Liam Fox has been urging industry to improve value for money for the taxpayer. The irony is that the majority of cost inflation is caused by government interference but that’s another story.
“The defence programme is entirely unaffordable – especially if we try to do what we need to do in the future while simultaneously doing everything that we’ve done in the past
Without cost containment in the current programmes, we have no option but to either cut the programmes currently under way or curtail investment in future programmes. We demand, and the nation expects, that our armed forces are provided with the equipment and support they require to do the jobs that we ask them to do. But in addition, we demand, and the nation expects, that we can demonstrate value for money on defence expenditure”
Serious stuff indeed.
So with that as a backdrop, very limited money and a real pressure for defence suppliers to contribute to cost savings, a stated desire for greater collaboration/resource sharing with the French and Saint Vince of the Cable said to be looking seriously at the FSTA PFI, we have a number of strands that could combine to create a more efficient package.
We have discussed the FSTA PFI a number of times, it seems a PFI too far and on face value, extremely poor value for money for a very ordinary capability. The aircraft that form the service will not be able to refuel a number of RAF types, it will not be able to take on fuel whilst airborne itself and a number of other design deficiencies that are deliberately accepted to ensure the aircraft can be used in the civilian market when not required by the RAF.
We need a mature and very carefully considered approach that provides a realistic and effective capability whilst maintaining the profit of the various companies involved. Profit is not a dirty word because it sustains these manufacturers and that is of course, good for the country.
When we look at the organisations that form part of the Airtanker PFI consortium and the manufacturer of the A400 we see a range of organisations that have the potential for business with the MoD and DGA beyond the A400 and tankers.
Cobham, VT, Rolls Royce, Thales and of course, EADS (parent of Airbus)
Everyone knows the FSTA is a bad deal so if the consortium members decide to lawyer up and enforce their penalty clauses then maybe we might reconsider the A400 and other deals the consortium members are involved in. After all, we can simply walk away from the A400 with no penalties whatsoever and in any arrangement, if both parties agree to walk away, there is no need for expensive contract lawyers.
Its time we stopped being a frightened lamb and got everyone around the table and discuss a long term future that would both deliver capability and sustain industrial capacity to the benefit of all.
Both the UK and France have substantial requirements for the A400
Both the UK and France have substantial requirements for an airborne refuelling and strategic transport aircraft
Training, maintenance and other facilities could be pooled and whilst there are significant issues about the sharing mechanisms there are options worth considering. We don’t have to share the aircraft in their entirety, a national buy plus a shared pool might provide a baseline capability for both the UK and France whilst providing surge capacity for UK/French use or even to other nations.
If we pooled our resources, contracted with OCCAR and created a single ‘mega deal’ we could realise cost savings for the UK and French armed forces whilst providing the industrial partners with a stable long term deal, both are desirable in the kind of financial environment of the day.
Cool heads, maturity, pragmatism and a long term view need to prevail, not contract lawyers.
Digg it!
Add to Delicious!
Share on Facebook!
Share on Reddit!
Stumble it
Add to Technorati
8 Comments
Sounds reasonable.
I would like to see AAR being allowed on other aircraft which is another reason to bin the PFI. A400M can do it, and can refuel helos, a capability we’ve never had before.
If we did get rid of it we would still be obligated to buy the A330′s as is though, right? That’s a shame because it would obviously be much better if they had their own refuelling ability and the ability to refuel all our aircraft types (and our allies). Would it really have cost so much more to add a boom from the start?
Its not the cost, there is no way you could lease an aircraft with a boom and great big probe on the front to the civilian market so its nothing at all to do with cost.
The A330 is from EADS, one of the FSTA consortium, so thats what I mean about pragmatism.
We get the aircraft we need and also the A400 could be included in the air refuelling mix, which would be great for the Falklands and of course would supplement the A330 in the role.
Doh! New post and I commented on the other one oh well.
Dreaming a bit… something that could work as Admin suggested is a split national capability buy and a pooled capability buy. I’m thinking along the lines of us and the French each buying say 6-8 aircraft fully equipped with flying boom as well as probe and drogue these would be owned and operated by the respective countries. Then another 6-8 aircraft could be bought and pooled for use by either of the two nations when needed or leased to NATO nations and other trusted allies like the C-17 pool.
Depending on specification they could possibly even be leased out to the civilian market which would allow us to accept the few aircraft already being modified under the PFI.
Euan, I like that suggestion quite a bit. Ideally the airframes currently meant for the Airtanker PFI could form the joint pool, meaning a smaller buy by the UK and France (of full military spec airframes with it’s own probe and boom) could fill the national requirements. It’s mean we always have at least a few dedicated aircraft as well as plenty of surge capability.
It’d also make up for the shortfall in airframes we would be facing thanks to going from 21 to 14 aircraft).
That’s part of the idea is to make use of the aircraft currently being modified as it would no doubt cost more money not to mention hassle to reconfigure the 2-3 aircraft currently being worked on. As they would not change they could be leased on the civilian market if nobody wanted to lease them for AAR. However I can see the RAF or French Air Force making use of them to move personnel and supplies around if need be replacing charter flights to the Falklands and Canada etc.
I don’t think it’ll help at all with aircraft numbers as we would have say 8 dedicated aircraft and at most call upon the 6 pooled aircraft for a total of still only 14 aircraft but it should cost less. I doubt it would cost a whole lot less but if we could split the cost of the 6 pooled aircraft with the French and then lease them it will save a bit of cash. If you look back at my old comments you’ll notice that to me FSTA means Fucking Short of Tankers Again for good reason but hey what do I know(Sorry for the language).
Agreed, that a more ambitious deal combining A400 and A330 in combination with the French makes sence and should replace the existing deals.
I think the idea that any of these aircraft are going to find a market in the commercial sector when they are not being used by the RAF is crazy. There is NO shortage of second hand/lease aircraft and these are not cargo aircraft. I simply can’t see this aspect working.
In reality we don’t need as many tankers as we did in the past. The RAF will have fewer aircraft but we do need boom AAR to refuel C17 and RC135 and the ability to refuel helicopters by A400 should be a long term ambition.
Jasons,
Your last graf there seems spot on. Also, frankly, it would be good to work up a couple of unsinkable way-stations again for which I nominate Ascension (think of selling that one to ground staff as a change of station …) and beefing RAF Akrotiri back up a bit.
Euan,
I lost a mouthful of fruit juice on a fairly decent laptop at that last sentence. Thank you kindly :) I know from an American uncle who was in a unique little airborne armoured outfit late Sixties/early Seventies that the C-5s were called FREDs when they entered service. That ended with “Ridiculous Expensive Disasters.” I’ll let you guess the rest.
If we are purchasing the A330 airframes new, why not just purchase second hand A330-200 airframes from the likes of Emirates who will be retiring theirs soon and simply refit them? After all tbe Boeing programme offered ex BA 767s