http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18173779


£63 million each for Hawks?

Good news there then.

Bargin if you win the Euro millions this weekend you could just about afford to buy one

Wiki lists the cost of a Hawk at £18m. If that's correct then the 'extras' don't come cheap!

Military gear in the planes/tanks/ships size of things (i.e. not guns or radios or what have you) is very much a 'razor blades and razors' model. The up front cost of the equipment is often a fraction of the overall cost, with the bulk made up of the contract to maintain and support the equipment over its operational lifespan.

Not that BAE aren't a scandalous bunch of bastards, as the rest controversy over the F-35 order showed. BAE would make more profit from maintaining the F-35C VTOL version than from the F-35B STOL version. Also, the F-35B is cheaper, has a longer range and can carry more payload. The trick is the F-35B would need new, electromagnetic catapults fitted to the carriers to allow it to take off. The government was told by the US manufacturers that the catapults would cost £125 million to make and fit into the two carriers proposed. BAE's price for adding maintainence of the catapults to the existing carrier maintainence contracts (and bear in mind BAE makes more profit from the planes if the cats don't get fitted)? £2.1 billion. Roughly 16 times what they cost to buy. Result? We're now ordering the F-35C, which will cost more and do less ,but BAE gets to make more profit from the British taxpayer. So that's all right then.

Jon

I always come back to that Robocop line about spare parts for 25 years...

I think you've got some of your F-35b/c labels the wrong way round.
The B is the vertical takeoff/landing variant
The C is the standard carrier version that uses catapults.

BTW there isn't a VTOL F-35, just the STOVL B variant.

The F-35B was our original preference, and whilst it means limited interoperability with our NATO partners, it's a more flexible aircraft and can operate in areas where the F35-C can't. Of course that means less range and limited arnaments, but it's swings and roundabouts.

Ah, fair enough. I always seem to do that, since in my head they developed that cat version before the VTOL (although LU is right, it's really STOVL, it can only take off vertically if it's not carrying any payload, which is a bit pointless) so it would get the 'B' classification.

I would however disagree with LU that it's 'swings and roundabouts'. In every way that matters, the STOVL version is an inferior combat aircraft. It will be able to be on station for less time, it will carry less weapons and it will cost us more to maintain, taking resources away from other areas where they may be needed. Given they are being bought to operate from carriers, unless the carriers aren't there the vertical landing is no advantage. And if the carriers aren't there, they'll have to be flying from a friendly airbase in which case there are aircraft in service with our NATO partners that can do the job just as well - and there'll be more of them because we can't afford to buy many F-35s of either variant. The VTO capability is a luxury and one that'll probably never be used other than at air shows.

It also doesn't change the point that BAE screwed over the British taxpayer (and the British troops on the ground more importantly) for a profit. I'd suggest if we'd just let the American supplier fit & maintain the cats and bought the STOL F-35, the total savings would have been enough to keep those 218 workers in abject luxury for the rest of their lives and have enough for a hospital or two left over.

IMO Labour were mad to choose the B over the C variant. However once the decision had been made and all that money ploughed into the carrier designs, was it really ever going to be cost effective to change it?