite. was a main reason why BAE cannot be a lead Bidder on any project for UK.
Steve I don’t disagree, the mod should actually get a budget offset for buying a British product. It should all be built into the as a British purchased rotor will put probably half the investment strait back into the tax base in wages, Vat and corporate tax. Then you have the investment in industry and the good change of more money on tax from export orders….the reality is you could easily spaf 150% more on a British built produce and it still be better value for the taxpay than say a US purchased rotor…the important thing is that the MOD get the buying British offset.
A lot of government spending is like that, it always makes me laugh when they say the NHS costs so and so,,when infact half the nhs funding goes on wages and almost all of that gets recycled back to the government ( I pay around 40% of my salary strait back into the tax base and then probably another 20% on indirect taxation), with the rest spent as economic stimulus that then almost all ends up recycled into the tax base….so in reality the taxpayer is getting the NHS for not far off 60-70% of what the officials budget is.
So, which of the Airbus H175M and Leonardo UK AW149 options creates more UK jobs and sub contractor work?
I have no idea, but my key point is any procurement should take that into account. My personal believe from available literate is that the H175M has a lot of chinese input and work share and I do not believe it is in our strategic interest to support and fund chinese tec and military manufacturing bases. It’s also a civilian rotor that will have some military systems added I don’t believe that’s an acceptable compromise. I would rather Blackhawk than that. The AW149 is a ground up military rotor that has been sold and built already and its production and supply chain with be U.K. and European western democracies.
AW149 To be assembled in the UK, from parts from third world countries.
H175M Will be served and maintained in the UK By Airbus partners.
so despite all the hard sell by Leonardo, who are recruiting from Kwick Fit. any major money is going out the country.
However that mentality does make an argument to just buy over priced kit that can never be sold to any other nation as it just too costly. Build competitively and get exports is actually the best scenario, Foreign money coming into our treasury is better then recycling a % of money where the rest must come from somewhere else. The counter argument always seem to be we can’t compete, foreign subsidies etc we’ve given up before we’ve even tried.
Completely agree, you have to invest to set up the production lines to then have a product to sell. France does it all the time, it’s government throws money at the defence industries to preserve them…
Personally I don’t think France us shinning example it’s probably selling kit at a loss. We need to pick some real focus areas to start with and try and get market share and volume reinvested profits and increase market share further.
The key is you can make a lose if when you look at the whole picture your nation is gaining…sort of like a loss leader in a supermarket, they accept the loss to make gains in other areas…it’s why you need to look at all these key industries from a whole U.K. PLC and not as an individual product, company or specific tax year.
To be fair, the US ‘ military budget is exactly that – a job creation scheme! Laws in place to only buy American, or American manufactured and moves to prevent foreign competitors from producing rival products. It’s a dirty game that everyone seems to play except us, and I don’t think we should be stepping back. It doesn’t help that successive governments have let British industry wither on the vine because they’re only interested in their mates in London finance.
Wildcat does have some export for naval use, but with data link and some teeth- both of which ours are only just now getting. It’s hard to blame the platform for that, as the MOD cut those capabilities part way through the project to save money. I don’t see a point for them with the army, but they do make a good naval helo because they fit at least one on all of our escorts, they’re fast, and can support interdiction ops, etc. Now, with martlet and sea Venom, even better. As with many things British military, it takes a while for something to get good.
Government and institutions need to get better at working with industry to develop packages that benefit all parties. They’re bad at it in all areas, from military, to ship building, to infrastructure and construction. Then we’ll see a lot more value from building British.
Yes, agreed. I still want BH for this one though as the benefits to UK PLC don’t make it back to the immediate MoD budget and the forces get less each year.
I take your point, under the existing system it is a good argument for the (presumably) cheapest quotation- giving the MOD best bang for buck. I’d concur this would be Blackhawk.
But we do need to change that system DM otherwise we are just slowly bleeding out tax pounds and industrial capability. I think we should have an immediate offset system so the MOD gets back the tax base gains from spending in the U.K. ( that’s around 30-40% return on the spend). We should also like the US ( and China) have clear laws that protect and develop our industrial base as national assets and geopolitical tools that we need to stay and independent nation.
to be honest I also love the AW149 I think it’s a vastly underrated military rotor that would serve the U.K. well and protect/develop our industrial capability.
I totally get your argument J, and I agree. But the offset idea for Mod buying British does not exist and probably never will with our idiots upstairs.
I guess we shall have to see what they choose and how much it comes in for!
And it is more than likely going to be the 149 any way for the made in Britain libe HMG can broascast, so these debates are fun but moot. 😆
Would be interesting to know what the end user actually wants. I’ve heard they wanted BH for years.
I agree but industry must also come to the party, support for UK industry can’t be a blank cheque. For my investment as a tax payer I would want to see some of the best productivity in the world, investment in new manufacturing tech, AI and some of the lowest cost high end products.
Completely agree. But it does need government to be willing to buy the product and actually support industries to the same level that other governments do, otherwise British industries are and have been doomed.
Exactly. A reason US just gets richer, even during wartime, and will do again from the Ukraine tragedy – not deliberately, just a natural consequence of its economic model. Similar industrial philosophy in Germany and France, of course.
Aside, but I believe apposite, there was an article in the Sunday Times by David Smith on our drivers for growth going into reverse. He takes his usual swipe at Brexit which, even as a supporter, I naturally recognised would have a negative effect, if you view the decision purely commercially. But the graph he supplied on UK productivity went back twenty years before Brexit and depressingly illustrated our business investment as % GDP, a critical factor in productivity, inexorably falling year on year.
Clearly, the Government has a responsibility in this, particularly where they are the customer, but to be fair they are not business experts in UK wide commercial decisions.
That responsibility lies with industry and those that own it. And that group are intent on maximising financial return AT THE EXPENSE often enough of investment in the manufacturing process that guarantees productivity and thus ultimate survivability. Apart from our own City vultures, part of this would appear due to too much of our industry being owned by foreign concerns who have little motivation to prioritise investment in the UK over their own National advancement on that front. Possible exception to the rule having been Japan in the past, perhaps surprisingly.
I’d agree with all of that, although I would ask the question also: Who allowed strategic deffence companies to be bought up by foreign entities? That would, unfortunately be the government. They could, like many other countries around the world, block those acquisitions on national security grounds, but they haven’t because it benefits their mates or they simply don’t care.
Yeh. Sorry to regale you with my productivity* frustration, its been trying to escape for some time.
Here’s a curiosity, though. Economists in the UK have been trying to figure that *particular issue for decades, apparently. What that does that for their own productivity?!
Who would have bought them instead? If the UK citizens do not want to put their money or finance weapon industries then the factories would have to be bought by the government and run by the government..
It’s simple really for a lot of our competitors the national governments themselves are the major investor, look at the french defence industry one of the major owner shareholders is the french government. It’s the same with power and major infrastructure. Continental governments tend to ensure they are major stakeholders in key business…..
where as we end up as customers of those mainly state owned business and tend to fund things like the french and German rail and power networks…our neoliberal market first and always means we now support the french and German rail systems in providing cheap goos railways, while our own are underinvested and expensive.
Who says they dont? They are badly informed about defence as they are about many things. The National shipbuilding strategy is a novel concept for this country. It has a lot to recommend it.
Even pre WW1 the government had to step in and revitalise the Naval warship business. All the the major HM Dockyards built Capital ships as they did SSN’s when they started.
In most cases, these companies are generally doing just fine. But other, larger international companies see the value in them and put in an offer that the company’s board is obliged to recommend to the shareholders. Once the sale has gone through, they basically asset strip the company for IP and tech, leaving it more or less a shell, and taking the stuff of value elsewhere- despite any promises made “with the best of intentions” during negotiations. And the government does nothing.
No other government, no matter how much they claim to support free-market capitalism, would allow this to happen.
The responsibility lies in the culture that have been build.
That’s not the reality, look at Jaguar/Landrover shocking under UK management have prospered under Tata. The reason the US get richer is it attract investors and the innovators where as we drive them out. Look at some of the tax ideas that have been banded around in the UK, taxing robots, that’s a tax on automation and highly productive manufacturing, reducing tax breaks for RnD work, clearly no incentive to setup your RnD here in the UK. Businesses want stability we need to have a long term politically independent industrial strategy. Not shocks every 5 years.
Nothing represents the whole reality though, expat, otherwise you just may have gotten an economist who could figure out the problem.
Sunak appears to have tried, and still tries, to kick our industrial donkey onto it’s feet (1 × e.g:- low rate of Corp tax made hardly any difference).
Appreciate alternative views none the less.
The problem with Wildcat is that almost everyone moved on to big helicopters for naval forces with frigates getting bigger.
So Wildcat is now very niche.
True, but, all nations that build there own go through exactly the process…
Buy foreign or buy home grown…
And why do they buy home grown?
To create / maintain jobs and skills in their country and to re-circulate the wealth within their home market…
Yes buying foreign when their is zero alternative and zero skills in the home nation makes sense.
But, when we have the skills, know-how, facilities and people, we should be investing at home…
All military projects have painful births and protracted development…
Even the venerable Blackhawk was subject to many upgrades / refits etc.
But that’s the point it can actual be more expensive and that’s fine as it’s all about tax take and not individual pound notes.
so if you spend 1 billion in the US it’s gone for ever it cost the taxpayer 1 billion pounds.
if it’s spent in the U.K. we know exactly in year how much of the will come directly into tax take.. which is probably close it 30-40% that’s before any other money made for developing industries.
So a U.K. product has to be in the region of 150% of the cost of a foreign purchase before it actual costs the taxpay more….
The you go into secondary effects and opportunity costs…so if you kill an industry through not buying British you have to pay taxpayers money for welfare And to rebuild the community..that’s the secondary cost. The opportunity cost is when you have that industrial capability it may generate foreign sales which puts more money in circulation in the tax take.
You even have tertiary effects so if you loss and industrial capability all those people spend less in retail, leisure, building trades, holidays and all those other industries suffer and you lose more tax revenue and have reduced employment and increased burden on the tax base from Job losses.
Personally I think there should be a constitutional requirement that British tax pounds are spent in Britain unless there is a clear and valid reason why they cannot or should not be ( if market manipulation is needed to ensure that happens in future so be it).
I agree but there’s no reason why British industry can’t be competitive, when its a commercial contract we seem to be competitive in many areas. The problem comes as soon as it government contract those involve some how think its a bottomless pit of cash to call upon. Oddly they all moan when the pot dries up and of coarse they are never to blame. Sir John Parkers shipbuilding report stated exactly this that rates at yards who bid for commercial contracts were far better than those who only tendered for government contracts. My job involves helping British manufacturing companies improve and I still see massive differences in appetite for change between those who have government work against those who have commercial work. When I say change this is working smarter not harder.
Just a brief note on weights. Puma 7.4 tons, Airbus H135M 3 tons, Chinook 22.6 tons, AW101 Merlin 15.6 tons, AW139M 6.4 or 6.8 (option) tons, AW149 8 tons, Wildcat 6 tons, NH90 10.6 or 11 (option) tons, Blackhawk 10.6 tons. All are MTOW.
Wildcat seems too heavy for the space it has.
Shame the Wildcat did not get the foot longer cabin of the Lynx3/Westland606 prototypes.
I was secretly hoping we’d chose the winner between the Valor / Defiant, especially the Valor
It’s too early for them and the contract really can’t be delayed any more.
Yeah I appreciate that, pity though, with US buying hundreds of the winner, we could have gotten a great deal
Agreed. There’s something to be said for the minimal option this time round and a later switch to either FLRAA or NGRC if that ever takes off.😏
I think this will be the last sizeable purchase will see and will still be in service into the 2050’s, we won’t see any large purchases of helos until the Chinooks finally get too old, and those things can go forever when looked after.
Yet we’re part of NGRC and discussing a partnership on FLRAA. The oldest Chinooks are being replaced with new builds.
I agree, whatever we buy may look decidedly old school by decade end. Get what we need now but keep options open for the thirties.
That’s why I am so keen on the Valor, I can’t see the Defiant winning, from what I can gather it can’t fit in a C17 (I may be wrong) the Valor will have Osprey learned techniques for folding them up nicely for confined spaces! at least in a Naval version, this would give us some measure of future proofing (if there is such a thing)
So you see buying something that cost 2x or 3x a conventional helicopter…
To be operative in 2035-40 without even the kinks fixed? that is crazy
Valor is huge expensive maybe not even possible to land in any RN ship except the carriers. Compare landing that thing in a field to an helicopter.
Conceptually i prefer the Defiant. But i am afraid we might get an Heli LCS II and they choose both…
Do you have any evidence for these silly statements? The V280 weighs no more than current rotorcraft, cost no more than current rotorcraft and out performs current rotorcraft. And has been de-risked as it is 2nd generation.
V-280 has a empty weight without military equipment, so prototype, of 8200kg per wiki, much more weight than any of the competitors.
The base price that the program was started was 43M$ so much more expensive than a similar current helicopter.
This future will not replace traditional helicopters in next 1-2 decades. It is still too expensive and cumbersome. It will be useful for SF and advance forces but it will not be the bulk of the vertical forces.
The V-280 prototype which had a dry weight of 8,200kg and a MTOW of 14,000kg is only a 90% scale model of the final design (can only carry 14 stretchers vs 18/20 for rival midsize utility helicopters). Their final design for the bid is going to be bigger and heavier.
Thanks. That makes it worse for this competition.
And you have a source for this?
Source for what precisely?
If it is the base price is in wiki for FLRAA program 43M$ at 2018 dollars the expectation cost per air-craft.
Now should be more.
The est. price is $20m not sure where you get $43m from.
Please read what i write. I already told you, it is in the Wiki for FLRAA program,.
That’s the reason I NEVER quote Wiki unless I have another source to confirm, because there is a lot of unchecked garbage on WIKI.
Agree, this discussion about legacy aircraft is silly, we should be looking to the future not to the past.
Another contender Airbus just announced they were pitching the Airbus Racer design for the NATO common medium lift helicopter requirement which has an expected in service date of 2035. This program is separate to the US helicopter procurement program which is trying and failing spectacularly to design one helicopter platform that could do every job from the smallest scout to the largest super heavy transport (they started with a requirement for 3 designs with common engineering and they are now upto a minimum of 5 designs with dozens of variants).
Whilst the Airbus Racer looks snazzy, you simply have a frankensteins monster of a helicopter combined with a turboprop. Whilst I presume every intelligent person on this site would agree that the turbo prop is the most efficient sub-mach rotorcraft that we currently have and that between 80/90% of a rotocrafts time is spent going from a-b and only between 10/20% hovering, then logically the most efficient form of rotorcraft for both functions is the V-280 “type” configuration.
Presumably the hybrid “Racer” approach where you are carrying a redundant rotor and engine for forward flight is only there to appease the old guard, so it looks like a helicopter. As this is no a 20 year+ proven in war design (special forces et al), not sure why commentators on this site have such a hard time accepting this.
Yes, for level flight efficiency the Valor is the best, followed by the Racer, then the Defiant. In the hover, it not as clear cut. The Defiant should have the best vertical lift capacity, due its two co-axial rotors, but also, it does not have any cabin wings to disturb the downwards push of the airflow. Case point a skinny tank Chinook can vertically lift more than a fat tank Chinook. Columbia helicopters who use Chinooks for logging and crane work, remove the external tanks and fit one internally, so that the aircraft can generate more lift.
The Racer with its single main rotor, would be dependent on available shaft horsepower as well as the number of blades. The two wings would slightly impede vertical lift, but not as much as the Valor. The Racer’s V-biplane configuration may also include trailing edge flaps. That can be moved to reduce the wing’s surface area to the vertical lift component.
The Valor has a better vertical lift capacity pound for pound than the V22 Osprey. This is due to the prop-rotors being correctly sized for the aircraft’s weight. The Osprey had to make allowances for it to operate from the deck of a Wasp class LHD. The Navy required that the aircraft must be able to taxi past the island with a minimum of 5ft clearance. But the outer undercarriage must also be X distance from the edge of the deck. These compromises meant that the prop-rotors were reduced in length. Which meant to generate the necessary lift the rotor rpm was increased. This is one of the reasons why the Osprey has such a large downwash due to the large disc loading.
You’ll also notice that the Valor and Osprey have very large trailing edge flaps. These are lower when in the hover, to reduce the wings surface area. Which would impede generating lift in the hover. They don’t have leading edge flaps, as I believe the drive shaft passes through the leading edge D spar. In level flight, because the Osprey has a compromised design with its shorter wings, it has a less efficient wing than the Valor. So the Valor should be able to fly higher. Bell have also said that they are looking at fitting the Osprey’s current AE1107C engines to the Valor. Thereby giving the Valor an additional 2000shp. These engines could potentially increase the vertical lift capacity if the airframe could take it, but also allow it cruise faster and fly higher.
The Racer will still rely on the main rotor to generate lift by at least 60 to 70%. The V-biplane wings will then generate the rest. The main rotor’s pitch angle will be reduced to reduce the amount of lift that is being used to generate thrust. Thereby giving this job over to the two propellers. The main rotor will still be capable of the full range of movement required for hovering and transitional from and to forward flight. At some predetermined airspeed the main rotor disc will reduce its pitch angle. So it changes from a helicopter to convertiplane. The Racer’s configuration is a more elegant solution to having the best of both Worlds without too many compromises.
Am I missing something? I can only see two paragraphs, neither of which really say anything. Where’s the rest of the article?
just thinking the same thing …
Shortest article I’ve read for a while.
Same here.
I also don’t see any article.
Yep, seems to have disappeared…
I missed it. Was it any good?
I was too late too…!
I think it is the result of a combination of complex political transactions and the demands of local industries, rather than simple importation of weapons. headache problem.
Am I missing something? The article appears to be missing. There’s just an intro.
i thought was just me, just a statement
Yup same
Here we go again… Augusta Westland. Another episode of government corruption. To be fair, I am surprised there are still those in the tory party who have shares… I know Michael Heseltine and co had plenty.
AgustaWestland, Augusta is the golf course
Looks pretty (to someone) however as a potential ‘workhorse’ for the British armed forces… what a load of garbage!
Just for a comparison there was a recent S&R Training in Israel involved a Griffin a Black Hawk and a AW149. and it showed the 3 in formation. and of those 3 AW149 Looked like if it took any fire it would snap in 2. lot of glass windows in a military spec chopper.
44 units if we go for either of the Leo or Airbus i see numbers drop. as they need development. Black Hawk ok will be assembled in the UK from parts from Poland. same as all the rest, but at least it will do everything it says on the tin.
The 149 does not need development it’s an in service rotor with 2 nations. It’s also a bottom up military rotor that does what it says on the tin. It’s also a better rotor in most ways than a black hawk. It’s got better crash survivability, can carry more troops and a great load a longer distance.
Is now that what it passes for judgement today?
I will point out the blind spots of domestic production plants that everyone overlooks.
1. Enter into arms procurement agreements with companies to maintain factory production lines in Britain and hire and retain people
2. The company builds a factory in Britain and builds a production line. However, factories related to core technology are already in possession of other countries. The company cannot move this.
There is a high probability that it will be the final assembly plant.
3. The final assembly plant constantly needs additional funding from the British government – products made in Britain are not sold in other countries; Because all countries are obsessed with creating jobs in their own country and producing domestically.
This means that the British government must continue to place new orders in addition to ongoing maintenance contracts with companies. – Otherwise, the factory will disappear.
The good reason for maintaining Britain’s industry means the endless flow of money from the British government.
Pay attention to France’s arms trade
The French government sells.
It is for the maintenance of the domestic arms industry and job creation.
This is possible because all technology-related production takes place in France.
What about Britain?
Blade rotor optics, all must be imported.
A one-off project like this, which simply favors the development of the local economy and convenience to businesses, will never sustain industry and jobs.
sound that industrial maintenance is
Thin and pathetic plans, not a careful and well planned approach,.
There does seem to be a bit of miss understanding around the AW149.
first its not a development product with risks, it’s an operational rotor in two states so the design has already been de risked.
Second, it’s not an inferior civilian design painted green, it was a ground up build millitary rotor.
third, it is a competitively priced rotor and as long as the procurement team are not idiots we will get the 44 required of this already de risked rotor.
fouth, it’s not inferior to the black hawk, infact it’s better in many many areas, just go out and read the open source data from fight periodicals. It carries more troops than black hawk, it’s carriers a better load and has a better thought out cabin, it has a smoother ride than any other meduim military rotor to reduce troop and crew fatigue, it’s big windows are purposeful as it allows side gunners that will not be in the way of the side doors allowing for clearer entrance and exit by troops. It’s more crash resistant in regards to meters per second decent that back hawk, but black hawk beats it’s on lateral forces. It has better range than black hawk and the can both run dry of oil for the same. Aw149 has the same footprint as Blackhawk but you get a better load and troop numbers for that footprint. All in all the 149 is the better rotor, it’s just not got the same profile as black hawk but that’s because it’s new.
finally with all that Blackhawk would kill our rotor industry, where as a 149 production line will allow is to sell a new meduim rotor that’s at the start of its life cycle to the rest of the world….global Britain not little Britain.
Thanks for that Jonathan. I admire how passionate you are on this particularly. I know nothing of the helicopter myself, so will have a read over a cuppa.
I also enjoyed reading your post, thanks Jonathan
Hi Jonathan. Thanks for posting this commentary, really good reading. Out of interest, is there a particular reason why theAW189 in not being considered as opposed to the AW149?
Jonanthan, cancel my last. A glance on wikipedia indicates the AW189 is the civilian version of the AW149
I was just going to reply. Yes it civilianed version of the AW149, aimed at SAR, oil rigs and constabulary work as its very high end for a civilian rotor with run dry gearbox. It’s going to be the main SAR rotor for the U.K. and will also be based in the falklands.
Much obliged Jonathan
Blackhawk every time, and yes I’ve flown in them, Merlins and Pumas. A smooth ride, pilots love them and they’re cheaper allowing MOD to use the savings to fill other capability gaps ie ASuW.
Who cares which one it is as long no more than should end up gathering dust in a hanger waiting parts from an EU company as the typhoons. Either source a stockpile of spare parts or get the thing built of parts manufactered in the UK. MOD learn a lesson ? someone must a sneaked something in my tea today !
Another uncountable amount of cash heading in the general direction of Bloomsbury!