Did the MoD waste GBP 800 million on Hawk trainers?

[phil hunt]

Earlier this year, the British govmt spent GBP 800 million on 20
Hawk Mk 128 trainer aircraft.

In a highly unusual step, the MoD's permanent secretary, Sir Kevin
Tebbit, refused to sign the contract because he thought it was a
waste of money. He only signed when his boss, Defence Secretary
Geoff Hoon, told him to.

Is GBP 40m too much for a trainer? Certainly, one can buy many
fighter aircraft for less. The Eurofighter's unit cost isn't much
more.

I wonder how much the Hawk Mk 127 costs? That's been widely
exported, so I guess it would be better value.

Could the RAF have been better off buying a different trainer, such
as the Aermacchi M-346?

I've written further on my blog about this; comments are welcome:
<http://www.cabalamat.org/weblog/art_113.html>

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[Keith Willshaw]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> Earlier this year, the British govmt spent GBP 800 million on 20
> Hawk Mk 128 trainer aircraft.
>
> In a highly unusual step, the MoD's permanent secretary, Sir Kevin
> Tebbit, refused to sign the contract because he thought it was a
> waste of money. He only signed when his boss, Defence Secretary
> Geoff Hoon, told him to.
>
> Is GBP 40m too much for a trainer? Certainly, one can buy many
> fighter aircraft for less. The Eurofighter's unit cost isn't much
> more.
>

That depends on how you define the cost. In this case the report I
have states

"The company's bid is understood to offer a total training solution, under
which the RAF will supply only fuel and instructors (who will be converted
to the new aircraft by BAE). BAE will provide 11,076 flying hours per year
(with a possibility of extending this to 16,000 hours"

http://www.flightdailynews.com/paris2003/06_16/defence/bae.shtm

Comparing such a bid with the flyaway price is scarcely valid.

Keith

[phil hunt]

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 10:56:41 -0000, Keith Willshaw > wrote:
>
>"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
>> Earlier this year, the British govmt spent GBP 800 million on 20
>> Hawk Mk 128 trainer aircraft.
>>
>> In a highly unusual step, the MoD's permanent secretary, Sir Kevin
>> Tebbit, refused to sign the contract because he thought it was a
>> waste of money. He only signed when his boss, Defence Secretary
>> Geoff Hoon, told him to.
>>
>> Is GBP 40m too much for a trainer? Certainly, one can buy many
>> fighter aircraft for less. The Eurofighter's unit cost isn't much
>> more.
>>
>
>That depends on how you define the cost. In this case the report I
>have states
>
>"The company's bid is understood to offer a total training solution, under
>which the RAF will supply only fuel and instructors (who will be converted
>to the new aircraft by BAE). BAE will provide 11,076 flying hours per year
>(with a possibility of extending this to 16,000 hours"
>
>http://www.flightdailynews.com/paris2003/06_16/defence/bae.shtm
>
>Comparing such a bid with the flyaway price is scarcely valid.

Indeed, it would be. But if you look at:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,11026,1103611,00.html?=rss

it seems to imply that GBP 800m is the cost of the aircraft, and a
separate sum of GBP 2700m is for servicing them for 25 years.


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[Keith Willshaw]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 10:56:41 -0000, Keith Willshaw
> wrote:
> >

>
> Indeed, it would be. But if you look at:
>
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,11026,1103611,00.html?=rss
>
> it seems to imply that GBP 800m is the cost of the aircraft, and a
> separate sum of GBP 2700m is for servicing them for 25 years.
>

It also states that £800 million is the price for 20 aircraft

This turns out to be WRONG

from
http://www.mod.uk/dpa/hawk_128_right_choice_for_jet_trainers.htm

<Quote>
"The The BAE Systems Hawk 128 is the right choice for the Royal Air Force
and the Royal Navy's new Advanced Jet Trainer, Defence Secretary
Geoff Hoon said today.
Subject to the successful completion of contractual negotiations, the
Ministry of
Defence intends initially to purchase 20 aircraft, with options to buy up to
another 24.
The value of a full order for 44 aircraft is expected to be about £800M.
</Quote>

This makes the price under £20 million per aircraft

Keith

[phil hunt]

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 13:15:45 -0000, Keith Willshaw > wrote:
>
>"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
>> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 10:56:41 -0000, Keith Willshaw
> wrote:
>> >
>
>>
>> Indeed, it would be. But if you look at:
>>
>http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,11026,1103611,00.html?=rss
>>
>> it seems to imply that GBP 800m is the cost of the aircraft, and a
>> separate sum of GBP 2700m is for servicing them for 25 years.
>>
>
>It also states that £800 million is the price for 20 aircraft
>
>This turns out to be WRONG
>
>from
>http://www.mod.uk/dpa/hawk_128_right_choice_for_jet_trainers.htm
>
><Quote>
>"The The BAE Systems Hawk 128 is the right choice for the Royal Air Force
>and the Royal Navy's new Advanced Jet Trainer, Defence Secretary
>Geoff Hoon said today.
>Subject to the successful completion of contractual negotiations, the
>Ministry of
>Defence intends initially to purchase 20 aircraft, with options to buy up to
>another 24.
>The value of a full order for 44 aircraft is expected to be about £800M.
></Quote>
>
>This makes the price under £20 million per aircraft

You're absolutely right. (I will have to update my article).

In which case I wonder why Sir Kevin Tebbit was so unhappy about it?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[Keith Willshaw]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
.. .
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 13:15:45 -0000, Keith Willshaw
> wrote:
> >

>
> You're absolutely right. (I will have to update my article).
>
> In which case I wonder why Sir Kevin Tebbit was so unhappy about it?
>

Perhaps the report of Sir Kevin Tebbitt's unhappiness
was equally inaccurate. I suspect the truth is that because
the contract didnt follow the letter of the regulations
in that it was not put out to tender he was covering himself against
any political fallout by insisting on written instructions.

Keith

[phil hunt]

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:50:15 -0000, Keith Willshaw > wrote:
>
>"phil hunt" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 13:15:45 -0000, Keith Willshaw
> wrote:
>> >
>
>>
>> You're absolutely right. (I will have to update my article).
>>
>> In which case I wonder why Sir Kevin Tebbit was so unhappy about it?
>>
>
>Perhaps the report of Sir Kevin Tebbitt's unhappiness
>was equally inaccurate. I suspect the truth is that because
>the contract didnt follow the letter of the regulations
>in that it was not put out to tender he was covering himself against
>any political fallout by insisting on written instructions.

Possibly, but if that was the case, you'd expect civil servants
would do that all the time, and not (as in real life) just one doing
it, once in a year.

Anyway i expect the parliamentary inquiry will dig something up.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).