Linking A400 and FSTA
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.
