Dave B order
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave B order
From the Def Committee minutes:
General Sir Kevin O'Donoghue: I do not know. We have the advantage that we have not signed up for x aircraft but to be part of the programme. We can buy these aircraft off the production line as we need them. Unlike most aircraft where to keep the production line open you buy a certain number and then stick some into a shed somewhere because they are the attrition reserve and so on, here because the United States is buying so many we can pull off aircraft from the production line as we need them, so there is more flexibility in that respect.
[...]
Q173 Richard Younger-Ross: But you do not know whether or not we can afford 36?
Mr Gould: We can certainly afford that number, but there would be an additional number for training, attrition and so forth.
Q174 Chairman: The original figure was 150?
General Sir Kevin O'Donoghue: Yes.
Q175 Chairman: That is cloud cuckoo land, is it not?
General Sir Kevin O'Donoghue: I do not think we need to make a decision on that. Because the production line will run on we can buy the number we need, which presumably will be the 36 to man one aircraft carrier plus the training and so on and buy others as and when we need them. I am not sure we need to decide on a number now.
Could the initial buy be as little as 50? With attrition and replacements only bought in small batches? Surely that should make a huge dent in the £9bn projected purchase cost? Or at least spread it over a much longer period.
General Sir Kevin O'Donoghue: I do not know. We have the advantage that we have not signed up for x aircraft but to be part of the programme. We can buy these aircraft off the production line as we need them. Unlike most aircraft where to keep the production line open you buy a certain number and then stick some into a shed somewhere because they are the attrition reserve and so on, here because the United States is buying so many we can pull off aircraft from the production line as we need them, so there is more flexibility in that respect.
[...]
Q173 Richard Younger-Ross: But you do not know whether or not we can afford 36?
Mr Gould: We can certainly afford that number, but there would be an additional number for training, attrition and so forth.
Q174 Chairman: The original figure was 150?
General Sir Kevin O'Donoghue: Yes.
Q175 Chairman: That is cloud cuckoo land, is it not?
General Sir Kevin O'Donoghue: I do not think we need to make a decision on that. Because the production line will run on we can buy the number we need, which presumably will be the 36 to man one aircraft carrier plus the training and so on and buy others as and when we need them. I am not sure we need to decide on a number now.
Could the initial buy be as little as 50? With attrition and replacements only bought in small batches? Surely that should make a huge dent in the £9bn projected purchase cost? Or at least spread it over a much longer period.
I said it a year ago, as a result of what people who should know were saying/hinting.
The assumption is 82-84, and perhaps as few as 67, IIRC.
The assumption is 82-84, and perhaps as few as 67, IIRC.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
What a cracking idea. Don't need to spend any money up front. Don't need to rent or own expensive storage facilities. Don't need to pay for unproductive maintenance teams. Don't need to apply mod programmes so the aircraft remain at fleetstandard.
Everyone's a winner.
Well done Sir.
the United States is buying so many we can pull off aircraft from the production line as we need them,
And we shall get the very latest US Spec with each one. Brilliant Darling.
Except that every s
![Mad](https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/censored.gif)
![Uh oh](https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/worry.gif)
In the real, contractual world the UK has committed to a certain number of aircraft through the PSFD process, seen in the overall production plan on the JSF site. Burbage talked at one point about penalties if people tried to backslide and messed up the production plan, but since then has talked more about benefits if people sign firm contracts early.
Technically, though, apart from that there is no reason for the MoD to buy any JSFs until contract "definitization", two years before delivery. But given that the Bs are eventually going to be a small minority of JSFs, once the USMC has bought as many as it eventually buys, it would make economic sense to plan them more firmly than that, because otherwise they will be very expensive.
Basically, though, if the line is that each carrier needs 36 jets, the answer to "how many JSFs for the UK" is probably "72 or more, the last delivery falling between the ISD of the second carrier and the OSD of the GR9."
Technically, though, apart from that there is no reason for the MoD to buy any JSFs until contract "definitization", two years before delivery. But given that the Bs are eventually going to be a small minority of JSFs, once the USMC has bought as many as it eventually buys, it would make economic sense to plan them more firmly than that, because otherwise they will be very expensive.
Basically, though, if the line is that each carrier needs 36 jets, the answer to "how many JSFs for the UK" is probably "72 or more, the last delivery falling between the ISD of the second carrier and the OSD of the GR9."
Why do they call it Dave?
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...24#post3780724
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Numbers
Numbers wise the UK only plans for 36. i.e. planning for 4 squadrons of 9. The RN can't even make up its half. Unless extra squadrons are formed up, or converted from another type - and the RN turns the training tap on full - the CVFs will spend a lot of time with 0 or only 9 Daves aboard. It would seem to make sense to have 5 x 12 squadrons and 1 training squadron. In that way if an acute crisis did erupt the UK would be able to muster 2 full CVFs. With only 4 x 9 I think the plan is that they would only run full every couple of years! That's unless the USMC or Spanish help out!
![](/images/avatars/th_new.gif)
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Around and about.
Age: 66
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The very same reason the A400M will be called Keith....
I've never had anything named after me!!. Will I have to smash a bottle on it in the naming ceremony?
I've never had anything named after me!!. Will I have to smash a bottle on it in the naming ceremony?
![Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)](https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies2/icon_rolleyes.gif)