So what's the real cost of a UH-60M Blackhawk…

#1
#4
…including countermeasures equipment, training services and logistics support?

About the same as a Lynx Widcat it would seem
I suppose it depends what you mean by the word 'cost', I think there is an amazing amount of smoke and mirrors attached to that word when it comes to defence spending, all designed to obscure whatever is really going on.
 
#6
Far less than the more capable Blackhawk. However, it doesn't support jobs in Yeovil so is a non-starter politically.

Regards,
MM
 
#7
Far less than the more capable Blackhawk. However, it doesn't support jobs in Yeovil so is a non-starter politically.

Regards,
MM


Far less for a Wildcat?

Well, that's what the MOd/Wasteland excusers have sought to portray when people have queried why the offer of Blackhawks was rejected in favour of another not really fit for purpose Wasteland product. The usual excuses were , 'Ah yes, but a Blackhawk cost would not include ' countermeasures equipment, training services and logistics support' and when you include all that, the Blackhawk would be so much more expensive than a Wildcat.

Well, 62 Wildcat are costing us £1.7 Billion.

1.7 Billion divided by 62 = £27.5 Million a pop

The Blackhawks in that Swedish package, the latest and rather gucchi UH-60M are £24.5 Million all inclusive.


Still, the CS wallah that signed off on the Wasteland deal is now gainfully employed by Finmeccanica and Smiths Industries so I'm sure the extra £3 Million per cab for a far less capable cab was money well spent to ensure his future wellbeing.
 

maninblack

LE
Book Reviewer
#8
Far less for a Wildcat?

Well, that's what the MOd/Wasteland excusers have sought to portray when people have queried why the offer of Blackhawks was rejected in favour of another not really fit for purpose Wasteland product. The usual excuses were , 'Ah yes, but a Blackhawk cost would not include ' countermeasures equipment, training services and logistics support' and when you include all that, the Blackhawk would be so much more expensive than a Wildcat.

Well, 62 Wildcat are costing us £1.7 Billion.

1.7 Billion divided by 62 = £27.5 Million a pop

The Blackhawks in that Swedish package, the latest and rather gucchi UH-60M are £24.5 Million all inclusive.


Still, the CS wallah that signed off on the Wasteland deal is now gainfully employed by Finmeccanica and Smiths Industries so I'm sure the extra £3 Million per cab for a far less capable cab was money well spent to ensure his future wellbeing.
You are a tiny minded bunch of retards.

The cost of UH60and Wildcat per airframe are broadly similar.

Wildcat is a Lynx derivative. There is a footprint in place for the support of Lynx......spares, logistics etc. The training package for Lynx to Wildcat is calculated.

When the press start spouting about Blackhawk, Seahawk etc. being cheaper they are only talking about the purchase price per airframe.

The cost of introducing a new maintenance regime is astronomical.

Stop reading The Independent and look at the reality.
 
#9
I'm not saying they made the right decision for a minute, but the financial case for buying Brit kit must be almost
overwhelming because homegrown stuff is, as near as dammit, free.

Buy Blackhawks and that's it, the money is gone.

Spend £1.7bn at Westlands and the Treasury will get most of it back through income tax, PAYE, tax on profits company tax etc, and then all the indirect taxes that the employees
will also pay, car tax, telly tax, fuel fags and alcohol duty, stamp duty, VAT, council tax...... you get my point.

Looked at that way it makes buying from abroad proper expensive.
 
#10
Apologies for the typo. I did of course mean that the Wildcat was far more than the more capable H-60 variants. Moreover, the H-60 is better suited to both AAC and FAA requirements as opposed to the FLynx which is fine for the RN but extremely limited for the Army.

As MiB suggests, the costs are not quite as disparate as some would suggest. Equally however, I suspect the Wildcat will require significantly different logs and trg because it is a radically different type to the Lynx 'classic'.

However, it's all still academic as HMG have clearly decided that the UK requires an indiginous helicopter manufacturing capability so Westlands is the only option.

Micawber said:
...the financial case for buying Brit kit must be almost
overwhelming because homegrown stuff is, as near as dammit, free.
Are you for real Micawber?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I do wish nurses wouldn't leave the respite care home IT suite unlocked.

Regards,
MM
 

maninblack

LE
Book Reviewer
#11
Look at the cost of a new belt buckle.

Raf+Navy+Army including reserves is £1.00 x 200K equals £200,000

Change to system, £50K as a minimum

Withdrawal of old buckle......£Christ only knows

Distribution of spares..£100K

Changes to manuals...£300K

General noise and logistical boll0cks...£1 million

ergo....new belt buckle costs somewhere in the region of £2 million

New helicopter?

£200 million before you have blinked.
 
#12
Another aspect to look at is that a good chunk of money given to domestic suppliers is recouped through taxes, not so imports from lands afar. I read, i think on here, that this is taken into account by bean counters when approving buys.
 
#13
Another aspect to look at is that a good chunk of money given to domestic suppliers is recouped through taxes, not so imports from lands afar. I read, i think on here, that this is taken into account by bean counters when approving buys.


You are aware of course that Wasteland is now an Italian owned company and it also holds a licence to make the UH-60?
 
#15
Magic mushroom, if you could do the decent thing and point out where I am all at sea I'd be genuinely obliged.

But if not, then bollocks to you.
 
#16
You are a tiny minded bunch of retards.

The cost of UH60and Wildcat per airframe are broadly similar.

Wildcat is a Lynx derivative. There is a footprint in place for the support of Lynx......spares, logistics etc. The training package for Lynx to Wildcat is calculated.

When the press start spouting about Blackhawk, Seahawk etc. being cheaper they are only talking about the purchase price per airframe.

The cost of introducing a new maintenance regime is astronomical.

Stop reading The Independent and look at the reality.


Remind us again how much commonality there is between a clockwork Lynx and a Wildcat?


And please do keep up, the Swedish contract includes the cost of all the things the decryers claim is not included in typical UH-60 price comparisons, spares, support, training and DAS.

QED: It would appear that the claims that UH-60 would be mahoosively more expensive than Wastelands latest far too small for the job wonder has been rather blown out of the water as we now have a like for like costing finally available for the two cabs.
 
#17
Semps, I think the licence expired some time ago
Matters not, just buy them as a package direct from Sikorsky like the Swedes have been quoted for.
 
#18
Apologies for the typo. I did of course mean that the Wildcat was far more than the more capable H-60 variants. Moreover, the H-60 is better suited to both AAC and FAA requirements as opposed to the FLynx which is fine for the RN but extremely limited for the Army.

As MiB suggests, the costs are not quite as disparate as some would suggest. Equally however, I suspect the Wildcat will require significantly different logs and trg because it is a radically different type to the Lynx 'classic'.

However, it's all still academic as HMG have clearly decided that the UK requires an indiginous helicopter manufacturing capability so Westlands is the only option.
Regards,
MM


And there we have it, much the same cost, but one if FAR more suitable for purpose, I'm perfectly happy for them to support an indiginous helicopter manufacturing capability in the manner that we did with the WAH-64 if that's the case. The Wildcat is what it is though, another Wasteland 'battlefield helicopter' that will have zero export success as it's not fit for purpose and hugely more expensive than similar sized teeny weenies like warry painted Jet Rangers.

And Wildcat for the Navy? Lynx 300 meets most of the Navy's requirements already.



IMO, Lynx Wildcat encapsulates perfectly EVERYTHING that has gone wrong with UK arms procurement.
 
#19
Magic mushroom, if you could do the decent thing and point out where I am all at sea I'd be genuinely obliged.

But if not, then bollocks to you.
I see that intellectual debate is not your strong point Micawber.

However, if you honestly believe that the financial case for buying British is 'overwhelming' you need to take a bit of a reality pill.

We have to accept that the UK military will always be forced to procure indiginous equipment to an extent in order to support UK employment, strategic capacity, marginal constituencies etc. Likewise, all contractors are there to make money, not necessarily the right kit or indeed what you want.

However, let me assure you, as someone that has a fair degree of experience working with specific UK contractors, buying British is most certainly not always the best financial deal for UK PLC. Indeed, in specific cases, I have considered certain companies actively hostile and disingenuous to our interests, financial or otherwise.

Regards,
MM
 
#20
Elements of AAC were against Lynx before it entered service, IIRC the issue was it wasn’t one thing or the other, it replaced the much smaller Scout in the battlefield utility role. BH is more like a Puma replacement (lt/med battlefield tpt).

However, the reasons for Lynx are easy to discern, even if AAC didn’t/don’t like them. It comes down to minimising the numbers of types (cost) and increasing the size of UK production (price). And in the Cold War RN ASW capabilities were probably deemed more important than AAC battlefield ones so ASW dictated the performance requirements (as for Merlin). My understanding is that RN ASW tactics involve autonomous heli, whereas USN ones (with SeaHawk) have the heli tightly controlled by the ship.

Today the issue is still the driving requirements, are they RN or AAC? ASW/ASurW heli are frigate multipliers (ie you need less frigates) and frigates are expensive. While it could be argued that this week battlefield requirements have priority over ASW/ASurW ones, the proliferation of submarines and small surface combatants (number of navies not single nation fleet size) means this is not necessarily a good strategic perspective.

It also seems that all WC will be supported by a single RNAS (ie cost minimisation).
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top