3,000 jobs to go at Waste O'Space

[iRaven]

BAE Systems to cut 3,000 jobs - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/engineering/8786902/BAE-Systems-to-cut-3000-jobs.html)


BAE Systems to cut 3,000 jobs

BAE Systems, Britain’s biggest manufacturer, is poised to cut 3,000 jobs in a major setback for the UK economy.

Graham Ruddick and Patrick Hennessy
6:29PM BST 24 Sep 2011
The Sunday Telegraph understands the job losses could be announced as early as this week and will be focused on the company’s military aircraft division in Warton, Lancashire, and Brough, Yorkshire.
BAE is concerned about the time it could take to secure export orders for the Eurofighter Typhoon as orders from the partner nations, including the UK, slow amid cuts to defence budgets.
The Government is thought to be aware of the company’s deliberations and is preparing contingency plans for workers who could lose their jobs.
In a statement last night, BAE confirmed it has “informed staff that we are reviewing our operations” and plans to slow Typhoon production.
BAE employs 14,000 staff in Military Air and Information, for which the Typhoon is a core project.
The company has a 33pc stake in the Eurofighter project, alongside EADS and Finmeccanica, which has received orders for more than 550 planes from the four partner nations – the UK, Germany, Italy and Spain.
Final assembly of the Typhoon in the UK is taking place at Warton and more than 100 planes have been delivered to the Ministry of Defence and Saudi Arabia.
The aircraft has been used by British forces in Libya, highlighting the capabilities of the Typhoon to other countries contemplating a modernisation of their air force.
The long-term future of the Eurofighter project is based on securing exports.
A deal with Saudi Arabia for 72 aircraft was agreed in 2007 but the partners are also chasing deals with countries such as India, Japan, Oman and Malaysia.
An agreement with India could be worth $11bn (£7.1bn) for 126 aircraft and effectively make the country a “fifth partner” in the project by securing its future.
The Eurofighter has been shortlisted by the Indian government alongside France’s Dassault Rafale, but a final decision may not be made until next April.
BAE said last night in a statement: “In order to bridge the gap between current demand and future anticipated export contracts the production rate on the current Typhoon programme for the partner nations will be slowed.
“BAE Systems recognises that the long-term future of Typhoon is based on its export potential and therefore we need to ensure we are in the best possible position to secure those opportunities. Extending the production programme will help us achieve this.
“We will now work through the impact of this decision and we remain committed to making Typhoon a success both in the UK and overseas markets.”
The chief executive of BAE, Ian King, warned in February that the company would continue to study its workforce and capacity as defence spending is slashed in the UK and other Western nations.
BAE cut 15,000 jobs in 2009 and 2010, as it prepared for a slowdown in markets such as armoured vehicles.
The company continued: “BAE Systems has informed staff that we are reviewing our operations across various businesses to make sure the company is performing as effectively and efficiently as possible, both in delivering our commitments to existing customers and ensuring the company is best placed to secure future business.
“As the outcome of this review becomes clear, we will, as always, communicate to our employees as a priority.”


I'm sad for the individuals involved but this has to be good news for us in the military? Hopefully no more rip offs, no more sub standard kit, no more pretending its OK to sell your kit on to foreign companies whilst the UK Military soldier on with the old stuff, no more jobs on the board for 2-4 stars for setting up a contract...nuff said.

They should never have sold out of Airbus (20% stake) as the civil market is booming compared to the military market. Their books have now run dry on the military market and the sale of a dozen or so Mantis is never going to save them (heaven forbid if that ever happens).

iRaven

[TurbineTooHot]

You reap what you sow I suppose. Pretty small job losses compared to HM Forces, for which I'm sure some of the blame sits at the door of BAe Systems.

[NutLoose]

I'm sad for the individuals involved but this has to be good news for us in the military? Hopefully no more rip offs, no more sub standard kit, no more pretending its OK to sell your kit on to foreign companies whilst the UK Military soldier on with the old stuff, no more jobs on the board for 2-4 stars for setting up a contract...nuff said.

They should never have sold out of Airbus (20% stake) as the civil market is booming compared to the military market. Their books have now run dry on the military market and the sale of a dozen or so Mantis is never going to save them (heaven forbid if that ever happens).

iRaven

Problem in the first paragraph has to be addressed by the MOD. you reap what you sow and been a being an "open" contract for the likes of the Nimrod AEW from what I think I have read, one item at fault was the size of the computer used, but although recognised by the company there was no benefit to BAe to replace the inadequate item with something that would do the job, instead they reaped financial benefits by trying to squeeze software onto a computer too small for the job and hence cost over runs and major problems...... There needs to be contract cast in stone that penalises the companies as in Commecial Aviation. BA I believe is having there 777 fleet fitted at Boeings expense with Winglets? due to the over runs in the Dreamliner deliveries as part of the compensation package.......

Second I agree, it's all about seeing a return to the investors, I think it was the ATP ( Advanced Technical Problem) and 146 that suffered when they shifted the sales offices from the UK to Toulouse? Rumour was the sales staff were offered big commisions on the rest of the Aircraft for sale ( ATR?) hence the UK stuff wasn't pushed and eventually the lines were closed down.
If the likes of Hawker can take over the production of the 125 and still be selling them and making a profit, why couldn't Bae?, I realise they were looking at the investment costs of the new version, but the 800 etc still sells well.

[BEagle]

Throughout his many years at 't Big House, Old Scrotum, 't Bungling Baron Waste O' Space's wrinkled retainer, had provided loyal service to 't Master. Whether taking Boogeroff, 't Baron's flatulent whippet for long walks oop snicket, or simply polishing 't Baron's big brass bound buggery boots, he had always carried out his duties with care and dedication.

Then came 't day he werr summoned to 't Baron's office oop at 't werrks....

"Scrotum, savings have terr be made, tha knaws. So tha's fired. Gerrout!"

And the poor old sod wandered off into the gathering gloom of a Lancastrian autumn, wondering when it had all begun to turn to worms for 't Bungling Baron.....

[Willard Whyte]

One less company for us redundees to gain gainful employment I suppose.

[SRENNAPS]

You reap what you sow I suppose. Pretty small job losses compared to HM Forces, for which I'm sure some of the blame sits at the door of BAe Systems.

I really think you need to look and think at what you have written here and re-consider your words. Just a suggestion before……….

[gijoe]

'One less company for us redundees to gain gainful employment I suppose'

WW,

Maybe, maybe not...they do lots of other defencey things, including subs, but my bigger question is are they a good company to work for?

Good luck!

G:ok:

[Lima Juliet]

'One less company for us redundees to gain gainful employment I suppose'

Got to agree with GI Joe on this one - why would you want to work for them? Plus live in Blackpool, Preston and Hull? No thanks...:yuk:

LJ

[TurbineTooHot]

SRENNAPS.

I put blame for some of the Forces redundancies at the door of BAe, which is in turn now suffering job losses because we can't sustain purchases from them at huge overrunning costs. What wording should i reconsider? Please refrain from your lecturing tone.
IMHO the lack of competition in the UK defence industry has led to an impossible situation where we are obliged to buy what BAe are selling regardless of cost or quality.

[Corporal Clott]

TurbineTooHot

Nail, head, firmly, hit, spot on! :ok:

CPL Clott

[Roadster280]

Throughout his many years at 't Big House, Old Scrotum, 't Bungling Baron Waste O' Space's wrinkled retainer, had provided loyal service to 't Master. Whether taking Boogeroff, 't Baron's flatulent whippet for long walks oop snicket, or simply polishing 't Baron's big brass bound buggery boots, he had always carried out his duties with care and dedication.

Then came 't day he werr summoned to 't Baron's office oop at 't werrks....

"Scrotum, savings have terr be made, tha knaws. So tha's fired. Gerrout!"

And the poor old sod wandered off into the gathering gloom of a Lancastrian autumn, wondering when it had all begun to turn to worms for 't Bungling Baron.....

Well so much for the RAF and Mess Stewards, but I thought this thread was about BAE Systems?

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

SRENNAPS.

I put blame for some of the Forces redundancies at the door of BAe

Sorry but until we stop blaming industry and realise that it's the outdated and incompetent manner we use to "buy stuff" that sees us hooped in everything we do nothing will ever change :sad:

[Corporal Clott]

incompetent manner we use to "buy stuff" that sees us hooped in everything we do nothing will ever change

MOD procurement successes:

C-17 GLOBEMASTER
MQ-9 REAPER
E-3D SENTRY
and soon to be
RC-135W RIVET JOINT

Spot the common thread??? Not a whippet or a flat cap in sight!

CPL Clott

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

CC,

Now that is a very very very impressive list :rolleyes:

[iRaven]

Yes, C-17 to cover for the delay in A400 (yes, I know its not waste o'space direct involvement but they are sub contracted), E-3D to cover NIMWACS, MQ-9 because Phoenix was a disaster (GEC-Marconi made it but they became the SYSTEMS part of BAE later on) and RJ because of further Nimrod bungling.

Then there's the cost over-runs and delays for Astute, the carriers and Type 45.

Rubbish! is to weak a word...

iRaven

[iRaven]

To add to CPL's list of successes - CH47 Chinook and AH64 Apache. They only went wrong when we started to screw around with the original designs.

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

They only went wrong when we started to screw around with the original designs.

While no great fan of BAESYSTEMS, I wonder how many of their troubled programmes, such as those mentioned above, would come off the list if that same criteria were applied to them also?

[NutLoose]

MOD procurement successes:

C-17 GLOBEMASTER


Err... leasing them at what it would nearly of cost to buy them with provisos on how and when they could be operated then at the end of the lease having to shell out again to buy them does not smack as a success in these eyes. Though to be fair it was a Brown fiasco

Leasing RAF planes wastes nearly £500m - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4641415.ece)

[SRENNAPS]

TurbineTooHot

Please accept my apologies. I nether meant to offend or come across in a lecturing tone.

Perhaps I should have added: "before...........the men in the black suits take you away":eek::eek::sad:

[Vim_Fuego]

Maybe, maybe not...they do lots of other defencey things, including subs, but my bigger question is are they a good company to work for?



So far so good...Although I'm nothing to do with the air side of things.

[JohnFTEng]

C-17 - a successful programme? I seem to recall huge cost overruns - several BILLION dollars - and long progamme delays due to wing failures and control system problems. It's easy to buy "off the peg" when some one else has done the hard work and taken all the costs.

[Exrigger]

10 years and so far so good, I am on the air side of things

[Unchecked]

So,

BAe screws everything up
Forces loses tens of thousands of jobs and capabilities as a result
Aircraft orders are cut
BAe loses profit, needs to cut thousands of British jobs, UNLESS.....
They secure foreign orders for Typhoon, the biggest of which is for India at £7.1bn....
Who are the biggest recipients of our ridiculously over-inflated foreign aid budget.

This country, thanks to those that run it, is the pits and a laughing stock.

[cazatou]

Unchecked

As I have said before the BAe Jet Provost Mk 5, BAe 125's and BAe 146's that I flew in the RAF all worked perfectly well.

I would suggest that many of the difficulties suffered by Combat Aircraft types could well have been the result of poorly defined requirements for weapons and their delivery systems.

[Not_a_boffin]

Suspect the common thread in the "success" stories ought to be that the MoD is not allowed to get involved in respecifying the kit or trying to beggar about with the delivery / finance. I well remember one IPT member for C17 telling me that the Safety-case for the aircraft was entirely predicated on US operating procedures. If the RAF or MoD wanted to change something outside that, it had to justify and bear the cost.

Even the C17 "lease" fiasco is actually because the Centre could not make up its mind on the required airlifter mix (remember the "other" options?) and the airlift was needed "right this second". Sclerosis in the MoD (particularly the MB end, which is NOT being addressed) is at least as much to blame as t' Baron, however unpalatable that may be.

[Unchecked]

I understand that Caz, maybe if i replaced 'BAe' in the first line to 'MoD' it would be a tad fairer ? Even so, the emphasis of my post lies in the last 2 lines ! There are a plethora of stupid and avoidable reasons for the state of both the UK forces and UK Defence Industries, as ever though, it's those on the frontline, the shop floor and the taxpayer which bear the brunt.

[cazatou]

Unchecked

It was ever thus.

When I joined the RAF nearly 50 years ago Building Maintenance and Construction was the role of the Air Ministry Works Department; this meant that if you wanted something built then it was highly likely that it would be built on an Airfield. Granted it might not be the right Airfield - but you can't have everything .

[jamesdevice]

BBC News - BAE Systems is to announce 2,280 job cuts, the BBC learns (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15063827)

"The BBC has learnt that 2,280 jobs will be cut by BAE Systems on Tuesday, with three factories affected.
Brough in East Yorkshire will lose 900 jobs, Warton in Lancashire will lose 820 jobs and Samlesbury, also in Lancashire, will lose 560 jobs. !

[Thaihawk]

The hallmark of BAe has for a long while been overpriced kit delivered late(or not at all) at great expense to the UK taxpayer.

Cost plus contracts,very basic mistakes in the case of both Nimrod programmes.

Ex MOD civil servants and RAF officers on the board to smooth the way and corruption to boot.

[Roadster280]

Between the customer (MoD) and the manufacturer (BAE Systems and its prior constituent companies), with political meddling thrown in for good measure, it has been proven over 50 years or more that the UK is incapable of indigenously furnishing its defence equipment in a sustainable manner.

Time and time again the same set of buoys is gone round. It is the natural consequence of this that the industrial design and manufacturing capability will die out as being uneconomic.

Thus leaving the only game in town as the Americans. "Can we have a couple extra widgets on the airframe for UK purposes?". "The last time you tried that, you had 8 helicopters sat on the ground for 10 years rotting away. The time before, you got an underpowered F4, and ended up buying some used standard ones anyway. So, no, can you fcuk have some extra widgets. You can order the standard export version, and we'll let you know when you can have it. Sign here, numbnuts".

It's not exactly rocket science...

[500N]

It was nice to read the other day an article on the C-17's Australia purchased, which seemed to be one of our better purchases probably because we didn't stuff with it. I noticed that one of them was delivered 128 days after the order was placed, thanks to the US Gov't switching the production slots around.

It just shows what can happen when extras aren't added.

.

[NutherA2]

you got an underpowered F4Not so; my reheat Speys gave more thrust than your J79s; sadly the airframe modifications needed to install the RR engines created so much additional drag that our F4 K & M were slower than the standard models. On the plus side, though, we produced less smoke & used less fuel.

[Roadster280]

So if the Speys had produced even more thrust than they did, they would have overcome the additional drag, and been as fast/faster than the J79s? I'd call that underpowered.

BTW, not "my" J79s, I'm English. Just live here. Thank Christ.

[Irish Tempest]

Lots of successful of pieces of kit bought from the US...and yes they do work well. However, pause two marching paces. Not a penny from purchases goes back to the economy, either in taxes nor in the wages and thence to Mr Tesco!

[500N]

"Lots of successful of pieces of kit bought from the US...and yes they do work well. However, pause two marching paces. Not a penny from purchases goes back to the economy, either in taxes nor in the wages and thence to Mr Tesco!"

That's the same argument they use here in Aust for building the air warfare destroyers here instead of buying off the shelf from the US - at a 1/3rd of the price. And that's before taking into account that it diverts skilled people in Aust from other industry sectors where they are urgently required (Resources / Mining).

So, do the wages / taxes paid and the multiplier effect through the economy make up for the extra $ 4 billion spent or would it be better off being allocated to something else ?

The same applies to the Submarines we build.

Taking those work forces and having even 1/4 of them in the Resources / Mining industry would have a far greater positive effect on Australia than trying to falsely prop up some Politicians home base.

I would think the same points would apply to the UK.

.

[Roadster280]

I don't buy the "defence budget goes back into the economy" line of thinking, so far as the UK goes.

The UK's defence budget ought to be enough to provide some very well equipped forces. It ought to be able to cherry-pick the very best equipment, in reasonable quantities. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter where the bayonet was made, what matters is that when it's thrust into the enemy, it doesn't break.

The UK doesn't have the budget (in terms of GDP%) to spend any more to maintain the defence industrial base required to remain a player. So just give it up, and spend fewer dollars on perfectly good equipment from elsewhere. Once the Hawk dies off, that'll be the end of it anyway. The Typhoon is a collaborative effort. OK, the Uk could make the whole 9 yards on its own, but I severely doubt BAE Systems would take on that much commercial risk on their own. Especially against Boeing and LM. The UK industry is a dead duck, I'm sorry to say.

[NutLoose]

NutherA2 (http://www.pprune.org/members/127649-nuthera2)

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Fife
Age: 75
Posts: 230


Quote:
you got an underpowered F4
Not so; my reheat Speys gave more thrust than your J79s; sadly the airframe modifications needed to install the RR engines created so much additional drag that our F4 K & M were slower than the standard models. On the plus side, though, we produced less smoke & used less fuel.


Just as well because if you did get a lot of smoke and a fire warning that was endex, I seem to remember squeezing in the bigger engines there was no room for extinguishers?

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

On the plus side, at least a 4K could launch off an EAGLE/ARK ROYAL deck without the aid of a force 8 gale.

Bring back the Ministry of Supply and keep the procurement costs out of the Defence Budget. :}. I do, of course, realise the in service support dangers in that.

[teeteringhead]

Caz
As I have said before the BAe Jet Provost Mk 5, BAe 125's and BAe 146's that I flew in the RAF all worked perfectly well. .. so that'd be the Hunting Jet Provost, the HS 125 and the HS 146. ;)

[Willard Whyte]

On the plus side, at least a 4K could launch off an EAGLE/ARK ROYAL deck without the aid of a force 8 gale.

Did the Spams have the same problems?

[jamesdevice]

when did Phantoms get to fly off Eagle?

[cazatou]

teeteringhead

If you had read the post properly you would have noticed that I specified the Mk5 Jet Provost which was a BAe development of the Hunting Jet Provost Mk4; I flew both Mks as a QFI.

The early RAF 125 Executive Jets (400 and 600 Series) were Hawker Siddeley but the later series were BAe and the 146 never went into production as a Hawker Siddeley aircraft - it entered production as the BAe 146 and I would point out that I collected BAe146 ZD 695 from Chester on 16 September 1983.

[Not_a_boffin]

when did Phantoms get to fly off Eagle?

In 68-ish I think, in initial trials for compatibility with UK deck gear. Never operationally, although that's another story......

[XR219]

If you had read the post properly you would have noticed that I specified the Mk5 Jet Provost which was a BAe development of the Hunting Jet Provost Mk4; I flew both Mks as a QFI.

Well, to be pedantic, the JP5 was developed by BAC, about a decade before BAe existed.

[cazatou]

XR219

You are quite correct - I should have referred to BAC (which became BAe later) in respect of the Jet Provost. The 146 was, however, BAe.

[Churchills Ghost]

Defence cuts are fine except when a conflict arises. In Britain's case what would she do if something were to occur on the international stage which demanded our response and what if more than one conflict were to arise - how would the Britain of 2011 cope?

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-bD1rtnMZebw/ToHOn9gyS0I/AAAAAAAAFFI/Tgz2hluiBrM/CG%252520Avatar.jpg

[ZH875]

The 146 was, however, BAe.


Or was it?

Hawker Siddeley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Siddeley) carried out the original design in 1973 using the designation HS.146, but soon abandoned the project as a result of the world economic downturn resulting from the 1973 oil crisis. Low-key development proceeded, however, and in 1978 British Aerospace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Aerospace), Hawker Siddeley's corporate successor, re-launched the project. The 146 type number comes from the original de Havilland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland) designation sequence, which was continued by Hawker Siddeley when the former became a subsidiary of the latter. The type name "Avro RJ" superseded "BAe 146" in 1993.

[RAFEngO74to09]

Phantom F4K, Fleet Air Arm. Royal Navy. - Streaming Video > HMS Eagle Deck Trials 1969 (http://www.phantomf4k.org/index.cfm?fa=contentGeneric.qccqeptxwqifetyc)

[cazatou]

ZH875

The re - designation to Avro RJ therefore came about some 10 years after I collected ZD 695 from Chester.

[Fox Four]

Leon, ever been to Blackpool?

[BEagle]

While I might have poked fun at 't Bungling Baron Waste O'Space, a mythical character somewhere between a Victorian mill owner and a bumbling incompetent interested more in clog-dancing and whippets than 'owt else, inspired by the cartoonist Bill Tidy, may I extend my sympathies to all those made redundant at BAES in these troubled financial times.

[jindabyne]

Well done BEagle

The most thoughtful post on this thread - albeit you'll hate me for so saying.

Unlike many others

[Lima Juliet]

Fox Four

Of course I've been to Blackpool (and Lytham for that matter). Kind of reminds of Skegness and PLEASE excuse the swearing below from a yesteryear VIZ poster...

http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/41591_2264502823_3500_n.jpg

[safetypee]

BEag’s :ok:
Having experienced such a situation at Woodford, being both a supervisor of redundancy and part of it, this is not a subject to be taken lightly.
I am both intrigued and heartened that the redundancies were not timed as an immediate a knee jerk reaction to government policy and project cancellations. This might reflect positive awareness of personnel issues and a realistic appreciation of the economic climate, which in part has been seen in other divisions.

[ex-fast-jets]

Nice vids - thank you.

The F-4 was a proper military fighter. Never flew it, but would have loved to.

If you wanted to do carrier flying properly, then, in its day, the F-4 was the way to go!!

[Dengue_Dude]

It was very interesting that none of those I know in BAES took any joy in the recent redundancies announced in the Armed Forces, and not just out of self-interest.

Those of you who appear to delight in the misery caused by this latest BAES announcement, reality check.

Do you really think it's the guys that organised the contracts, were responsible for cost overruns, involved in junkets etc that got the 'good news'? They're too far up the food chain.

The redundees are mainly the manufacturing staff and they too have mortgages, kids, HP and all the other paraphenalia of modern life.

They aren't getting a year's notice either.

There are no winners here, they're losers all. I doubt the country will be any better off either as we're all being shagged by the banks and government (of any flavour).

[Bongodog1964]

what a surprise (not), the company who decided to get out of civil aircraft by selling their 30% stake in Airbus and invest the proceeds into defence, even though we were already seeing military budgets contracting all round the World. They obviously felt that they would continue to enjoy the luxury of Government contracts where it was impossible to lose money.

Meanwhile Airbus goes from strength to strength. The only consolation is that "waste o space" can no longer destroy careers in Filton and Chester.

[Roadster280]

Delight is far from my emotion on this.

However, there comes a time when you have to admit that you just can't do it. As a nation, that is, not any individual component thereof in isolation. Nimrod 3, Nimrod 4, carriers and aircraft in shambles, even harking back to the much-vaunted TSR2 that never was. Between military user-specifier, MoD defence management and British defence industry, it's been a clusterf*** for decades.

[Dengue_Dude]

Bongodog and Roadster,

I can't argue with your viewpoint, I agree with most of it.

But this 'Waste of Space' isn't the poor sods taking this hit, they just worked for not particularly good wages (yes, they were volunteers, I know, but just like HM Forces).

The 'responsible' ones are well away from this 'payback'.

[MFC_Fly]

My feelings go out to those at BAE Systems that are loosing their jobs. Even if the company are to blame for things like the MRA4 fiasco, the blame would lie at the top, not with the workers on the production floor where the majority of the cuts will come.

We also need to remember that less employees means less work being done. Less work being done means fewer parts needed. Fewer parts needed means those firms supplying the parts will also be affected. How many others outside BAE Systems will also be loosing their jobs as a direct result of this? My thoughts go out to them too :(

MFC

[jindabyne]

Agree DD

Do you really think it's the guys that organised the contracts, were responsible for cost overruns, involved in junkets etc that got the 'good news'? They're too far up the food chain.

In my tenure, most of the hierarchy, many of whom I knew reasonably well, had little understanding of the RAF, its purpose, needs and how it ticked - at all its levels; and worse, they weren't interested in finding out. There were those who were of high engineering intellect, others with a strong commercial eye, and those with persuasive vocal chords; I met very few who were passionate about ensuring its main customer was well-served. Company men and shilling.

The workforce on the otherhand was impressive: skilled, hardworking, dedicated, and invariably interested in the customer and its operating requirements. They deserve a far, far better fate than that which awaits.

After 27 years with the Air Force, I spent 12 with BAe/BAES which rewarded me well both financially and in lifestyle, and I like to think I gave more than I took. Overall, most of its products over the years are not worthy of the slagging which some here take delight in: none perfect, but they have largely served the UK well, operationally, economically and socially. Nevertheless, as said convincingly by others on here, 'twixt MoD and BAe/BAES senior management the country and the military has not had the best of dealings, hugely so.

Sad but predicatable times for all concerned and, regardless of much of the ongoing political and media commentary, IMHO little to do with current economic or other perceived woes. Further UK military aircraft development and procurement is not conceivable in the distant future, production is coming to an end, with only a brief stay of execution offered by one or two more potential orders, and work is inexorably drying-up. Not rocket-science, regardless of the opinion of that useless strategic guru at Birmingham University: unmanned will not fill the hole, in all respects.

The lights are going out, and these are awful times for all concerned both at the coalface and those elsewhere dependent.

Too long, sorry.

[Rigga]

1. Don't forget that BAE is about 40,000 strong - just in UK - and doesn't just make airplanes - If you can think of a military application BAE probably makes one of the choices you have.

2. Don't forget they've already made about 5,000 redundant in the last 18-24 months.

Best of luck to all threatened - I know how it feels.

[gijoe]

'In my tenure, most of the hierarchy, many of whom I knew reasonably well, had little understanding of the RAF, its purpose, needs and how it ticked - at all its levels; and worse, they weren't interested in finding out. There were those who were of high engineering intellect, others with a strong commercial eye, and those with persuasive vocal chords; I met very few who were passionate about ensuring its main customer was well-served. Company men and shilling.'

...That could be said about any of the Primes that the MOD chooses to engage with. A 'GodDamn' big company based in Wales springs to mind - their general view is that the MOD sponge is fit for squeezing...and they have just been given another massive project to cock up :ugh:

It is no wonder people generate such opinions as those displayed here. There is no MOD/Industry partnership although it is much flaunted by the MOD.

I feel sorry for the workers, but the management made this.

G

[Roadster280]

I just read the wiki page on BAES. Not that I'd lean on it in court, but I'm sure the balance of it is true.

Says that BAES employs 104,000 people worldwide, and makes about 5% profit on turnover. So not much profit, and in the overall scheme of things, not a vast reduction in workforce.

Also talks about the sale of the AIrbus shareholding, and that Airbus UK employs 140,000 people directly and indirectly. Surely that can't be true. About 3% of the UK's workforce employed making wings or components for airliners? If it is, it sets in context the (small) size of the BAES aircraft operation in the UK.

[QTRZulu]

jin

I'm one of those being made redundant as a result of one of BAEs flagship failures, however, having spent just under 4 years at Warton wearing the light blue, I fully echo your comments. The guys and girls I had the pleasure of working with on a daily basis were some of the hardest working, most dedicated people you could ever hope to meet. They were well aware of the customers wants and needs and would try their hardest to accommodate that within the at times ridiculous constraints that were forced upon them. The real shame was that their management just didn't get it and it seemed to me didn't really want to get it, deferring difficult decisions and just sweeping others under the rug!

Sadly it is the hardest working who will likely see the door as those in the more senior positions ensure that 'I'm all right jack' by shifting blame for failure down stream. As they say, sh#t rolls downhill - its not nice and in many cases not deserved.

That's not to say the the blame only lays at one door, the MoD are just not geared up for the cut and thrust of modern business where multi-billion pound contracts are at stake. The constant changing of personnel on PTs just so the high fliers can get their procurement ticks is a joke and does nothing for continuity. I lost count of the number of Sqn Ldrs and above who came and went during my time. As a result there was no way a solid working relationship higher up the food chain ever exist - you just didn't know who you would be working with from one month to the next!

There has to be change from all those involved in defence procurement because at the moment its well and truly fuc@@d but I just don't see when and where the necessary change is going to come from.

I fear for those left in the services and those who manage to hold on within BAEs as the future is not exactly rosy on either side.

For those who do stay I wish you the very best of luck and hope that you turn the corner very soon.

[RumPunch]

I have sympathy for the good guys of BAE, many good test engineers I have worked with that have experience that is second to none, great guys and a pleasure for the RAF as we have gained so much from industry, yet that all fell to **** last year and for the 50% of wankers who sat all day reading papers and speaking in a lancashire accent quoting union rules than actually picking up a screwdriver and doing a proper days work , never mind 15 mins tea breaks every 15 mins. After the fallout of that then I got no sympathy, even petty fights between two workplaces over an aircaft that clearly disrupted Typhoon orders. Justice served I agree harsh as I never want one British person to loose a job but for the guys of BAE to complain about work and conditions , it was coming.
The news today about Brough loosing 3/4 of manpower kind of confimrs that F35 is not really in the big picture anymore

[Ogre]

QTRZulu

Nice post, well put. Agree with you all the way.

RumPunch

Having worked on a site where the Unions used to agree the pay bargaining, it used to frustrate me no end on occasions.

Having a good working knowledge of the intricacies of developing a new product from scratch, the job losses also mean that the potential for the future is severely degraded. Once you lose the experienced guys and gals, you can't just pick someone out of Uni and expect them to produce the same standard of work straight off. Experience is crucial, and you could say that one of the causes of where we are now is the fact that the knowledge level in some areas has been gradually whittled away over decades. New tools, processes, and techniques still need people to make them work properly.

And now we will take another chunk out of the knowledge pot, so our chances of designing and developing new product in the future is reduced further because we won't be as competative as other manufacturers who have retained the skilled people. I know it's a business, but still it's a waste.

My thoughts are with my former colleagues at Brough and Warton, good luck folks and I hope it works out for you:ok:

[SRENNAPS]

QTRZulu

Well said and I totally agree.:D:D

The real shame was that their management just didn't get it and it seemed to me didn't really want to get it, deferring difficult decisions and just sweeping others under the rug!

Now that is a statement that sadly sounds familiar……..right across the whole country and in just about every office, department, board room, etc, etc

Just how have we allowed so many idiots, who spout business boll@cks, to be in so many prominent positions? However, when it comes down to it, totally ineffective and spineless and only in it for themselves.:confused::confused:

A total culture change is required......:ugh::ugh:

[Lima Juliet]

Overall, most of its products over the years are not worthy of the slagging which some here take delight in: none perfect, but they have largely served the UK well, operationally, economically and socially.

Have they, b0ll0cks!

NIMWACS - complete disaster and massive waste of money.
MRA4 - complete disaster and massive waste of money.
TORNADO F3 - unfit for purpose as F2. Large sums of money and effort spent to get to F3. Useless above 35,000ft (would get above that but needed to be going bloody quickly to stay there). RADAR that took 15years to sort out (I know it was Ferranti/GEC but they made the SYSTEMS of BAESYSTEMS) - sent to first Gulf War with no defensive aids, a RADAR that would be lucky to get a lock against certain adversaries and engines well below spec for desert ops. During the competition for the contract the company lobbied parliament and effectively lied about its capability. I know this as I spent over 10 years flying it.
HARRIER GR5/7/9/9a - so many marks in so little time! No gun, no weapons clearance for Gulf War I.
PHOENIX - GEC again that became BAESYSTEMS. Late, over budget and underperforming. Royal Arty nicknamed it the "bugger off" for good reason.
TYPHOON - late and overbudget. Systems very poor in the early days and more political lobbying and effective lies.
HERTI - a complete disaster when I saw it in theatre, they hadn't learnt much more from the PHOENIX program.

Latest lies and political lobbying have started with their latest unmanned offering - this time with the French on board as well. I only hope that yesterday's announcement means that the deal is off or we'll be saddled with another crock of sh!te.

Grrrr

LJ

[Lima Juliet]

PS. All this fuss for less than 1% of GDP (according to BBC News last night)...

[jindabyne]

Leon

Aside from your opening remark, I agree with most of your follow-on comments; albeit, as said elsewhere, the culpability arose mostly from joint Ministry/Industry mismanagement. But those specifics don't alter my wider opinion that, over the past four decades, we have had some reasonably decent in-service kit. Not perfect as I said, and sometimes the imperfections had to be corrected in-house; but certainly not always as described in your last sentence.

[Lima Juliet]

Another procurement that made my blood boil was the political lobbying by the company to fat boy Prescott and then the whining to the RAF leadership to buy the Hawk 128 (with a promise of a place on the gravy train after 1 year away on retirement). The Team looking at the requirements wanted the Aeromacchi M346 - twin engined, glass cockpit, plenty of room for expansion and a perfect lead-in to Typhoon. But no, for British jobs we had to to take the Hawk 128 thanks to the fat lad's meddling.

Now we're left with an aircraft that has a smaller cockpit than the Hawk T1/T1A - which is great when diet, nutrition and health means that our demographic is getting larger! There will be some creamies sent to Linton in the twighlight of T1/T1A who will not be able to come back to 128 later because they will be too big!!! :ugh:

Double Grrr

LJ

[iRaven]

There seems to be a plan break up BAESYSTEMS into smaller companies - in my non-commercial tiny brain, this would be a good thing as anything with the red and white logo BAESYSTEMS seems to be a tainted brand!

It would be nice to see the names of Hawker, DeHavilland, AVRO, Handley-Page, etc... all make a come back. It has certainly worked for MINI in recent years - we should be proud of the heritage, just not the monster that it has become in the past 20 years.

iRaven

[jamesdevice]

and Ferranti, Thorn, Marconi, Plessey, English Electric, British Thompson Houston, Vulcan Foundry, Vickers SEL, Mirlees, Davey-Paxman, Napier, and countless other British engineering companies that were murdered or emasculated by GEC

The GEC management legacy is the problem within BAE Systems - not the BAe traditions.

[Lima Juliet]

BAE shares have underperformed over the past three years, leaving them on a low PE and a high yield. However, despite these low ratios, they could continue to underperform on concerns over defence budget cuts, particularly in the US and the UK as these two countries account for some 70% of group sales. Management has pledged a series of measures, including bolt-on acquisitions, cost reduction, share buybacks and higher dividends, but these do not appear to have had any positive impact on the stock price.

We believe that a radical move is required to reverse the share-price decline and we advocate a complete reversal of the group's long-held strategy in order to unlock the substantial hidden value within the group's business portfolio.

De-merging the US businesses should allow the market to value the two resulting groupings on their individual merits and this could provide an immediate uplift in the valuation of some 36%. Furthermore, an independent BAE Inc could then generate further value for shareholders by merging with or selling itself to one of the US defence companies, releasing a further 10%-20% of value. A similar strategy was successfully pursued by General Dynamics in the last major defence downturn in 1991 and yielded total shareholder returns of over 500% between 1991 and 1994.


So breaking up the profitable bits in the US from the bits in the UK that makes a loss - here comes a sucker punch!

LJ

[iRaven]

Oh, you want to use the UK threat database rather than the useless NATO one? OK, just hand it over, we'll program it in once the NSA have finished with it.

You blew it about how much you really know to support your arguement with this one line - take a look at UKUSA Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement)

:ok:

[jindabyne]

Another procurement that made my blood boil was the political lobbying by the company to fat boy Prescott and then the whining to the RAF leadership to buy the Hawk 128 (with a promise of a place on the gravy train after 1 year away on retirement). The Team looking at the requirements wanted the Aeromacchi M346 - twin engined, glass cockpit, plenty of room for expansion and a perfect lead-in to Typhoon. But no, for British jobs we had to to take the Hawk 128 thanks to the fat lad's meddling.

Now we're left with an aircraft that has a smaller cockpit than the Hawk T1/T1A - which is great when diet, nutrition and health means that our demographic is getting larger! There will be some creamies sent to Linton in the twighlight of T1/T1A who will not be able to come back to 128 later because they will be too big!!!

Double Grrr



Total and utter nonsense!

[Lima Juliet]

Jindabyne

Total and utter nonsense!

How so? I know this for a fact as I had a guy coming to fly for me whilst he waited for a Typhoon/Tornado cockpit. About 3 weeks to go I got a call from 22Gp saying could they have him back as he needed to fly T1/T1A before it went or he would not fit in the 128 for a refresher in a couple of years after I had finished with him.

Or are you denying that fatboy Prezza ordered that the deal be struck to save his double-chins for the chop by his constituents near Brough?

Or is it that the Macchi M346 is inferior? I think not!

Do tell :confused:

LJ

[Ogre]

LJ

Wake up and smell the coffee! Of course politics were involved in the purchase of the Mk128, isn't that what politicians do? If they want to get re-elected they don't sign up to deals that will make their constituents redundant, regardless of the topic.

As for buying the Macchi, if that deal had gone ahead then the 900 job losses at Brough would have been six years ago. Just because you didn't get the toy you wanted is no reason to throw them out of the cot and blame everyone else.

When it comes down to it, BAE is a business. If you don't act like a business you go under, and you have to sell things to do that. How many non-US built aircraft/tanks/ships does teh US military have? Virtually none, and that is because the US defence contractors have the whole thing sewn up. We as a country don't have a big enough military to support that.

P.S. your hated TMk1 is one of the few non-US designs in the US inventory as the T38 Goshawk, but they don't like to talk about it

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

iRaven, an interesting association; I think. The Millipede bloody annoyed me today by making a salient point regarding "asset strippers". BBC News - Labour conference: Miliband war on 'fast buck' society (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15068488)
Ed Miliband has declared war on "predatory, asset-stripping" companies, in his speech to the Labour conference.


Is it a coincidence that Woodford (and probably Brough and Salmesbury in due course) is probably worth more per year as a prime building site than it was as one of production? Now it's mentioned, it can't be easy for the poor buggers from Woodford who were "offered" jobs at wonderful Warton. BAES, the 1 Site model aircraft (after Typhoon) factory.

[jamesdevice]

"BAE is a business"
NO. BAe was a business. BAE Systems is a parasite

[Mend em]

LJ

I thought you only ever want to buy COTS aircraft....

[Lima Juliet]

Err? I don't believe there is any UK taxpayer's dosh in the development of the Macchi? Doesn't that make it Commercial Off The Shelf to Her Majesty's Forces?

Or am I being incredibly dull?

LJ

[Mickey Kaye]

"Is it a coincidence that Woodford (and probably Brough and Salmesbury in due course) is probably worth more per year as a prime building site than it was as one of production? "

I wonder if this could tie in with the creation of flood defenses which started being built around the Brough site about 6 months ago. I very much suspect its been penciled in for housing for a very long time. Simply sad.

[Lima Juliet]

Its still near Hull though, so it probably stinks of fish...

But according to Blackadder it has the other great University...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/content/images/2007/05/09/blackadder4e_396x222.jpg

[Mend em]

LJ,

Having read many a script, I'd never accuse you of not being switched on.

My point was that at time of ordering the Italian aircraft was still made of paper, and still has not had chance to develop much of a track record. If it had been selected rather than the Hawk, this would have been a development bet as per A400M, rather than a nice, 10 years + developed US aircraft which, it seems, most posters would rather have.

[Lima Juliet]

I agree it was a safe bet for aircrew less than 6 foot 2 inches who have a penchant for vintage aircraft - the design originates from 40+ years ago!

I think the Hawker Siddley 1182 (HS1182), or Hawk as we now know it, was the winning bidder for an Air Staff target on 1 Oct 1971! :eek:

LJ

[Lima Juliet]

Also, to be picky, the Aermacchi M346's first prototype flew in 1996 when it was a joint venture with Yakolev. This partnership dissolved in the late 90s and Aermacchi went it alone. The first production version rolled off the line on 7 Jun 03 and flew on 15 Jul 04. The Hawk 128 on the other hand was awarded the contract as a "paper aircraft" on 22 Dec 04 - some 5 months after the Macchi's first flight. The Hawk 128 did not fly until 27 Jul 05 over 1 year later.

As I said, a corrupt deal to keep the fat boy adulterer in a job in his constuency, and yet again the RAF get a cr@p deal.

Enough to make me weep...:{

LJ

[Lima Juliet]

BTW anyone know what happened to the posts by the alleged BAe worker confirming corrupt competition last night? I think his nome-de-plume was "kiliwix" or something like that. The posts were made about 2230hrs and had dissapeared by the morning (along with the quotes from the post made by other posters)?

Is Pprune in the payment of t'Baron or am I turning into a nut- job conspiracy theorist?

LJ:}

[Ogre]

LJ

You're a nut-job conspiracy theorist! From what I've read to appear to take it as a personal affront that someone didn't give you everything you wanted.

Oh and to clarify one thing, COTS is only COTS as long as you take it as it is produced. As soon as you change anything at all it becomes MOTS (Modified off the shelf) which then starts the cash tills ringing. As soon as it is MOTS then there are two sets of drawings (one for original and one for the modified) plus associated paperwork etc. That isn't a cash cow, that's just good engineering of a complex system.

[Roadster280]

BTW anyone know what happened to the posts by the alleged BAe worker confirming corrupt competition last night? I think his nome-de-plume was "kiliwix" or something like that. The posts were made about 2230hrs and had dissapeared by the morning (along with the quotes from the post made by other posters)?

He didn't make any such statements. He said it was all a mistake. There was no collusion, no fraud.

These are not the droids you are looking for. It seems.