More money down the toilet to Waste O'Space

[Lima Juliet]

This makes me sick to the core...

MOD Invests In Future Of Combat Air Systems (http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/archive/mod-invests-in-future-of-combat-air-systems-20122011)

Note how the pictures of an operational RPAS in the article are all non-Waste O'Space products - there's a reason for that, they've yet to build one that will work properly on Ops! We'd be better off investing this money (£40m) in the UK car or satellite industry - at least there's some chance of a decent return for the UK taxpayer. How many would we not have to make redundant with £40m over 10 years? I reckon about 65 SNCOs/JOs or double that over 5 years.

Grrrrr!

LJ

[Sun Who]

Putting aside for one moment the question of BAES and value for money (like many people on this forum, I'm not a fan):

Should the UK Govt aim to develop a serious, indigenous UAS/RPAS manufacturing capability?

My own view is that defence industrial capacity, like water, power and access to trade routes, is a strategic security question. Relying completely our allies (US or other) to always be prepared to sell us cutting edge defence tech seems negligent and naive. If we continue to rely on UOR funded procurements of US and Israeli/pseudo-French systems, we will pay a hefty price, both economically and, more importantly, in terms of assured access.

I would love to see British industry in a position (say) 10 years from now, when we were building world beating unmanned (uninhabited if you prefer) aircraft.

I believe smart, non-politically aportioned investment could see the UK competing with the Israeli UAS/RPAS industry in 5 years and with the US (on niche capabilities) in 10.

Britain used to have the world's best, most innovative aviation manufacturing sector. I honestly believe a similar situation is achievable with unmanned systems.

Israel came from nowhere to being the worlds 2nd best (arguably) UAS/RPAS manufacturer in the space of around 10 years. Why couldn't we do that?

What do others think?
I'm genuinely interested in people's considered thoughts on this.

Sun.

[soddim]

I believe your positive attitude Sun Who is what we all need in this country and I firmly believe that money invested in this technology is potentially well-spent. My experience of the company involved is that they do much better without Government or MOD interference - well thought out specifications - no mind changes every five minutes - some latitude for innovative solutions - professional contacts within the establishment.

What seems to have happened in the past is far too much vacillation and interference from career chasing uninformed ministry men.

[Corporal Clott]

Sun/LJ

I agree with you both. Baron Waste O'Space is a carbuncle on what was once a great industry that was mismanaged into what we have today - if anyone gets book tokens for Christmas I recommend this:

http://www.lightnings.org.uk/Images/Home/Empire-of-the-Clouds.jpg

I would like to see money invested into small-medium enterprises (SMEs). Companies like COBHAM are already teamed up with General Atomics and Marshalls could also be brought in to help - Rolls Royce are leading engine manufacturers so I'm sure if they saw a good opportunity to market an advanced propulsion system for a RPAS/UAS they'd be in like a rat up a drainpipe. There are plenty of other strong contenders as well - Martin Baker for example.

I just hate to see more money go down the drain to the carbuncle that is very unlikely to deliver anything good - and they haven't for years. := In fact the picture on the book above is probably their last semi-successful effort from near Blackpool, all the other successes in recent times were products of Brough, Hatfield and Filton.

CPL Clott

[Corporal Clott]

My experience of the company involved is that they do much better without Government or MOD interference - well thought out specifications - no mind changes every five minutes - some latitude for innovative solutions - professional contacts within the establishment.

Sorry I don't buy this, what have they produced recently on their own that is worth selling to bail out our Nu Labour debt? All of their RPAS/UAS efforts have been a total disaster and so has their last effort to produce an ISTAR manned aircraft (adding ~£4.5Bn to the National Debt with nothing to show!).

Enough is enough - get the shareholders to invest in their own products and then if any good they will benefit.

CPL Clott

[randyrippley]

My experience of the money involved is that it produces more when spent at any UK company other than BAE

[Lima Juliet]

The £40m would be better spent buying another half a squadron of Reaper or a full squadron of Predator :ugh:

[Sun Who]

Sun Who (me) said:

Putting aside for one moment the question of BAES and value for money (like many people on this forum, I'm not a fan)

How about we just accept that BAES are cr@p, for many reasons, and focus on what a British UAS success might look like?

Cpl Clot's suggestion of Cobham/Rolls is interesting. My own view is that we'd struggle to go direct VFR from nowt to any form of credible UCAS. How about a programme aimed at developing high-end autonomy, small-medium UAS, as a niche capability? Highly saleable to the ROTW. We already have world beating autonomy expertise in this country, residing mainly in Govt organisations, that could be shared with industry (in the right way).

I think a QinetiQ, Blue Bear Systems venture would be interesting.

Sun.

[Sun Who]

Leon,

Pred/Reaper is a class act, no doubt, and it's served us well. However, we can't operate it without US agreement (we don't have the infrastructure). Assured access, sovereignty, is a big deal for this type of capability.
Looking beyond HERRICK/ELLAMY, how might we apply MALE type UAS capability in future conflicts were the US are not playing?

Sun.

[COCL2]

cheap building methods like this are the way forward, not the expensive stuff from BAE
3D printing: The world's first printed plane - tech - 27 July 2011 - New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20737-3d-printing-the-worlds-first-printed-plane.html?page=1)

[Lima Juliet]

Sun

If we bought the export versions (ie. the non-USAF standard birds) then we could do it all on our own. Satellite infrastructure is the easy part by either converting to X-band for our Skynet or using commercial Ku providers such as Intelsat (which most use anyway Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) | Intelsat General (http://www.intelsatgeneral.com/service-offerings/mobility-communications-solutions/unmanned-aerial-vehicle-uav)) or go the route of Iridium that the Customs and Border Protection Agency use (with a lot of limitations).

So I don't see infrastructure as an issue - unless you're talking bricks and mortar (which isn't a problem either).

LJ

[randyrippley]

Leon
two questions there
1) what would be the cost of the base stations?
2) how subcentible to jamming are the commercial sattelite networks? we don't want any drones wandering away...

[Sun Who]

Leon,
Yep, we could mimic DCGS using commercial satellite infra, but I don't think that's any more assured than relying on the US. Lots of effort has been put into assessing that as an option and it's fraught with issues.

That's one of the attractions of autonomy (for strike missions, that is, ISR would still be a struggle I think). However, that level of UAS cap would still be several years off for UK industry to achieve, even if we invested seriously now. I think a more realistic goal would be development of something in the WATCHKEEPER mould - only not sh!t. A proper ISTAR TUAV, with cutting edge sensors and weapons, a good level of autonomy and enabled by forward deployed and/or 'self-hop' VHF relay. All doable. I assess UK industry could deliver that for Defence inside 6 years IF we invested based on need not greed. Admittedly a big ask.

Sun

[Sun Who]

Randy said:

two questions there
1) what would be the cost of the base stations?
2) how subcentible to jamming are the commercial sattelite networks? we don't want any drones wandering away...

My view is that the answers are:

1) prohibitive but innovative solutions might reduce the cost significantly.
2) very.

Sun

[Lima Juliet]

When it comes to autonomy, it saves little on bandwidth or infrastructure as the "collect" is the big bit (2-12 mega bits per second depending on your sensor's capabilities) and the command link is the small bit (100-500 kilo bits per second depending on the complexity of the aircraft). Also, it is very unlikely that the required levels of autonomy would ever be ethical or morally accpetable - have a read of this very good paper by Elizabeth Quintana sponsored by the British Computer Society and RUSI http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/RUSI_ethics.pdf

In answer to the question on the cost of base stations, they're about 15% of the cost of the air vehicle and in the £40m estimate that was for a "system" (ie. Aircraft, ground control stations and the rest to make it work). The satellite link is not very easy to jam unless you have something like a Satellite Earth Station (SES) which would have a dish many metres accross - it would quickly become a target for a Tomahawk Land Attack Missile if it started to try and jam. The parabolic dishes looking away from the ground where potential jammers might be is difficult to jam as the gain upwards from the aircraft's dish is about 50dB whereas backwards it is probably 1-2dB. Furthermore, dispersing your military datalink within commercial bandwidth is very shrewd as an attack on it may well cease commercial signals from the enemy's country and also its allies/neighbours.

Finally, with RPAS/UAS/UAVs still on the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) then exports to the ROTW is highly unlikely for now (for more google MTCR). So trying to invest in this in the expectation of HUGE export sales is flawed. Making a dozen or so aircraft and associated ground equipment is not going to keep this area of industry afloat.

LJ

PS. Warning I'm now powered by Real Ale!
PPS. Before anyone asks, ASAT against something like Intelsat is tricky as it is a long way away compared to all of the ASAT shots taken against Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites. Also, you run the risk of denying a large portion of the Geostationary Earth Orbit (GEO) belt which would probably trigger a new World War. Also, you would need a spare Ariane lying around to do it!

[iRaven]

Leon

Jamming a parabolic dish outside of the main lobe is, as you say, difficult. The jammer would need to position between the satellite and the RPA to be effecfive (ie. Flying above it). A good example is to look at the jamming of fighter RADAR using a dish - the highest gain is along about a 2 degree beamwidth. So a jammer is only effective along the bearing of the jammer that may be mounted on the target aircraft or a jamming aircraft protecting a COMAO package on the same relative bearing. The fighter RADAR will probably be unaffected outside 4-5 degrees of its sweep unless the jammer is pumping out gigawatts of power and then maybe another 5 degrees might be affected. Against an RPAS, a SAM would be cheaper, easier and likely to be more successful - or if it's single engined then wait for the engine to quit!

I also doubt whether they will be able to produce anything better than that can be purchased off the shelf more cheaper and with better chance of delivering on time.

iRaven

[t43562]

This is only what I have read - I have no idea or qualification - I'm just mentioning it because it might be relevant: the justification I have read about autonomy and bandwidth is that you don't need bandwidth during transit to/from the point of use - hence the total bandwidth required when you have one asset on the way, one on station and possibly even one returning would be less.

On the other hand,I speculate that possibly one doesn't switch on the bandwidth-hungry stuff until the right moment anyhow even with the non-autonomous vehicles.

[Lima Juliet]

T43562

Your reading would imply that the system's operator is not interested in seeing where it is going and also not doing ad-hoc collect en route to the target - ask most recce mates and their is a lot of ad-hoc collect en route at times. Also some payloads may be collecting several hundred kilometres from the target.

Anyway, commercial bandwidth isn't that expensive - certainly at lot less than Typhoon's hourly cost per hour!

iRaven - thanks, I agree.

LJ

[t43562]

I don't wish to be argumentative since I have no basis on which to do that but some things occurred to me:

I can see the case for autonomy lasting for short periods - then an operator can switch between several aircraft, checking on the output from each one. This way the airspace could have huge numbers of them. I think that satellites have undergone this kind of change - from one being flown by many people to many being flown by one person since they can look after their own manoeuvring much more. The full video recording could be retrieved on return for analysis.

The second thing I was thinking about was that autonomy in flying might be the smaller part of it all. If you could put some really significant computers into the aircraft you could get them to notice and record things of interest so that you'd avoid transmitting pictures of empty desert or blue sky. e.g. google's face recognition stuff that they use to blur photos in streetview could equally be used to look for specific people, types of vehicles activity etc.

[COCL2]

I'm no expert, but I can't help but feel the 3D printing technology that Southampton University is using to made drones is going to knock the bottom out of the current market structure
Combine it with off-the-shelf equipment and phone / comms monitoring would be easy, even encrypted comms. In theory, assuming the target country has a G3 phone system you could even control it remotely via phone -- though that has obvious drawbacks!
As for targetting - yes existing commercial image / face recognition technology is probably good enough to go after specific buildings or people. You could probably just embed it into a mobile phone chip
Whether that would give the required reliability though is another question

All I'm trying to point out is you could make them cheap and cheerful. Swarm tactics maybe?

[cazatou]

I have twice picked up new Aircraft Types from BAe and in both cases the Aircraft performed as advertised.

In contrast when picking up the first modified Jet Provost aircraft from Shorts of Belfast it took 2 hours to find someone who had the faintest idea of how to turn the Radio on.!!!

[randyrippley]

Companies - and their business philosophies - can change dramatically over a 40 (30?) year period

[Mechta]

How to succeed n the UAV business:



Employ people who have; used UAVs operationally, know what they are talking about, know the pitfalls, know why UAV operations are different to manned ones
Own or have a major shareholding in your propulsion and payload providers
Supply UAVs (particularly the larger ones) on a 'surveillance by the hour' basis
Have a Desert Hawk/ScanEagle/Orbiter sized 'bread & butter' system to sell and bring the revenue in
Use proven technology in your production equipment, and prove up and coming technology over and over again before letting the customer get excited and want it.
Be able to shift the focus of your UAV product range to your primary customer's current or near term need. i.e. from High Altitude Long Endurance to short range
Have an off-the-shelf, reliable product ready to go. It may not be perfect but if its available and works the customer will have it (How General Atomics did so well with the original Predator).
Have the contacts in place to move rapidly from concept to operational equipment
Pay well enough that you stop your employees leaving and becoming your competitiors
Don't rest on your laurels

[pr00ne]

Oh come on Cpl Clott! A carbuncle? What have they produced? BAE Systems earned £22.3 billon of revenue last year in products sold to armed forces all over the globe. They operate as a global entity to a global customer base and are the 2nd largest defence contractor on the face of the planet.

They seem to have a whole host of satisfied customers who re order from them time and time again. Their problem contracts seem to have one thing in common with the likes of Lockheed-Martin, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, Agusta-Westland and Thales to name but a few, that thing in common? The UK Ministry of Defence as a customer!

As for that book, just exactly WHEN did the British aircraft industry EVER lead or rule the world?
When was the UK industry EVER more prominent or significant than it is today, being the 2nd largest industry of its kind in the world with the likes of BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce, GKN, Meggit, Cobham, Martin-Baker etc etc etc.

[Corporal Clott]

Proone

Maybe I should have been more specific, here's a break down of their revenue:

Electronics, Intelligence & Support (23%): Includes majority of US business (BAE Systems Inc.).
Land & Armaments (34%): Produces armoured combat vehicles, tactical wheeled vehicles, naval guns, missile launchers, artillery systems and munitions. Main business in the US, UK, Sweden and South Africa.
Programmes (24%): Majority of UK businesses; BAE Systems Military Air Solutions, 55% of BVT Surface Fleet, BAE Systems Submarine Solutions, BAE Systems Insyte and Detica.
International Businesses (18%): Includes BAE Systems Customer Solutions & Support International (Saudi Arabian business), BAE Systems Australia, SAAB (20.5%), and MBDA (37.5%).
HQ and other businesses (1%): Includes BAE Systems Regional Aircraft and support activities as well as costs of administration, "UK shared services activity", including research centres, property management and corporate air travel.


It's the bit in red that's the carbuncle in my opinion. Why? Well look what's on their books recently:

Eurofighter Typhoon - BAE Systems has a 33% share in Eurofighter GmbH along with Alenia and EADS's Spanish and German divisions. MAI is responsible for the production of all RAF and Saudi aircraft as well as designing and producing all front fuselages for the programme.
Nimrod MRA4 - MAI is rebuilding the Nimrod aircraft to the upgraded MRA4 service for the Royal Air Force. (MRA4 cancelled in 2010.)
Panavia Tornado - MAI predessor British Aerospace manufactured all RAF and Saudi aircraft and MAI continues to offer support to these air forces.
Panavia Tornado ADV - MAI predessor British Aerospace manufactured all RAF and Saudi aircraft and MAI continues to offer support to these air forces.
BAE Harrier II - Originally developed and manufactured at Dunsfold and Kingston the business unit today provides support and upgrades to the aircraft.
BAE Hawk - The Hawk trainer is manufactured at Brough and has been produced for numerous armed forces around the globe including the RAF, RAAF, RCAF and South African Air Force.
T-45 Goshawk - A naval development of the Hawk aircraft manufactured with Boeing for the US Navy


Then there's their farting about unsuccessfully to get a sale in the unmanned game for the past 10 years...

Advanced Systems and Future Capability (AS&FC)
BAE Ampersand
BAE Corax
BAE GA22
BAE HERTI
BAE Mantis
BAE Systems Phoenix
BAE Skylynx II
BAE Taranis


Hardly good news is it? Late or scrapped, overpriced and full of dissappointment...

CPL Clott

[Corporal Clott]

Also, having seen Raven at their so called Skunk Works (yup, about right as the contents stink!) some may not realise that the clever picture below makes a "model" aircraft look very big - Raven has about a 1 metre wingspan and uses a model jet engine! All spin and bluster to dupe the Govt into getting the MoD to part with more money. Also, I still note that Taranis hasn't flown - only 2 years late in a 3-4 year contract!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/7-raven-aircraft.jpg

Garbage! :yuk:

[jindabyne]

For once, I'm with you prOOne.

As with all of the big defence players, there is no perfection, and on face value (ie, without any current detailed knowledge) I tend to agree over the unmanned issue. But it seems to me that, as ever when BAES is talked of, there are many on here with, variously, chips/shoulders, a blinkered view of reality, and/or a ready propensity to tar the Company with a very broad brush. Your last post, CC, is a very good example.

Merry Xmas All :)

PS: the spelling of prOOne above is not of my doing!

[Rakshasa]

There is nothing new under the sun.

50 years ago they were moaning about Hawker-Siddley. 100 years ago they were moaning about Vickers.

Heck, even Supermarine delivered the first Spitfires 12 months late and 10% over budget....

[Sun Who]

12 months late and 10% over budget would be a massive success in modern defence procurement terms.

Sun.

[Mechta]

Cpl Clott wrote:

Then there's their farting about unsuccessfully to get a sale in the unmanned game for the past 10 years...

Quote:
Advanced Systems and Future Capability (AS&FC)
BAE Ampersand
BAE Corax
BAE GA22
BAE HERTI
BAE Mantis
BAE Systems Phoenix
BAE Skylynx II
BAE Taranis
Hardly good news is it? Late or scrapped, overpriced and full of dissappointment...With the exception of Phoenix, which is only BAe as a result of takeovers, how many of the above were ever intended to lead to production aircraft? Having looked up the names I didn't recognise, it appears that Skylynx II was sold to Elbit to become the Hermes 90. Definitely a case of selling fridges to eskimos. I'm impressed!

I'm no apologist for BAe, but if they have been building and flying UAVs as opposed to just doing paper studies, then I take my hat off to them. Having been involved with UAVs since the late 1980s, the main things that have been lacking in the UAV field in the UK are a clear customer need/requirement and hands-on practical experience.

Any UK service requirement has tended to be tailored to an anticipated need to fly in UK airspace and UK weather. The fact that the environment Iraq and Afghanistan lend themselves to simpler systems (no see and avoid requirement, able to operate without 'through cloud' sensors) has given the producers of these simpler systems a big sales advantage.

[tucumseh]

12 months late and 10% over budget would be a massive success in modern defence procurement terms.

Sun.


Whereas 12 months early and 10% under would lead to adverse annual reports and enforced move as it would set the bar too high and lead to even more criticism. (Chief of Defence Procurement ruling, 1997). Easier to deal with a few moans about a small sample of projects under PAC scrutiny.

Given this, nobody in MoD has any right to complain about (most) companies. Put your own house in order first.

[Sun Who]

Mechta said:

the main things that have been lacking in the UAV field in the UK are a clear customer need/requirement and hands-on practical experience.

Absolutely correct and bl@@dy shameful. In part, I believe, this is because we've been too busy fighting wars to sit down and develop a strategy for UAS enabled capability. I anticipate that will change over the next 12 months or so though. Watch this space.

Tucumseh said:

...nobody in MoD has any right to complain about (most) companies. Put your own house in order first.

Also absolutely correct and intrinsically linked to Mechta's point above. Similarly bl@@dy shameful.


Sun.

[The B Word]

able to operate without 'through cloud' sensors

Can I take that you have never been to Afghanistan from the end of November to about March? :ok:

The B Word

[Pontius Navigator]

A 6.55% dividend yield is quite attractive but the shares have not shown a scintillating growth. Still quite happy to hold them.

[The B Word]

As for Spitfire being late...

Specification F.5/34 High-performance fighter with air-cooled engine for overseas (hot climate) use - Bristol Type 146, Gloster G.38, Martin-Baker M.B.2, Vickers Type 279 Venom

Specification F.36/34 (modified by F.5/34) Eight-gun fighter with Rolls-Royce PV-12 engine - Supermarine Spitfire, Hawker Hurricane

So there were 6 aircraft from British manufacturers and the Hurricane and Spitfire won and met the specification. Now wouldn't it be nice if we saw a genuine competition rather than the single source cr@p that we keep on seeing these days? No wonder those jokers in Lancashire are so bleeding arrogant about winning contracts and promising things they know they can't deliver - keeping the MPs in their back pocket at the same time.

Interesting figures about the £40m. With the money that we wasted on this company for MRA4 we woukd not be making our RAF people redundant over the next 3 years - thanks a bunch!

The B Word

[tucumseh]

Now wouldn't it be nice if we saw a genuine competition rather than the single source cr@p that we keep on seeing these days?

Many in MoD and Industry won't thank you for wanting genuine (or even fair) competition!

Next Tuesday Radio 4 are broadcasting a programme about MoD's profligacy. I doubt if they'll scrape the surface. But here's one typical case;

A few years ago MoD issued a 3 stage spec for a Critical Enabling Technology. (i.e. If you don't have it, or it doesn't work, you die. Any many were). Each stage was to improve on the one before. The first R&D phase was to last 3 years and deliver a prototype of this CET (Stage 1). Then, if successful, they would build on it for Stages 2 and 3.

One highly respected supplier sought my advice. (I didn't work in the IPT concerned but knew the company). To deliver the 1st stage, they'd have to resurrect a production line they had closed 8 years previously. They currently supplied the Stage 2 "aspiration" to the world and his dog, including other parts of MoD. Stage 3 would take a few months. Remember, the Tender was giving 3 years to deliver Stage 1. I advised them to seek a meeting with MoD's Commercial Director (read the Tornado/Patriot thread about a 2 Star rejecting the call for IFF integration / functional safety to be checked). They were shown the door in no uncertain fashion, told to wind their necks in and shut up about the CET being available NOW. They knew the score - play the game or be blacklisted. They spent a small fortune on a bid in the pretence they would conduct a 3 year R&D programme. Actually, they'd sit on their a*** for a couple of years raking it in and then deliver a few samples off the existing production line. They didn't want to do this, but that's what it took to stay in MoD's good books. They didn't get the contract. 2 years later the Stage 1 contract was allowed to quietly die as the winner couldn't hack it.

It's not just the waste and incompetence; people died. I could give a similar example from 3 years ago on Nimrod. They issued an ITT to develop a technology that had entered service in 1996, been removed and updated in 2000. What is the mechanism for preventing this in MoD? Management Oversight (or Governance) by the 2 Star. Trouble is, it was he who gave them the boot. Can't have favoured MoD staff being embarrassed, can we? Exactly the same reason why functional safety was ignored. Solution? Get rid. And I'm not off subject - 2 Star, IFF, UAVs - not entirely unrelated if you know your way round DE&S.

[downsizer]

So what was or is this CET then?

[hval]

Downsizer,

CET is an acronym for Combat Engineering Tractor. Used by the Corps of Royal Engineers. Been in use since 1976/ 77. Being replaced by Terrier, a BAE project.

[Corporal Clott]

Mechta

They tried to sell Herti to the RAF and a middle-eastern nation - answer, no thanks :yuk:

They tried to sell GA22 to the RN and Army - answer, no thanks :yuk:

Mantis was stopped in its tracks as it is little more than an underdeveloped, more expensive and higher risk MQ-9 - don't know where the answer is on this, but there aren't exactly customers queing up for it (the MALE RPAS is flooded with proven products right now).

Taranis has yet to perform as a demonstrator.

Finally, to me the concept for &mpersand is flawed.

Now why does there have to be a clear UK requirement for this technology? Why can't their sales people get off their fat arses and sell these supposed "world leading" technologies to the ROTW? I suspect the answer will come down to us asking why the hell we're investing £40m in this area of industry. As said before, invest it in satellites, cars (JLR, Aston Martin, Morgan, Mini are all doing well), motorcycles (Triumph do very well for the country and have factories in the UK and Thailand), boats (things like Sunseekers rather than Astutes!), Airbus are doing very well so we'd be better off buying more stakes in this industry (that BAe sold off recently), medical technology (MRI scanners), etc, etc... All are British Engineering success stories (yes I know there is foreign investment, but BAe are no longer British apart from in name).

CPL Clott

[Lima Juliet]

Just in case anyone thinks I am anti British-manufactured vehicles, I would like to add:

1. My wife's car was made in the UK.
2. My car was made in the UK.
3. My aeroplane was made in the UK.
4. My motor-bike was made in the UK.
5. My sailing dinghy was made in the UK.

In fact the aeroplane used to bear the slogan "This aircraft is British Made - Private Enterprise and No Taxpayer's Money"; and I believe all of the above are the same as well - and so they should be.

But this current taxpayer's gravy train for MoD procurement with this manufacturer should be stopped...IMHO

LJ

[Sir George Cayley]

Where does Watchkeeper figure in all of this?

SGC

[soddim]

All this bashing of BAES leaves me wondering why the responsibility for failure has not been more fairly divided between the company and the MOD. Don't misunderstand my defence of the company because I claim credit for originating the 'British Waste O'Space' title.

However, there have been and still are some very able people working at the various parts of this British company (albeit with shareholders in many foreign countries just like the rest of so-called UK companies) and they deserve better than the outcome of several of the failing projects highlighted in the previous posts.

Major defence expenditure almost invariably places the delivering company at the mercy of the inefficiencies of Whitehall and project management within the company is greatly influenced by decisions outside of their control. The company cannot be held entirely responsible for the failures so let's just be fair to our fellow Brit workers please.

If there is government money available for R & D or investment in technology let it be channelled to a British company for goodness sake because then even if nothing useful emerges at least 25% will be recovered in tax.

[tucumseh]

Extracts from Defence Industrial Strategy 2005. The policy regarding UAVs is pretty clear, as is the intention to retain BAeS.





xxiv. We and industry share a close alignment of interest in UAV
and UCAV technology. Although at present we have no funded UCAV
programme, targeted investment in UCAV technology demonstrator
programmes would help sustain the very aerospace engineering and design
capabilities we will need to operate and support our future aircraft fleet.
Such investment would also ensure that we can make better informed
decisions which will need to be taken around 2010-2015 on the future
mix of manned and unmanned aircraft. Additionally, UK industry will have
the opportunity to develop a competitive edge in a potentially lucrative
military and civil market. We intend to move forward with a substantial
joint Technology Demonstrator Programme in this area. We hope that
appropriate arrangements will be in place to allow this to proceed in 2006.

xxv. Our plans to retain onshore the industrial capabilities required
to ensure effective through-life support to the existing and planned
fast jet fleet – and to invest in developing UCAV technology – will
also provide us with the core industrial skills required to contribute
to any future international manned fast jet programme, should the
requirement for one emerge. This recognises both the uncertainty of
our ver y long term requirements – with the possibility that we shall
want to replace elements of the Typhoon and Joint Strike Fight fleets
with manned aircraft – and that we should avoid continuing to fund
industrial capabilities for which we have no identified requirement.

xxvi. Critical mission systems, including electro-optical (EO)
sensors, radar, Electronic Support Measures (ESM) and Defensive
Aids Systems (DAS) are also significant areas where we wish to retain
onshore capability and where suppliers must be able to work with the
prime contractor and be rewarded for developing new solutions.

B4.46 In the context of the wider discussions with the industry around
consolidation and transformation, we are considering ways in which we can
take such an aspiration forward. BAE Systems is leading a UK industry team
working on UAV technologies, following some recent very successful company
and MOD-funded technology demonstration programmes. This work has
pioneered a range of agile project management techniques; an absolute
focus on key objectives, a fast decision making process, and rapid prototyping
and engineering. This approach, which we are keen to use more widely,
has significantly cut the time in which new ideas and technologies can be
realised and demonstrated. For example, BAE Systems’ own Raven UAV went
from concept to first flight in ten months. Building on the success of these
programmes, we intend to move forward subject to a value for money business
case being demonstrated and appropriate commercial arrangements being in
place with a more substantial TDP ( Technology Demonstrator Programmes)
designed to give us and industry a better understanding of key technologies
of relevance to UAVs and UCAVs more broadly. This would be a joint effort
with MOD and industry contributing to the costs. We hope that appropriate
arrangements will be in place to allow this activity to proceed in 2006.

[ACW367]

The other company I would be throwing money at instead of BAES is DO Systems. They have already proven capable of deploying a reliable and relatively cheap (manned) ISTAR system on Ops. Diamond aircraft of Austria are their partner and have with the Israeli's already developed a UAV version of the DA-42.

Surveillance (http://www.dosystems.com/aircraft-operations/surveillance)

[reds & greens]

Cobham? Cobham?? COBHAM???
It's far too early for April fools.
You wouldn't suggest their input if you looked at their performance to date in helping to maintain the Sentry E-3D fleet.
Laughable isn't the word...

[NutLoose]

Quote:
Specification F.5/34 High-performance fighter with air-cooled engine for overseas (hot climate) use - Bristol Type 146, Gloster G.38, Martin-Baker M.B.2, Vickers Type 279 Venom


And the MB2 eventually progressed into the MB5 a fighter that was praised by everyone as being ahead of the game and could have been in service before the end of the War....... so we never bought it...
We have a knack in this country for being innovative and bringing to almost service some excellent designs or concepts to simply bin them to the advantage of everyone else at the last moment, or we simply hand it over such as the Harrier an excellent aircraft, but one that never realised it's original full potential due to Government meddling. Our Airline industry was all but destroyed by handing all our research over to the USA.

[fltlt]

You guys are not the only ones:


"WARPLANES: U-2 Holds Out Against The Robots

December 24, 2011: The U.S. Air Force has again delayed the retirement of its U-2S reconnaissance aircraft. Now the U-2 may remain in service until 2016 or later. The reason is the continued failure of the Global Hawk UAV to prove it can replace the manned U-2. Congress wants the Global Hawk to pass tests proving it can do everything the U-2 can before the U-2, which entered service 56 years ago, is retired.
For the last five years, the U.S. Air Force has been trying to replace its manned U-2 reconnaissance aircraft with the RQ-4 Global Hawk. This has not worked out well. In addition to the problems with Global Hawk reliability and dependability, another issue has been in the superiority of the sensors carried by the U-2. So why not just install the U-2 sensors in the Global Hawk? The problem here is weight and space. The U-2 is a larger and heavier aircraft, and even with a pilot, has more carrying capacity. Air force suppliers keep promising that they have the problem solved, but after several generations of Global Hawk sensor redesigns and improvements, it will still be a few years before the Global Hawk will be competitive, and the U-2 will be out of a job.

Then there's the UAV software, which has still not matched the capabilities of pilots. The humans still have an edge over robotic systems, especially when it comes to emergencies. But another advantage that the U-2 has is that it has been around for half a century. Its quirks and foibles are well known. The Global Hawk is not only new, but is also the first of a new kind of robotic aircraft.
Global Hawk has crossed the Pacific, from North America to Australia, using onboard computers to run everything. While impressive, Global Hawk still has a tendency to get into trouble unexpectedly, and not know how to recover. More work needs to be done on the software and, to a lesser extent, the hardware used by Global Hawk. Since no one can (or at least will) swear when Global hawk reliability will be up to acceptable standards, plans are being made to keep the U-2s around for a while longer. Just in case.
This popularity is running the U-2s ragged. Two years ago, for example, two 41 year old U-2s achieved a record 25,000 hours in the air. One of these aircraft had made three belly (landing gear up) landings, requiring extensive rebuilding after each incident.
With a range of over 11,000 kilometers, the 18 ton U-2s typically fly missions 12 hours long. All U-2s have been upgraded to the Block 20 standard, so they can be kept in service until the end of this decade. Or at least until the 13 ton Global Hawk is completely debugged, and available in sufficient quantity to replace it. The U-2 has been in service since 1955, and only 86 were built, of which 26 remain in service. Less than 900 pilots have qualified to fly the U-2 in that time.
The heavy use of the U-2 has been hard on the pilots. Missions can be as long as 12 hours, and pilots operate in a cockpit pressurized to conditions found at 30,000 feet. This puts more strain on the pilot's body. That, and the fact that they breathe pure oxygen while up there, means they tend to be completely exhausted after returning from a long mission. U-2s fly missions daily over the Middle East, Afghanistan and Korea.
This wasn't supposed to happen. Five years ago, the U.S. Air Force wanted to retire its U-2s, and replace them with UAVs like Global Hawk. But Congress refused to allow it, partly for political reasons (jobs would be lost, which is always a live political issue), and because some in Congress (and the air force) did not believe that Global Hawk was ready to completely replace the U-2. This turned out to be correct. New Global Hawks continue to appear, but there is so much demand for the kind of recon work the two aircraft can do, that both pilots and robots will coexist for a while. But eventually the old reliable U-2 will be retired".