Royal navy buys Hornets not JSF...

[rksl-rock 1300]

The biggest problem with a navalized version of the Typhoon is that the UK would be the only interested party...

That's part of what makes Walker's theory so funny. The UK government doesn't want the Navalised Typhoon. They never have. To cancel the F-35 would undermine the "special relationship" with the US and close a door for UK businesses into their markets.

The Royal Navy said they preferred the F-35 option over the Typhoon pretty much from day one as it gives them interoperability with the USMC and USN out of the box. Not too mention independence from the RAF and an aircraft that will still have an operational life 10+ years after the Typhoon's useable life expires.

The only way we would get any sort of navalised Typhoon is if the F-35 project is cancelled stateside first and the Indian's agree to share the development costs of both the navalisation and the TVC engine. Two conditions that i don't think will ever happen.

Industry gossip and rumours after the recent Aero India expo suggests that the naval capability is an "ideal option" intended to bring the growth capabilities of the Typhoon out above the Rafale's naval flexability. But a lack of carrier capability is not a deal killer.

After yesterday's phone calls I've gotten a proper explanation via email from my friend, the Engineering Design Business Manager.

...from what I have found out that article is just PR hot air. The engineering they are relying upon comes from the 2005 BAE study and its funding comes from the sales budget. Draw your own conclusions from that if you will.

Talking to [international Partnerships] would be your best bet but the general feel around here is that nothing will happen until the Indians sign on the dotted line...

There is no dedicated work being done in any design team at Salmesbury or Warton that I know of...

So I think that confirms it. Its just another hook to snag the MRCA contract... If it happens based on what I found for you last year it would cost at least another £22-27 million per aircraft if we converted all 150+ RAF FGR4s. Higher if they just give the RN 40 of them for conversion. And around £280 million on NRC [Non Recurring Costs] jigs and tooling... And trust me there is no budget for it and the RAF don't want it so it wont happen unless there is absolutely no alternative.

For a new build with a 200 airframe order, it would add about £8-14 million to the existing price per airframe and £280-£320 million in NRC [Non Recurring Costs] but you can probably add another £100 million due to the Indian's insistence that some of the aircraft be assembled in India. And about 10-20% of components as offset, something you know yourself will be virtually impossible. Their own composites capability is very limited.

So that's from the horse's mouth. While i do think the MRCA order would be fantastic for the UK's defence industry. It would certainly safeguard BAE Samlesbury and other EuroFighter related plants around the world, I don't think the Naval capability will come about. India is really the only customer. And as any air force will tell you, its a very expensive business being the first customer for a new design. Its entry into service can take many years. Far longer than originally planned.

Having read that MRCA requirements overview again and some press from the recent Aero expo I'm confident it will not happen. They asked for mature/proven types with growth capability. I cant see them overturning the existing Mig-29K contracts, and replacing them with Naval Typhoons. I personally only see this as a calculated PR move to kill off the only advantage the Rafale has over the Typhoon in the MRCA competition at this time. It maybe a bit cynical but unless India is willing to fund its development nothing will change its just a business manager's wet dream.

---------- Post added at 10:59 ---------- Previous post was at 10:48 ----------

...I'm not saying it's the best plane ever, but IT DOES EXIST, in this navy version... and is available for quick production and partnership. Has this option been seriously considered, ever ?

Yes it was and it was discounted on several grounds

• Unit Purchase Cost.
  
• Rafale is very expensive to run. The French Navy are struggling to fund it and continue its development.
  
• No technology transfer - Every export deal offer by France so far has come with massive restrictions or conditions.
  
• No assembly or components are made in the UK at all. - Manufacturing offset is a huge part of aircraft sales.
  
• Incompatible data and targetting systems.
  
• Cost to adapt the UK's arsenal to work on it. (They refused everyone access to the software to integrate non French weapons themselves. You need to pay them for it)
  
• Cost of buying French made weapons. (Paveway kits are cheaper than French LGB's)
  
• Cost to bring the comms in-line with UK requirements.
  
• Estimated time to bring Rafales into UK naval service: 2018 according to flight International and some tabloids a few years ago.
  

Edited February 18, 2011 by RKSL-Rock
Typos everywhere

[dm 9]

Inb4 walker ignores the above post :j:

[KilKenny 10]

Yes it was and it was discounted on several grounds

• Unit Purchase Cost.
  
• Rafale is very expensive to run. The French Navy are struggling to fund it and continue its development.
  
• No technology transfer - Every export deal offer by France so far has come with massive restrictions or conditions.
  
• No assembly or components are made in the UK at all. - Manufacturing offset is a huge part of aircraft sales.
  
• Incompatible data and targetting systems.
  
• Cost to adapt the UK's arsenal to work on it. (They refused everyone access to the software to integrate non French weapons themselves. You need to pay them for it)
  
• Cost of buying French made weapons. (Paveway kits are cheaper than French LGB's)
  
• Cost to bring the comms in-line with UK requirements.
  
• Estimated time to bring Rafales into UK naval service: 2018 according to flight International and some tabloids a few years ago.
  

That is interesting, thank you...

I'd thought the buying cost to be equivalent or just slightly higher than the Hornet, and as the Rafale is now an old design, the research and tooling cost should be covered by now for Dassault, even though the french army & navy bought much less planes than initially expected (on a side note, Dassault's claim at the time, that the Rafale's development was only on the comany's funds was quite comical).

After researching a bit, there actually seems to have been discussions in 2010 on this purchase between the British and french governments.

Would it be that the brits got such a bad deal ? I'm puzzled.

Dassault and the french government have all interests in giving the best conditions in this deal.

If i recall correctly, the Brazilians had obtained, in their aborted deal, all the technology transfer they wanted, and even their own production line. So i doubt the UK could get worst conditions (on the other side it's a much smaller deal). And the UK dont need all the technology transfers the Brazilians did...

The weapons & comms system upgrades are very probably a big part of the problem, so is the maintenance cost. On the other hand, the french navy has 20+ planes only, so that puts the development costs per unit off the roof... it would be a great occasion for them to mutualize the development of their future versions.

The delay is another problem, 2018 seems huge if the ships are to enter service in 2013...

Or maybe the french navy finally decided it was payback time for Merz-el Kebir after all... ;) (i can assure you they ARE still quite resentful...)

Edited February 18, 2011 by KilKenny

[rksl-rock 1300]

That is interesting information, thank you...

I'd thought the buying cost to be equivalent or just slightly higher than the Hornet, and as the Rafale is now an old design, the research and tooling cost should be covered by now for Dassault, even though the french army & navy bought much less planes than initially expected (on a side note, Dassault's claim at the time, that the Rafale's development was only on the comany's funds was quite comical).

It depends on the logic you use I guess. When the French government offered the Rafale previously its either been part of a larger deal or came with rather hefty trade conditions. Ie you have to spend X Euros with French business within the next 10 years as part of this deal. This has proven to be a deal breaker with some nations. Libya took one look at the package that came with the Rafale and said no thank you. It seems that the conditions included being tied into buying French APC's, weapons etc when they came to replace their BTRs and other aging systems.

Defence deals are often very shady so the actual terms rarely surface in the public media. But, it has been suggested by the aerospace press that, the French government and Dassault are also seeking to recover the majority of their own development and support costs from export sales, rather than amortising them over the longer terms. This usually involves a premium added to the cost of each aircraft and a buy in fee. Which makes the Rafale even more expensive.

Add to that the "economy of scale" issues. As with anything else in manufacturing. Its actually cheaper to make larger batches of products. Place an order for 100 planes and it may cost you £50,000,000 a plane. Order a 1000 it may cost you £25,000,000. But the French have been accused - by some - of disregarding the scale issues and padding the price with premiums to pay for their own budget shortfalls. I doubt there is any real proof but the figures that get leaked about export offers don't always add up in the eyes of some industry experts.

After researching a bit, there actually seems to have been discussions in 2010 on this purchase between the British and french governments.

Got any links? I've seen the ones on the Wikipage but it doesn't really show any sources.

I ask because I was under the impression there wasn't a serious request made. Just the usual posturing and suggestions by the idiots in Westminster and Whitehall implying that if the US didn't stop dicking about with Technology Transfer laws there was an alternative to F-35 in Typhoon and Rafale. From what I understood at the time, the French replied with blank slightly confused looks. Almost as though it was news to them. And the mainline Aviation media regarded the news as a bit laughable.

Would it be that the brits got such a bad deal ? I'm puzzled.

Dassault and the french government have all interests in giving the best conditions in this deal.

If i recall correctly, the Brazilians had obtained, in their aborted deal, all the technology transfer they wanted, and even their own production line. So i doubt the UK could get worst conditions (on the other side it's a much smaller deal). And the UK dont need all the technology transfers the Brazilians do...

The Brazilian concessions were really only for the assembly lines. Airframes would have been made into kits and shipped for assembly. Only smaller C class parts would be made indigenously. It was one of the reasons it was 'aborted' that and the corruption claims. But it looks like the Gripen NG will be the brazillian F-X2 winner. Their offset deal is very impressive. And its not just limited to the Brazillain production run. It will include all future sales too. Which is very impressive for these sorts of numbers.

And here comes the economy of scale issue again. Unlike the Brazilian defence package deal, which included lots of other equipment not just the Rafales. We were only looking at, 30-70 planes (The RAF stated if F-3 was cancelled they would buy more Typhoons leaving only the RN requirement) it wasn't economic to open a new production line. It was the same issue for Libya, the production numbers make it very expensive. And unlike the Brazil we wouldn't be looking to buy any more French made kit. Which of course drives the price up.

The tech transfers would/could also be a huge issue. Historically (Airbus/Sepecat/Aerospatiale & Westland) the French have been very happy to accept tech from partners but very slow in reciprocating. The Rafale uses a proprietary and very novel but expensive composite forming technique. Something that produces very high quality and consistent very complex shapes. But so far they have steadfastly refused to license it to anyone outside of France.

Material tech is also subject to very strong limits. And Dassault have been the subject of claims by BAE, Boeing and Lockheed about the exact nature of their composites. Something the French governments are quick to dismiss and brush out of sight. So lots of gossip and conspiracy theories there.

The weapons & comms system upgrades are very probably a big part of the problem, so is the maintenance cost. On the other hand, the french navy has 20+ planes only, so that puts the development costs off the roof... it would be a great occasion for them to mutualize the development of their future versions.

It is a massive issue, especially when you look at what the UK MoD is doing with all UK assets. The entire range of comms kit is getting a lot of attention. Something I think Da12thmonkey can also verify.

Currently maintenance is a huge issue with the Rafales. Especially the engines. Its actually in the same levels as the 30+ year old Jaguar fleet. Reports vary but the average is for every single hour of flight time it needs over 30-35 man hours of maintenance.

Just for comparison (figures are from Sept 09 Flight International:

Mig-29k - ~25 hours

F-22A - ~25-35 hours (Its supposed to be less than 20 but they have serious issues with the engines and skins)

F-18E/F - ~15-20 hours

Typhoon - ~12-16hours

PLEASE NOTE: You should also be aware that there are in depth services at intervals after so many flying hours. These intervals vary between type and complexity. So do affect availability and cost.

The delay is another problem, 2018 seems huge if the ships are to enter service in 2013...

Or maybe the french navy finally decided it was payback time for Merz-el Kebir after all... (i can assure you they ARE still quite resentful...)

2013? We'll be lucky if we have a hull in the water by 2015 at this rate :)

I'm not sure who did the initial estimate, but i'm sure is wasn't the UK MoD. I think it was Flight international but the estimate in 2006 was:

1-2 years of legal wrangling to get out of F-35.

2 years to get the deal rolling

2-3 years to see the first aircraft come out of jig and on the flight line.

2-3 years for conversion and Type acceptance trials.

2 years for Operational Conversion

1 year before the first Squadron stood ready.

Worst case ~2018 which is when the CVF and F-35 should have entered service. Initial estimates by the press put the cost at £1.5 billion over the cost of the current F-35 contract due to legal issues. So probably not worth trashing the relationship with the US over.

Edited February 18, 2011 by RKSL-Rock

[walker 0]

Hi RKSL-Rock

Any Relationship is a two way street, unless you think otherwise and would enlighten us.

The 3 Billion Dollars taken from the Rolls Royce consortium contract of the JSF project has kind of screwed the UK over and it is not the first case with the JSF project. A more recent estimate of savings to the UK of a switch a navalised Typhoon previous to that 3 Billion dollar Rolls Royce consortium contract being axed by the US was about 5 Billion pounds with the additions from this contract reneging by the US and the Lockheed consortium the savings to the UK of a switch to the navalised Typhoon as around 10 Billion pounds.

You seem to forget we are committed to tranche 3 of the Typhoon and that any navalised Typhoon could be taken up in those already committed resources.

Can I just double check, you do work on the Lockheed Martin consortium don't you RKSL-Rock?

As others have noted in this thread, and is widely known from other sources, the US uses its governmental arms to enact and enable a degree of hegemony in its economic and business relations including I am afraid in the "Special Relationship" in fact a perusal of US opinion including that in certain sources, of the "Special Relationship" is that no such thing exists other than in the minds of certain people in the UK.

In fact the "Special Relationship" is largely seen by those in the US as a tool to maintain US national interests.

Kind Regards walker

Edited February 18, 2011 by walker
spelling and butter fingered typos

[rksl-rock 1300]

Hi RKSL-Rock

Any Relationship is a two way street, unless you think otherwise and would enlighten us.

Oh hostility, great way to open a post.

The 3 Billion Dollars taken from the Rolls Royce consortium contract has kind of screwed the UK over and it is not the first case with the JSF project. As others have noted in this thread, and is widely known from other sources, the US uses its governmental arms to enact and enable a degree of hegemony in its economic and business relations including I am afraid in the "Special Relationship" in fact a perusal of US opinion including that in certain sources, of the "Special Relationship" is that no such thing exists other than in the minds of certain people in the UK.

Kind Regards walker

Ok you are really trying to mix two issues into one here but I'll try my best to reply constructively.

Specifically relating to the Engines.

In light of the UK's change from the F-35B to the C its not a surprise that the F136 was cancelled. Some people in the US are choosing to see the switch from F-35B to C as a slap in the face for the US. Others are being somewhat more pragmatic. The change has actually increased costs for the F-35B to the point that the USMC may not be able to justify it. As a result its made the bean counters and their masters take another look at the programme's finances.

When the JSF programme first started it was understood by all parties that either engine could be cancelled. The side by side development of competing engines was supposed to help drive each company to innovate and develop the best engine for the best price. Now given the threats by the UK, USAF, USN and partner nations to either cancel or reduce orders. And the huge spending cuts across the entire F-35 project the development of a 2nd engine is somewhat extravagant. Something had to go and one of the engines was very obvious candidate for cancellation.

Depending on how nationalistic you are, you could see it as a punishment handed down to Britain for "screwing over" the USMC and Lockheed over the F-35B. But rationally its a very logical move. And given the state of the world economy etc Cancelling the engine that is 50% non-American isn't a huge surprise. They want to keep the money in their own country as much as we do.

I dont see how you can say the money was "taken" from the General Electric/Rolls Royce consoirtium. That money that went into the F-136 development as part of a private finance deal with the UK and US governments. It was also part of the UK's Tier 1 partnership agreement. We agreed, when our government signed the contracts, to a certain degree of risk as part of that contract. Yes it sucks, some of my friends working at Rolls Royce may lose their jobs. But its not a surprise to any of them. Or many people in the industry. But it has been a terrible waste of money. This decision should have happened sooner but politics kept it alive and allowed the spending of even more money despite the finance guys saying "we need to chose an engine".

The decision was made for economic and practical reasons. It was horribly late coming but it needed to happen if the F-35 programme was to continue. Complaining about it when we cant do anything about it is just wasting time and energy.

Now the political bit:

I'll be honest, I don't really like the "Special Relationship" we keep hearing about. Its a bit too much like a Master and Dog scenario for me. Far too one sided for my tastes. Blair has a lot to answer for in my opinion. But, no matter how much I dislike it as a nation we are rather dependant on the US for trade and resources. No matter how you spin it our two countries are tied together no matter what happens in the short term. Personally I think we (UK) should be more involved in Europe. But that will take time.

And pursuing this line of debate is just taking us further off topic than we already are. ;)

Edited February 18, 2011 by RKSL-Rock

[walker 0]

Hi RKSL-Rock

Actualy our trade relationship is primarily with Europe.

United Kingdom: Germany 14.2%, US 8.6%, China 7.3%, Netherlands 7.3%, France 6.9%, Belgium 4.7%, Norway 4.7%, Italy 4.2%

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_imp_par-economy-imports-partners

By the way I must have been editing as you posted.

Kind Regards walker

[rksl-rock 1300]

Hi RKSL-Rock

Actualy our trade relationship is primarily with Europe.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_imp_par-economy-imports-partners

By the way I must have been editing as you posted.

Kind Regards walker

Either way UK-US trade is significant and this is really just picking at points. Its not really on topic anymore is it.

[dm 9]

If you are involved in its development

(Aimed at me)

you do work on the Lockheed Martin consortium don't you RKSL-Rock?

I love it, anyone who doesnt agree with you that navalised Typhoon is the best thing since sliced bread clearly HAS to work for Lockheed Martin, right?

Awesome.

---------- Post added at 21:11 ---------- Previous post was at 21:05 ----------

You seem to forget we are committed to tranche 3 of the Typhoon and that any navalised Typhoon could be taken up in those already committed resources.

And you seem to forget that navalising the Typhoon won't be cheap.

Or can you please enlighten us as to how modifying the landing gear, re-designing the wing to fuselage connection brackets, incorporating a heavier rear sub frame for hook mounts, redesigning the centre frames and major structural strengthening throughout can be rolled up in the money already spent on tranche 3?

Edited February 18, 2011 by DM

[rksl-rock 1300]

Hi RKSL-Rock

Any Relationship is a two way street, unless you think otherwise and would enlighten us.

The 3 Billion Dollars taken from the Rolls Royce consortium contract of the JSF project has kind of screwed the UK over and it is not the first case with the JSF project. A more recent estimate of savings to the UK of a switch a navalised Typhoon previous to that 3 Billion dollar Rolls Royce consortium contract being axed by the US was about 5 Billion pounds with the additions from this contract reneging by the US and the Lockheed consortium the savings to the UK of a switch to the navalised Typhoon as around 10 Billion pounds.

You seem to forget we are committed to tranche 3 of the Typhoon and that any navalised Typhoon could be taken up in those already committed resources.

Can I just double check, you do work on the Lockheed Martin consortium don't you RKSL-Rock?

As others have noted in this thread, and is widely known from other sources, the US uses its governmental arms to enact and enable a degree of hegemony in its economic and business relations including I am afraid in the "Special Relationship" in fact a perusal of US opinion including that in certain sources, of the "Special Relationship" is that no such thing exists other than in the minds of certain people in the UK.

In fact the "Special Relationship" is largely seen by those in the US as a tool to maintain US national interests.

Kind Regards walker

God when you do an edit you really do go to town don't you. All these editions were down to typos and Butter fingers!?!

Can I just double check, you do work on the Lockheed Martin consortium don't you RKSL-Rock?

No I do not. And if you are suggesting i'm biased, don't bother. My own personal views on the F-35 programme are well documented in this very thread.

I have had precisely 4 contract business dealings with them and 4 job interviews but i have never actually worked for Lockheed directly.

You seem to forget we are committed to tranche 3 of the Typhoon and that any navalised Typhoon could be taken up in those already committed resources.

OK I'm going to respond to that with a few questions. I know its rude but I find your lack of realisation and understanding to be unbelievable.

Do you realise what the Tranche 3 Commitment actually means?

Do you know/understand what a "Design Lead time is?"

Do you realise that a Design study does not equal a completed design?

Where do you think the money would come from to Navalise them?

And finally a statement:

The design changes required to convert the Typhoon to either a CATOBAR or Ski Jump capable aircraft are huge. So significant that it could not be done with the existing tooling.

The "design study" is not a complete set of detailed drawings required to convert the airframe. It is a simple over view document that looks at the existing design and tries to estimate the changes required to convert the design based on some assumed figures. There really is no practical engineering involved. just a lot of very informed guesses on the part of a few stress and dynamics engineers sat in the Tech building (Last I was there it was a large porta-cabin) at Salmesbury.

Seriously Walker get real. They don't have a set of plans ready to pop into a magical machine to churn out these Navalised Tranche 3 fighters. It takes time. For dog's sake when I worked at Salmesbury in '99 I was involved in assembling the first few forward fuselages and fins. Even then we were still actually designing the bits that went into them. And that was nearly 14 years after design had started. At times by the time we actually got a part it had been superseded. Sometimes twice. Any Navalisation design work would take at least 4-6 years to get out of CATIA and onto the machines. Let alone the assembly jigs. And without the MMRCA order the production lines will be ripped up and stored in late 2015.

I promise you unless the stars and planets align, the Indian's find a pot of gold down the back of the sofa and agrees to finance both the redesign of the airframe and the EJ200 TVC then it wont happen.

Edited February 18, 2011 by RKSL-Rock
actual typos

[dmarkwick 261]

If the MOD wishes to save a shitload of money then I wonder why they don't drop the ridiculous Trident system. :)

[TechnoTerrorist303 10]

If the MOD wanted to save a shitload of money there are a very large number of places they could do it. Unfortunately the people conducting the investigation into where cuts should be made have a vested interest in keeping their own departments.

Let's not turn this thread into an argument about whether we need to drop Trident or not...

I'm amazed that this thread is still going, I started it as a seemingly innocent post about an article I'd read...

I'm also amazed that Rock manages to get shit thrown at him in almost every thread he posts in.

[dm 9]

I'm also amazed that Rock manages to get shit thrown at him in almost every thread he posts in.

People don't like the truth, and Rock mostly posts it.

[Edit]Disclaimer: I post "mostly" because I haven't done the relevant research in order to say "always" :P [/Edit]

Edited February 19, 2011 by DM

[legion7698 0]

The other advantage of people disagreeing with Rock is that he then posts more info to back his side. It means we end up with info we otherwise wouldn't know about so thanks Rock I've found the info from you very interesting.

Regards,

LEGION7698.

[Tankbuster 1744]

People don't like the truth, and Rock mostly posts it.

Edited February 19, 2011 by Tankbuster
* Not a dig at DM, I just couldn't miss the opportunity to thread bomb!

[rksl-rock 1300]

...

I'm also amazed that Rock manages to get shit thrown at him in almost every thread he posts in.

Welcome to my world :D

People don't like the truth, and Rock mostly posts it.

[Edit]Disclaimer: I post "mostly" because I haven't done the relevant research in order to say "always" :P [/Edit]

Cheeky git. :cool:

[Baff1 0]

Hi RKSL-Rock

Actualy our trade relationship is primarily with Europe.

Loss making trade doesn't count.

We trade at a defecit with Europe and a surplus with America.

The money we spend in the EU, is earnt in America. We make double our yearly trade deficit to the EU from trading with the U.S.A.

If we stopped trading with the EU completely (or employed protectionism) we would become richer. It is the single least important trade area we are partnered with. It's not just the one we could most afford to lose, it is one that we would actually most benefit from losing.

Of the markets that we sell to that we make money on... America is the biggest. Making it the single most important trading partner to this country.

Edited February 22, 2011 by Baff1

[walker 0]

Hi Baff1

Could you provide a source for your statement?

Kind Regards walker

[Baff1 0]

Bah I could've about 30 secs ago!

After a handful of minutes searching, the best I had found were 2005 figures.

I didn't find any for this year besides the EU trade deficit ones, which are pretty easy to Google. Finding sources for Extra EU trade gaps was a lot more obscure.

But it's common sense really, once you recognise we have a trade defecit with the EU (and also China, Japan and Russia) it becomes obvious that we must be making the foreign currency we pay them with elsewhere.

The worlds largest economy, naturally, is the first place to look.

Edited February 22, 2011 by Baff1

[walker 0]

Hi Baff1

Well I am sorry but your common sense is based in some alternate reality.

UK exports to the US is primarily sweet crude Oil, this is because the primary US supplier of crude oil is Saudi Arabia and the oil they provide is sour, lots of sulphur and other nasties that screw up the refineries. Historically the US refining industry is based on a West Texas Intermediate oil feedstock. Using Saudi Arabian oil in these refineries requires expensive major refits so they mix Brent Crude with the Saudi Oil to make it cheaper and easier to refine.

The up to date statistics of UK trade are available to all via the UK statistics office. As it is apparent you are not aware of this site or its navigation this is where you start:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nscl.asp?ID=5518

You then need to compare our Intra Eu trade with the US portion of our Extra EU trade.

I do not know what your level of economics and business education is but you need to look at the time series data and the summaries.

To make it easier though you can visit this site which I linked before, but this a more complete set of stats on which to base your argument:

http://www.nationmaster.com/red/country/uk-united-kingdom/eco-economy&all=1

Then look at our trade balance with the US

Trade balance with US -$1,454,200,000.00

Notice the negative figure which kind of blows your argument out of the water.

This page gives a link to the Pink Book of the Balance of Payments which I think may be where your figures came from, they are the UK's Current account, remember you need the historical data to understand the full economics of a country, but for a UK statistics office page its reports are a little easier to understand.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/Product.asp?vlnk=1140

If you want to argue off a single year then in 2009 we had a 3% positive balance of payments with the US

and 2% negative balance with the EU supporting your argument! but as the EU has over 50% of our trade and the US amounts to less than 20% the figures you are using are in need of adjusting. And as always you need to look at the figures over several years to get any meaningful data. And no matter how you work it in that year alone more than 50% of UK export jobs relied on the EU.

Here is the zip of the Pink Book for 2010 look at section 3.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_economy/pinkbook2010.zip

This Wiki page will help you understand what a BOP is and is not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_payments

And from this you will perhaps be able to see why the figures you are perceiving are incomplete.

Kind Regards walker

Edited February 22, 2011 by walker
added: you using and in + of ; to are grammatically more correct

[Baff1 0]

Hi Baff1

Well I am sorry but your common sense is based in some alternate reality.

I do not know what your level of economics and business education is but you need to look at the time series data and the summaries.

If you want to argue off a single year then in 2009 we had a 3% positive balance of payments with the US

and 2% negative balance with the EU supporting your argument! but as the EU has over 50% of our trade and the US amounts to less than 20% the figures are need adjusting. And as always you need to look at the figures over several years to get any meaningful data. And no matter how you work it in that year alone more than 50% of UK export jobs relied on the EU.

Kind Regards walker

Making a profit on 20% of our trade is more important than making loss on 50% of it.

In general we like the profits to be on the large figures, and the losses to be the small figures, not the otherway round.

There is no point of trading at all if you are going to make a loss. You would be wealthier if you sat on your arse and picked your nose instead.

Sorry if that's too alternative for you.

Sorry if that's a little bit over-educated for you.

I'm not intrested in paying people in the UK to make a loss for me. I don't need to employ anyone for that. I can do it all by myself.

If your job relies upon the UK making a loss, please apply for jobs with our competition instead. I'm sure they will be very grateful of your contribution even if we are not.

Edited February 22, 2011 by Baff1

[walker 0]

Hi all

In the mean time and on the subject of the thread, the JSF continues to decline while the Eurofighter seems to be in the ascendant:

Battling US for huge deal, Eurofighter woos Japan

By ERIC TALMADGE

The Associated Press

Tuesday, February 22, 2011; 7:04 AM

TOKYO -- In a deal that could be worth billions of dollars and determine one of the primary fighter jets in Asia for decades to come, European aircraft makers are trying to convince Japan to do something it has never done before - snub America.

U.S. planes have long been Tokyo's overwhelming favorite, but Japan appears to be wobbling under a strong sales pitch for the Eurofighter Typhoon, coupled with problems and restrictions that have made the American alternatives less attractive.

The stakes are high.

The contract is expected to be worth upward of $10 billion, and the chosen plane will be the showcase aircraft for Washington's chief ally in the region at a time when both China and Russia are modernizing their air forces. Going European, some analysts say, also could complicate future U.S.-Japan air defense cooperation.

Lobbying has intensified as Japan nears a long-delayed decision on what will be its next generation of fighters, or "F-X" fighters, after it retires much of its current fleet. The deal is expected to involve 40 or 50 new planes.

Because of Japan's close military ties with Washington, options such as the Lockheed F-35 and Boeing F/A-18 have long been the top contenders, and analysts say the U.S. advantage remains strong.

But the four-country consortium that builds the Eurofighter is benefiting from a tail wind created by the U.S. decision not to sell Japan what it really wanted - the stealthy F-22 "Raptor" - and by production delays and cost overruns that have shadowed the F-35...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/22/AR2011022201393.html

As always follow the link to the original article in full

With so many export markets declining the JSF project and even the US slashing it and with so many preferring the proven Typhoon the cost of the navalised version will decline making it even more sensible for the UK to choose.

As it stands the JSF is far more costly than the Typhoon with additional customers and export money from them the navalised Typhoon is becoming the obvious choice for the UK navy.

Kind Regards walker

[NoRailgunner 0]

At Aero India 2011 Eurofighter and partner company BAE Systems unveiled for the first time more details about the studies carried out for the initial definition of the navalised version of the Typhoon....

if you like read the rest of this press release on Eurofighter.com:

http://www.eurofighter.com/media/news0/news-detail/article/press-release-eurofighter-naval-version-makes-debut-at-aero-india-2011.html

Its just talk and usual marketing blabla while all participants are still searching for their best deal...

Btw how many media/political "experts" are just lobbying? ;)

[dm 9]

With so many export markets declining the JSF project and even the US slashing it and with so many preferring the proven Typhoon the cost of the navalised version will decline making it even more sensible for the UK to choose.

As it stands the JSF is far more costly than the Typhoon with additional customers and export money from them the navalised Typhoon is becoming the obvious choice for the UK navy.

Herp-a-derp I'm gonna take something out of context and use it to back up my naval Typhoon wet-dream.

40 or 50 more jets for Japan (who dont have carriers, btw, so wouldnt need a navalised version) isnt going to drive the unit costs down enough to make naval Typhoon an option. Typhoons for India, who, as Rock has explained would want to manufacture large portions of their jets indigenously, are not going to drive the unit costs down enough to make naval Typhoon an option.

How are you not understanding this walker? Are you that ignorant or do you just choose to be?

It is kinda funny how you continually ignore the real questions being asked of you walker, and just keep posting the same PR drivel. Are you going to contribute, or are you just going to keep regurgitating the PR spiel from the EF site?

[TechnoTerrorist303 10]

Naval Typhoon isn't happening nor is it likely to happen.