What is really wrong with defence tech?
As I am new to this forum, but old in the industry, I think it is only right I start with some thoughts about what is wrong with defence technology, along the lines of 'if I was Procurement Minister'!
1. No new technology for 20 years
I would say that since the end of the Cold War there has been only one technological advance, and that is Moore's Law. Everything else is just 'old hat' plus Moore's Law. Stealth, UAVs, networks etc. were all developed, at least as concepts, in the 1980s. We gave up on materials research, aerodynamics etc. and now 'live off the fat' from that period.
2. No system for encouraging innovation/production
The re-organisation of defence research (e.g. Qinetiq) has been based on the idea of spending as little as possible, so that there is very little innovation. This has also led to the creation of monopoly suppliers (BAE Systems/Westland/Selex etc.) as there is not enough money for competition in production. Together this has stifled innovation.
These two facts are clearly related. They lead on to:
3. Lack of industrial capability
The need to extend the life of in-service systems on the cheap, the lack of new systems in development and a desire to cut engineering 'overheads' (i.e. support services) has led to a lack of engineering capacity, both physical and intellectual, in industry (and what is left of Service engineering). This means that what used to be normal, the development of a new aircraft, is now seen as so risky (because no one under 50 has done it, and they have taken early retirement, left the industry or are depressed) that it never gets beyond the feasibility study. The massive reduction in aircraft manufacturing capacity and the lack of engineering facilities means that even mods are now major projects.
When I started work at Hamble (aah, Folland) in the early 60s we were building parts for the Hawker Kestrel. These took 18 months from order to flight, and were quickly followed by supersonic P.1154s (we had the wings and fuselages in the jigs when cancelled) which were due to take 2 years to build. Both highly innovative projects, but that seemed normal to us. We even designed a Hunter update with P.1154 avionics on the side as a testbed. But no one thought that the way ahead was a Hunter with a new gunsight!
In the Falklands War I was at Kingston and saw just how quickly major mods could be made. Although by then it was taking nearly four years to build Harriers (single shift in the factory meant twice as long to do things!), when things needed to be done we still could - Blue Eric jammer in a fortnight anyone?
Although the chaps at Farnborough have done a lot on Harrier of late, a new computer and some weapons is still a decade long project. Not their fault, there are only a few chaps on it.
Anyway, to end this ramble what I am trying to say is that it is the lack of engineering capacity, put in place to save costs, that is now making even update projects expensive, slow and, in many cases, obsolete before service entry. The few ab initio projects are even worse, as the lack of experience of new project development paralyses everyone with fright.
So, we need more factories, design offices, workshops etc. I am not a total old g*t - I actually believe that if there were the jobs for them, young people would be willing to become engineers. But who wants to hear that in government - they all talk of creative industries, but what is more creative than designing and building planes?
So, thoughts???
Last edited by Chancros; 14th Aug 2009 at 10:17.