back to article Britain to slash F-35 orders? Erm, no, scoffs Lockheed UK boss

F-35 maker Lockheed Martin’s UK chief has breezily dismissed the idea of Britain cutting the number of jets it is buying from the US firm. Speaking to the Press Association, Peter Ruddock said he was “respectful” of the Ministry of Defence’s financial situation, which happens to include a whopping great big black hole to the …

Page:

  1. Lee D Silver badge

    I read that as:

    "Ha, they can try, but the penalty clause will end up costing them more."

    1. Korev Silver badge
      Coat

      Looks like they've walked into a (cat and) trap

    2. Peter2 Silver badge

      Actually, it's worse than that.

      If we cancelled the order then we'd lose our workshare for building them, which is currently 15% of the value of each aircraft. That money ends up in our economy and obviously gets taxed. If there are thousands built, we make serious money from it.

      Basically, the production run is going to be >3100, as that's the existing order book. We build 15% of them, and UK suppliers are charged 20% VAT. At that rate, for every ~30 F35's bought anywhere in the world it pays for 1 F35 just from the VAT on the components we build unless my math is seriously off. We're buying maybe a hundred, and there are already 3,100 on the order book so the cost to the UK government of buying the aircraft is actually going to be a net negative.

      Militarily the F35 is an expensive abomination of very questionable use against any serious opposition, but because the economic benefits from building it are so serious we are pretty much obliged to say "Wow, what a worldbeating wonderful aircraft! Consider buying some!" when asked about it, even though it's theoretically got about the same combat range as the WW2 Fairy Swordfish if actually armed.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        I think your maths is a tad out. I work for a company that supplies bits and pieces to BAE. They claim the VAT back from HMRC cos they are a business customer and we’re both VAT registered. We also supply to the US equivalent. We don’t charge them VAT cos it’s an export. The only people who pay VAT are consumers. I doubt very much that Richard Branson is lined up to buy a pleasure F-35.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        If we cancelled the order then we'd lose our workshare for building them, which is currently 15% of the value of each aircraft.

        When you look at the reported components made by UK manufacturers, it's bloody difficult to see how Blighty is getting a 15% share of the programme. There's some very creative accounting to reclassify any parts made by US subsidiaries of UK companies as "UK value", and even parts made by US companies that might have now or ever had UK subsidiaries.

        And there's another common sense test that the 15% claim fails, and that's the idea that the US military and government would let ANY other country build one eighth of the entire programme for the most advanced aircraft they've ever built.

        The only people who could be stupid enough to believe that the UK will produce c$80bn of components for the F35 are British politicians.

        1. EnviableOne

          May have been 15% when RR were going to supply the second engine option, instead of just the lift gear for the B variant

        2. Alan Brown Silver badge

          "There's some very creative accounting to reclassify any parts made by US subsidiaries of UK companies as "UK value", and even parts made by US companies that might have now or ever had UK subsidiaries."

          In the same way that a fire safe made in Korea and fitted with(*) shelving plus a chinese electronic lock bolted on in Liverpool is classified as "made in Britain" and even gets a union jack sticker on it.

          (*) Not meaning actually installed, just added to the parts as it passes through.

      3. joed

        >3100? 3100+ ultra expensive planes? This is not WWII to crank up such numbers (especially considering the pricetag). It'll be great if 310 is made (and still too much for the taxpayer).

        1. Mine's a Large One

          3100?

          That's across all customers, not just the UK.

          Although most countries - including the US - are looking at whether they can actually afford the numbers they signed up for originally...

        2. SkippyBing

          'It'll be great if 310 is made (and still too much for the taxpayer).'

          Well they'd delivered 265 to all customers by the end of last year with another 90 due this year so that should be happening sometime soon.

        3. Alan Brown Silver badge

          ">3100? 3100+ ultra expensive planes?"

          Those numbers keep falling whilst the costs keep rising.

      4. Hans Neeson-Bumpsadese Silver badge

        theoretically got about the same combat range as the WW2 Fairy Swordfish if actually armed.

        Small point of pedantry - that should be Fairey with an 'e'.

        When spelled without the 'e' the word has a different meaning, as in "the idea of the F35 ever working as intended is a complete fairy story"

        1. Lyndon Hills 1

          Small point of pedantry - that should be Fairey with an 'e'.

          When spelled without the 'e' the word has a different meaning, as in "the idea of the F35 ever working as intended is a complete fairy story"

          Yeah, but who doesn't like the idea of going to war in a fairy swordfish?

      5. SkippyBing

        ' even though it's theoretically got about the same combat range as the WW2 Fairey Swordfish if actually armed.'

        So twice the combat range of a Harrier and carrying twice the stores? Or the same range as a Swordfish but carrying three to four times as much five times faster? Or about 160 nautical miles further than an F-16 carrying a similar payload?

        I mean if you want another fatuous comparison it's got only a quarter of the range of a B-24 Liberator, but it will be carrying four times the payload. And have a radar.

        1. ThePieMan

          But what's the range when compared to Olympic sized swimming pools or football pitches?

      6. Milton

        "F35 is an expensive abomination of very questionable use"

        Not sure about your arithmetic, Peter2, but your assessment of the aircraft is in line with most objective, knowledgeable observers: it's a ridiculously expensive POS. The vested interests—Lockheed; the Congresscritters whose pork has been purchased; and those taking orders in the military—have to pretend the plane is worthwhile, and have to lie to everyone else for money and career, but very few uncontaminated observers see much good in the F-35.

        The stealth is a rapidly-obsoleting "feature", which actually severely limits the plane's ordnance loadout and performance while costing vast amounts of time and money to keep intact. The ordnance and range are pathetic. The losses of a single-engined plane are going to be bad even in peacetime, no matter which political idiots clai that there will "never" be engine failures. It is useless for close air support and too expensive to risk in low-level roles anyway, and cannot risk engagement with almost any other competent fighter because it "Can't climb, can't turn, can't run". Its supposed assets and ludicrously optimistic wargaming are all founded on the quicksand of dumb faith: that fancy stand-off technology will magically help it shoot down enemies before they even know it's there. A crummy old fourth-gen fighter flown by a dogfighter mentality needs to put just a single round of 30-mil through the F-35's only engine and it's game over. Alternatively, a bird strike can bugger up the stealth coating and put the expensive jewel in the body-and-paint shop for three solid days.

        It's gobstoppingly amazing that the US didn't learn from the mistakes made with F-111, a similar one-size-fits-all fiasco; or from the F-4, sent to Vietnam without a cannon because, hey, missiles will work perfectly and dogfighting just won't happen.

        It's even more shocking that British procurement was so stunningly stupid. Specifying the QE class without CATOBAR has trapped the Brits into using the F-35's worst variant of all—especially since we basically gave away the Sea Harriers well before the end of their service life ... yeah, the only V/STOL aircraft actually proven in combat. Not that it will matter in the long run, of course. Having slashed the acquisition of support ships for battlegroups that would protect the carriers, their life expectancy against any serious adversary is hours or days at most.

        The QEs and their crappy planes can look forward to a dismal career lurking off flyspecked Third World coastlines flying very short attack missions using very expensive ordnance to blow up very cheap pickup trucks belonging to suspected possible maybe terrorists, or massacring the occasional tribal wedding.

        Utter shambles.

        1. Alan Brown Silver badge

          Re: "F35 is an expensive abomination of very questionable use"

          "It's gobstoppingly amazing that the US didn't learn from the mistakes made with F-111"

          Oh, but they did.

          The lesson being "how to ensure your pork program doesn't get cancelled"

      7. Alan Brown Silver badge

        " We build 15% of them"

        That 15% is vastly overstated, as has been explained a few times in these forums

        "and UK suppliers are charged 20% VAT."

        erm. no. They get to claim it all back. VAT ends up only paid on actual consumption, not on things that are sold on or used as components of something sold on.

    3. Warm Braw

      A smart government would make them subject to punitive import duties and/or economic sanctions to offset those imposed by the US and deem the penalty clause void.

      Seems to be the way international relations work these days...

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "...a retired RAF air marshal who is now chief exec of Lockheed Martin UK."

      So, no hint of the possibility of a suggestion of the potential for an opportunity of a whiff of a conflict of interests in the procurement process there then.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Conflict of interest?

        "no hint of the possibility of a suggestion of the potential for an opportunity of a whiff of a conflict of interests in the procurement process there then."

        Of course there isn't. If there was, the SFO would be on it straight away (till they were instructed from On High to stop looking in places where they didn't oughta be looking. Or else.)

        1. Alan Brown Silver badge

          Re: Conflict of interest?

          "(till they were instructed from On High to stop looking in places where they didn't oughta be looking. Or else.)"

          Perhaps this is why they're declining to investigate millions of pounds of fraud in at least one UK county council.

    5. HairyGnome

      Or claim our money back on the basis that the aeroplane is years late and does not perform to specification?

    6. Alan Brown Silver badge

      "Ha, they can try, but the penalty clause will end up costing them more."

      That depends on how the "fitness for purpose" part was written and if there are provisions to allow cancellation for cost creep.

      But of course being a contract drawn up by the UK government, it won't have any of these.

  2. TRT Silver badge

    I read that as:

    Airbus? We don't need no steenkin' Airbus. But you need us, Amigo. That's right, you need us reeeeel bad. Boys, fetch the barrel, we'z gonna have us a leetle fun, eh? Now pucker up, sweetheart... heh heh heh heh *spit*

    1. smudge

      Re: I read that as:

      You don't often hear former RAF Air Marshals speaking like that!

      1. Jemma

        Re: I read that as:

        Depends if he realises that the mike is still on... British politicians and generals have quite the record for diving in with both feet when they think something is in private.

        Then you have people like Enoch "I'm really lucky Sam Vimes isn't real" Powell - a walking argument for violent revolution.

      2. TRT Silver badge

        Re: former RAF Air Marshals

        In my head that was Lockheed Martin's US parent company's pre-press briefing to Ruddock.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I read that as:

        >You don't often hear former RAF Air Marshals speaking like that!

        The port was pretty fortified this year.

    2. SkippyBing

      Re: I read that as:

      To be fair Airbus's attempt at a military aircraft, the A400 hasn't exactly been an unqualified success. They had to ask the partner governments not to apply the penalty clauses for failing to meet key performance requirements.

      1. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: I read that as:

        "the A400 hasn't exactly been an unqualified success"

        The A400 would have been built no matter what. Europe (and france in particular) being dependent on the USA for military cargo transports was not going to be tolerated. In the old days it would have been built to government contract with the price remaning classified.

  3. Gordon 10

    If we actually buy the entire 138 I will eat my hat

    <EOM>

    We will of course quietly pay the only slightly less than full price extortionate cancellation fee...

    1. Jonathon Green
      Black Helicopters

      Re: If we actually buy the entire 138 I will eat my hat

      I’ll take a wild guess at buying the entire 138 and then about half of them either going immediately into mothballs or being sold-on at a knock-down price to whoever is flavour of the month (and is on the US list of people they want to prop-up but not be seen directly doing highly preferential deals with) in the Middle East at a knock-down price...

      1. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: If we actually buy the entire 138 I will eat my hat

        " half of them either going immediately into mothballs "

        Funny you should say that. That was announced as the plan a while back.

  4. Zwuramunga

    Unless....

    They buy back those Harriers.

    1. CliveS
      FAIL

      Re: Unless....

      Unlikely as the 77 Harriers sold to the US now reside - in kit form, minus some pieces - at Davis-Monthan AFB in Arizona.

      As Rear Admiral Mark Heinrich, chief of the US Navy’s procurement, said "We’re taking advantage of all the money the Brits have spent on them. It’s like we’re buying a car with maybe 15,000 miles on it. These are very good platforms. And we’ve already got trained pilots."

  5. Banksy
    Joke

    Commute

    If they have any going spare I could probably use one on my commute. The VTOL ability should be useful for that. All the press pieces say they're easy to fly so let's try it out.

  6. Jove Bronze badge

    The GBP 20 Billion is an estimate, it is not clear what the figure will be once there is clarity on a number of topics. More likely to cut front-line troops with a review of the presence in Europe (Germany is already gone by 2020).

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "...a retired RAF air marshal who is now chief exec of Lockheed Martin UK..."

    Totally normal. Nothing wrong with this situation at all. Completely proper and above board. Revolving whatnow?

    1. Brewster's Angle Grinder Silver badge

      Re: "...a retired RAF air marshal who is now chief exec of Lockheed Martin UK..."

      If it revolves fast enough you get helicopter management.

    2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: "...a retired RAF air marshal who is now chief exec of Lockheed Martin UK..."

      ..and not biased at all, no siree Bob!

  8. This post has been deleted by its author

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    US Patent Application US20180047462A1

    From the Internet tubes: "Lockheed Martin's compact fusion reactor would be the size of shipping container, but capable of powering an aircraft carrier."

    Supposed to be applicable to aircraft too. So I'd hold out for the F-35(F) version, powered by a tiny but powerful Lockheed Martin Compact Fusion Reactor. Should be here within months.

    1. Jemma

      Re: US Patent Application US20180047462A1

      Already been done but for the love of <insert deity here> don't put a filter balun on the power output feedback line. That's the sort of mistake you only make once in a career - at the end.

      The HTRE reactors worked well - but using a filter to clean up a power sensor signal feed tricked the reactor into thinking power was crashing in basically a reverse supercritical event when actually it was increasing - because the filter attenuation clipped the signal - the automatic systems pulled all the rods to "recover" the reactor and promptly cooked it beyond repair - although due to the excellent design - no serious radioactivity was released.

      PS - never clean out your reactor vessel with Borax cleaner - all you'll have afterwards is a $15m pressure cooker. A US university found that one out the hard way. So did some contract cleaners! Although on the upside - the reactor had never been more sparkly.

    2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: US Patent Application US20180047462A1

      "a tiny but powerful Lockheed Martin Compact Fusion Reactor."

      And marketed as Mr Fusion?

  10. This post has been deleted by its author

  11. YARR

    If the F-35 remains our only fifth gen fighter, we'll need them all, even if some are kept as spares ( i.e. not in active service).

    Carrier fighters only have a short lifespan so the QE-class carriers will need a replacement air wing or two. The only likely replacements will be more F-35's or F-35 derivatives.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Giant floating drone launchpad.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "Carrier fighters only have a short lifespan so the QE-class carriers will need a replacement air wing or two. The only likely replacements will be more F-35's or F-35 derivatives."

      There are several jet fighters that can operate off a ski-jump carrier without catapults. One or two of them are built in Europe.

      Most are less expensive and less fragile than F-35s, and all have lower operating costs.

      Most have superior aerodynamic characteristics, and integrated Infrared Search and Track, which is not affected by radar 'stealth'.

      Likely all of them have better availability and maintenance time per flight hour numbers.

      They are probably all fairly functional without massive computer support overheads and limitations that plague the F-35.

      The same amount of money probably buys and flys, over their lifetime, two to three times as many of the other aircraft.

      The other aircraft have a wide range of working weapons already integrated in their control software, whereas the F-35 still hasn't got many of its planned weapons working, despite the 'for show' declaration of operational status.

      Of course, such a choice would assume that the primary criteria are military, rather than political and corporate agendas.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "There are several jet fighters that can operate off a ski-jump carrier without catapults. One or two of them are built in Europe."

        At least one of the potential candidates has open software, so you don't have to pay a third of a billion dollars for each update, or wait for the manufacturer and a foreign military to decide to add your chosen weapon to the menus.

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like