UK Defence have spent large sums with overseas suppliers, since labour came into power at the cost of the UK Defence industry, should we now invest back into the UK industries, but be more competitive with the prices and go for fixed price contracts and where we are able to be self sufficent in equiping our services locally. like wise can we design and build our own aircraft again!!
Should UK MOD revert to UK defence companies before buying overseas
- Thread starter bonehead
- Start date
weasel1962
New Member
Re:
If one studies economics, one would understand comparative advantage.
UK has the capability to built, design and buy 100% of 150 F-35Bs for its own use.
Alternatively, it can give up 50% of the built and design to ensure that it gets 50% of 500+ F-35Bs.
Which option do you think UK benefits more from?
Americans would of course encourage anyone to buy F-35As and Cs rather than Bs. Is it surprising too that the Americans would want the PW F-135 as the sole engine rather than the GE/Rolls Royce F-136?
Building part of an a/c for a larger market can make more money than building a less capable a/c.
If one studies economics, one would understand comparative advantage.
UK has the capability to built, design and buy 100% of 150 F-35Bs for its own use.
Alternatively, it can give up 50% of the built and design to ensure that it gets 50% of 500+ F-35Bs.
Which option do you think UK benefits more from?
Americans would of course encourage anyone to buy F-35As and Cs rather than Bs. Is it surprising too that the Americans would want the PW F-135 as the sole engine rather than the GE/Rolls Royce F-136?
Building part of an a/c for a larger market can make more money than building a less capable a/c.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #3
We dont have a build facility agreement for the F35 currently, only italy has this and they were going to also supply the Dutch who have now pulled out of the programme, and why would any aircraft the UK design and build be less capable, as for buying 150 airframes forget it, the defence discussions currently belive the f35 will be on the chopping block in the up coming reviews with predicted reduction in frames down to 50. and that will be dependant if the programme is its self not cancelled due to more costs.
You're confusing final assembly with build. BAe will make a significant proportion of every F-35 sold, & RR of every F-35B. The UK will get more work & revenue from that than from having an assembly line fitting together components & sub-assemblies shipped in from the USA, UK, Canada, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Turkey, & Australia. The return on investment will also be much greater. Setting up a dedicated assembly line for 200 or so aircraft, a mix of F-35A & F-35B, is costly. It is, in effect, a subsidy to Alenia from the Italian defence budget. It puts up costs, but does not give any degree of independence from the USA.
There has been no proposal to cut UK F-35B numbers to 50. That wouldn't be enough to fill a single carrier, allowing for spares & OCU. What has been proposed is to order them in batches, with a first batch of 50, or even fewer.
Since we won't buy most of our F-35Bs until after 2020, the current fiscal crisis is not going to be solved by cutting numbers. What we buy in 2025 to 2030 doesn't affect current spending.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #5
im not talking about building f35 kits but a true UK designed and built plane, as for lower numbers this has been reported in the major broadsheet news papers as well as a couple of defence websites, it has also reported in the US from the DOD that the us administraion are seriouly looking at reducing its orginal orders for the Plane, my money is its on the cards, and as for fleet air arm they were discussing reduced number last year,
How much would it cost to develop an entirely British fighter? Divide that across 150 . . . 
The unit cost would be insanely high.
We don't have infinite amounts of money.
Lower numbers have been reported all over the place, but most report I've seen have ignored the future spending & batch purchase elements. You have to be careful when evaluating reports on defence websites. Most merely regurgitate press releases, & articles written elsewhere. The number with real reporting is very small, & mostly linked to the specialist press, e.g Janes & Flight. I've sometimes tracked back stories which have been on multiple defence websites to their sources, because I was suspicious of their accuracy, & found that they all derive from one source, which has an obvious error or omission in it. In one case, for example, someone on Defense Industry Daily had misread a Selex press release, & the resulting error had proliferated. The "India to by Kittyhawk" story was on vast numbers of websites, but was pure myth.
Numbers of websites mean nothing: you need to go back to the origin.
Also, don't trust broadsheet newspapers on defence. Their reporters generally lack both expertise & contacts in the field, & the quality of editing of their articles is appalling, as editors know even less, & can butcher even the best articles into meaninglessness. Even the generally excellent FT prints nonsense on defence.
The unit cost would be insanely high. We don't have infinite amounts of money.
Lower numbers have been reported all over the place, but most report I've seen have ignored the future spending & batch purchase elements. You have to be careful when evaluating reports on defence websites. Most merely regurgitate press releases, & articles written elsewhere. The number with real reporting is very small, & mostly linked to the specialist press, e.g Janes & Flight. I've sometimes tracked back stories which have been on multiple defence websites to their sources, because I was suspicious of their accuracy, & found that they all derive from one source, which has an obvious error or omission in it. In one case, for example, someone on Defense Industry Daily had misread a Selex press release, & the resulting error had proliferated.
The "India to by Kittyhawk" story was on vast numbers of websites, but was pure myth. Numbers of websites mean nothing: you need to go back to the origin.
Also, don't trust broadsheet newspapers on defence. Their reporters generally lack both expertise & contacts in the field, & the quality of editing of their articles is appalling, as editors know even less, & can butcher even the best articles into meaninglessness. Even the generally excellent FT prints nonsense on defence.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #7
you are correct there is much discussion before the current and upcoming SDR, but as i said my money is on a cut , as for our own aircraft yes could be as much as already spent on the f35 project but at least its ours and would be british made in UK factories by british workers, the us have gone into protection mode and were the ones expected to pay for it. i dont follow broadsheets much and always treat websites with some wide how can you say question marks however as this reduction was also discussed by the UK defence select committe last year i would have thought it worthy to mentionHow much would it cost to develop an entirely British fighter? Divide that across 150 . . .
We don't have infinite amounts of money.
Lower numbers have been reported all over the place, but most report I've seen have ignored the future spending & batch purchase elements. You have to be careful when evaluating reports on defence websites. Most merely regurgitate press releases, & articles written elsewhere. The number with real reporting is very small, & mostly linked to the specialist press, e.g Janes & Flight. I've sometimes tracked back stories which have been on multiple defence websites to their sources, because I was suspicious of their accuracy, & found that they all derive from one source, which has an obvious error or omission in it. In one case, for example, someone on Defense Industry Daily had misread a Selex press release, & the resulting error had proliferated.
Numbers of websites mean nothing: you need to go back to the origin.
Also, don't trust broadsheet newspapers on defence. Their reporters generally lack both expertise & contacts in the field, & the quality of editing of their articles is appalling, as editors know even less, & can butcher even the best articles into meaninglessness. Even the generally excellent FT prints nonsense on defence.
March 2010 -
House of Commons Hansard Debates for 16 Mar 2010 (pt 0005)
The fact that something has been discussed does not mean anything. It can, as apparently in this case, mean that an MP has been prompted to ask a question by press reports, & been assured that they are incorrect.
As I've already said, you have to go back to the origin.