MoD pays quadruple in money + blood for Afghan helicopters
So the die is cast. In yet another masterly procurement move, the UK Ministry of Defence has decided to spend hundreds of millions of pounds upgrading and restoring its aged Puma helicopters - which were due to retire next year - for service in Afghanistan. This will cost more than buying a fleet of brand new choppers. The RAF' …
Does not agree with Lewis.
You have to ask yourself what is the purpose of procurement. Its certainly not to benefit our troops, the UK has a long history of providing them with as little as they can get away with.
That's nothing to do with Labour or Tory, its been going on ever since we had a professional army, because kit is expensive and labour is cheap.
You want to change that ? Then stop whinging and pay more taxes.
"Perhaps Lewis can word things a bit more clearly in future?"
Good one - that had me laughing for twenty minutes! Lewis has never been a fan of balanced reporting!
Seriously though, what is this obsession with looking only at the base cost of something?
If we buy american kit, then the cost is absolute.
If we buy British kit, then even if it appears slightly more expensive, what we get is: a big fat VAT check (most of the time, maybe not for military kit), 20% of the wage bill goes straight back to the government as income tax; 18% of the remainder comes back as VAT on the stuff that has been bought with those wages;
Knock-on sales are made to other countries, sometimes of new kit, and sometimes of our refurbished cast-offs.
@ Adam Williamson 1, re. nitpick #
Lifting 16 troops with a capacity of 2000KG is 125KG per soldier, which might be OK at sea level in a cold country, but the requirement is for hot and high (which kills helicopter performance) so I'd sooner have the Blackhawk's 185KG per soldier (it's a proven tool in Afghanistan).
@Ashley Stevens, re. Macro vs Micro #
This is a ridiculous argument; where do you stop? Why didn't the government (of the day) do this for ICL, Rover and any other manufacturing company that's gone to the wall through pricing and uncompetitive products?
Besides, £45 million of this deal is for French made engines; how does that benefit UK design and engineering expertise?
One really good reason to buy American aircraft, is that they are normally the result of a competitive bid against another product (in the case of the UH-60 the Boeing-Vertol YUH-61A); so the resulting product has at least had some competition to beat so you won't get a lame duck.
The US armed forces rarely settle for second best when it comes to equipment; why should we?
You guys are seriously complaining that money is being spent within the UK rather than being spent outside of it?
Sure it might be 'cheaper' to buy the US kit, but that means the US gets our money - by spending the money in the UK then the cash filters back to UK taxpayers, keeps skilled workers in jobs and british businesses afloat in these challenging times.
IMO that kind of back-handed benefit is worth the extra cost of what otherwise might be a bit of a daft move.
I used to enjoy Lewis's articles, but they are starting to grate. Every article is the same: "XXXX decision my MOD is stupid, why don't we just buy off the shelf 'mercan kit"
Same argument all the time makes me wonder how much he really knows / understands - real life is more nuanced than this and trotting out the same standard argument all the time undermines his credibility.
nice to see you lot equate human lives as worth exactly £0.00
lets spend our money on equipment thats not fit for purpose so we can keep the ITALIANS in jobs and throw half of it at the FRENCH for second rate engines
why worry about the lives of those dedicated to defending us when we can save...oh we cant save any money were throwing it all away to foreign companies (agusta-westland is 100% italian owned) we cant even save british jobs because the workers in the westland factories are 80+% imports from italy and france
yeah great deal - and all the while our troops are killed, maimed and disfigured for want of better kit that could be gotten cheaper. but they dont matter do they? you lot disgust me just as much as the MoD and the cancerous overgrown government that only cares about lining their own pockets, at the expense of troops AND taxpayers.
If you're getting tired of Lewis saying buy off the shelf kit that works better for less; think how tired the taxpayers are of supporting lame-duck companies for overpriced equipment that will turn up years too late to be useful.
Once again: why is the defence industry exempt from competitive forces i.e. price, quality, customer service (delivery performance)? Most of us work in environments where these are the difference between success and failure; for our armed forces they are the difference between life and death.
FAIL for the MoD!
just plain fail. i'm just venting on some internet comment page. I understand this will change nothing.
Despite all the talk of 'heros', you only have to look at their pay and conditions to see that we treat them as worthless and disposable - never mind that the primary purpose of equipping them at all seems to be to line the pockets of BAE et al.
Another great Anti-MOD story frol Lewis I see...
Please think of things like ...
Spares Stockpile
Training for pilots
Training for Support Staff (Ground Crew)
Then tell me which is the Cheaper Option...
Dont just look at the cost of the Pumas themselves..
For every Puma there are a number of pilots that need retraining and then a number of Ground Crew that have to support them. That all costs a lot of £££ for re training.
These things dont come with a Haynes Manual
Aircraft & Helos are not simple things to maintain
Its not like a car where you can take it to any mechanic to fix.
</Rant?
Yes I am Ex RAF before you ask.
