What is realy wrong with defence tech?

[Chancros]

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???

[Lima Juliet]

Chancros

I couldn't agree more. The lack of forward leaning and the unwillingness to take risk has stiffled the UK's UAV/UAS program - we have to fly half way around the world to fly them in Woomera rather than in less populated regions in the UK. Let's face it when was the last UK fatality to civilians on the ground in the UK with an aircraft in development - was it Derry's accident at Farnborough in 1952? It was hardly low-density in populace - they were watching him display!

What's stopping invovative design IMHO? The "Britishness" of always following rules to the letter (I'm sure I K Brunel cut a few corners in his time!) - what with so many rules and regulations from the UK, Europe and Internationally I'm not surprised. The CAA and MoD are classic examples of this. Furthermore, the slide away from Engineering of all types being a well paid profession compared to other countries has led to a "brain drain" and a lack of newcomers, who would rather spend 8hrs a week reading Underwater Basket Weaving at Uni, also compounds the problem. The lack of apprenticeships - in the UK's eyes everyone must become a graduate regardless of subject! We even got rid of apprenticeships in the RAF - we said goodbye to Jenior Technicians this decade and let's not forget Sir Frank Whittle, the father of the jet engine, was an apprentice entrant!

So, in short, yes I agree. How do we fix it? Great leadership from the very top and the willingness to stop the current surge in degrees/academia in arts subjects that stiffle the chances of any future innovation surge. Finally, a willingness to invest in R&D as the budget has been slashed significantly in the past year - however, with the overstretch in the budget we can't afford to invest in developing things we'll never afford.

I'll get off my soapbox now ;)

LJ

PS - I got my HND in Eng back in the 80s before deciding that flying aircraft was likely to be more my thing (luckily for me I probably made a better show of being an operator than a maintainer!).

[Yeoman_dai]

A chain goes something like this...


New Labour attempt to establish better education - decided everyone with a degree is best way forwards - campaign so successful that degrees lose their value and not having one is begun to be seen as a bad thing - little interest in practical jobs

why?


because a banker can earn £50 000 right out of university if your lucky. Whats an electricians wage? or even an engineer? Not that high early on.

Greed, its a wonderful thing.

[Lima Juliet]

Yeoman Dai

Sadly you are right. The majority of the Nation aspires to be "big in the city" or in a "boy/girl band" (aka X Factor et al) - sadly most don't get anywhere near :(

LJ

[Pontius Navigator]

The need to extend the life of in-service systems on the cheap

Actually I disagree with the implicit suggestion that we should not extend the life of in-service systems.

In your era we have rapid development of new aircraft and short in-service lives of earlier models. I am thinking of the Meteor to Mk 14, the Hunter, Mks 1 to whatever, the Javelin to Mk 9, and so on. Simply continuous development of an original design in the same way that we did with Spitfire and Mosquito.

The bombers on the other hand evolved more slowly - Lancaster to Mk 4, the Shack to Mk 3, the Vulcan to Mk 2 etc.

40 years ago I thought we should have done lots of root and branch refit much as the USAF did with the B52 and we are doing (did) with the Harrier, Jaguar and Tornado. Looking back however, the Mk 1 Vulcan was only in-service for about 9-10 years. The Mk 2 Vulcan should have gone out of service after about 10 years too.

Then a new replacement, TSR2, F111 or Buccanneer, was the aim but the costs eventually led to the extended in-service lives we see today but which the USAF considered some years earlier. We were (are) planning a new flight refuelling aircraft at the same time as the USAF introduced the KC135 life extension programmes.

It may be sexy to cut new metal but the to the avionics and engine companies it should make little difference if you strap your latest gimicks to an old airframe - AEW Nimrod perhaps :)

The 25 year life of an interceptor, the 30+ year life of a bomber, or the 40+ years of a transport were unimaginable not that long ago. Imagine using Hastings or Dakotas as today's work horses.

What we must not do is keep those 40 years veterans going without updates. Looking back on the Vulcan Mk 2, in a few short years, it had a fair number of modifications from fatigue repair to mission systems and in its first 10 years of life rarely reached a steady mod state. Even after the introduction of Polaris, development continued with new ECM and regular paint scheme revisions.

Bit of a ramble but I think continuous improvement of proven airframes is better than the operational hiatus caused by introduction of bleeding edge technology 10 years late.

Ultimately we will need a new platform but hopefully as infrequently as possible.

[Chugalug2]

You need high academic standards in state schools that do science. We used to have them, they were called Grammar Schools. It was my big break in life that I managed to pass the eleven plus and go to one. Others didn't get that big break so PC says no-one can. Result; generations of scientifically illiterate Brits. Bang goes one of your required ingredients Chancros. As to the other requirement, a strongly competitive high tech manufacturing base, that was killed off yonks ago by the "rationalisation" of the airframe and engine manufacturers. Lets face it, they were only around then because of WW2 and then the Cold War. Perhaps what you need is the threat of WW3 to re-mobilise that industrial base. That's not a price worth paying. Just dream about the good old days as you shuffle forward in the check-out queue. I do!

[The B Word]

Chugalug

I was a Grammar School boy and I agree with your statements; all apart from 2. Why do we have to accept it and why WW3?

Point 2: The invention of the airplane happened before WW1 plus the development of blind flying and radio nav was between WW1 and WW2. So it proves that development can happen outside of World Wars or Arms Races.

Point 1: We don't have to accept it if we petition and campaign against the policies that we don't like.

Finally, I believe the final bit of "rot" was from John Major when he thought it acceptable that we all become a "Nation of Shopkeepers" - still the current PM has turned them into a "Nation of Bankrupts"!!!

Let's face it the whole UK manufacturing base has been systematically ground into the ground - Motorcars, Motorcycles, Aircraft and Boats. We're good at IT which is about the only Science/Eng discipline we can be rightly proud of in the UK.

LJ

[Another St Ivian]

Zzzzz :zzz:

You old duffers really do bang on a bit, don't you?

I'll concede that we have seen something of an education dilution in this country. It can be most easily seen in the chartership requirements of professional degrees compared with times past, and doubly so when comparing what our system churns out compared to what is seen in parts of mainland Europe.

That being said, we do still put out high-quality graduates, and there's some bloody innovative work going on out there. Apprenticeship schemes may have been neglected, but there are many out there still running strong in the aerospace fields.

Recent areas of interest which have caught me, and are genuinely world leading:
-Synthetic vision systems for rotary pilots; Combining night-vision, thermal imaging, computer generated landscapes and passive millimeter-wave RADAR imaging.
Rather than groping around at night in bad weather, pilots now have the ability to see a clear, combined image projected into their helmet mounted vision sights. This was actively developed by QQ.

-Materials research...including leading composite work by numerous universities, and some very clever work funded by, and done for, Rolls Royce. They are probably the world leaders in current jet engine technology. Much of that is off the back of British efforts.

-Weapons technology; Only a momentary flick through the defence mags will show you a range of extremely clever bits coming out of companies like BAe, again largely British efforts. Long gone are the days of tossing dumb-iron, having used the force to DR your way to the IP.

The long and short of it is this; Put down the Daily Mail for a moment and pick up some trade publications, professional society journals and get off to your local RAeS chapter and catch a lecture or two. There's a plethora of work being done out there.

[glum]

Is it more that the hardware is as advanced as the human body can cope with already, and much like the computer world, its the software which needs to catch up now?

If humans can only withstand certain G force, and planes can already exceed that, then what's the point of building new ones which are any more capable?

The electronic systems are all that need upgrading as we become more capable, and I believe this is happening.

Of course, there is the very valid arguent that bullets and RPG's can't be stopped with photons!

Because of the limitations of humans, UAV's are the only way forward for war fighting machines, and we all accept that ONE day air liners will go that way too.

I believe that all major players have stated they will never build another fighter plane with a human on board?

On the civvy side, think of stuff like TCAS. A rather modern answer to an age old problem. I'm sure there are other things going on, whilst things like windsheer radar simply build on existing technology.

Maybe there's nothing new to 'discover', just old idea's to refine? After all, just about every single system fitted to a current aitliner is there because someone crashed / died learning the hard way, and a requirement was identified.

Totally agree about the brain drain thing, and whilst many inventors are British - one only has to look at F1 for example - the money is not invested by our government to compete, but then, when a modern fighter is so complex and expensive to build, it is no wonder companies want and NEED buy in from many others, simply to make the plan viable.

It's acomplex problem, and I think engineering will become ever more specialised as time goes on...

[Chugalug2]

ASI

You old duffers really do bang on a bit, don't you?


It's true I must admit, but we had such high hopes you see. Other than reading every book about military flying in my local library, my other great escape from the dreariness of 50's UK was the Eagle Comic. The artwork was excellent, the story lines compelling-especially "Dan Dare, Pilot of the Future". We were all set to "Boldly Go.." long before Kirk & Co beamed down to their first paper mache set. When the Mercury and then the Gemini flights began we were on a roll. When the Moon Landings happened it was all systems go. Then...zilch. OK lots of technical developments, mainly in Earth Orbit but hardly of interest to Colonel Dare and Digby. That is the next great challenge and as an old duffer I envy those who will rise to it. Whether UK plc will be part of that, other than to provide the packed lunches, of course is another matter...

[neilf92]

USAF Plots Needs for a Fantastic Future | AVIATION WEEK (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/DTI081209.xml&headline=USAF)

I presume some bright sparks on this side of the Atlantic convene similar meetings - so we can look forward to continued
development of European counterparts to these US projects /identified needs ?

[Another St Ivian]

It's true I must admit, but we had such high hopes you see.

Hah, very fair!

Don't lose all hope though - Some clever sparks are doing a lot of planning on those fronts.

Not UK plc admittedly, but if you get the chance, hop on YouTube and watch some of the videos featuring interviews with Burt Rutan (the brains behind Virgin Galactic/SpaceShipOne+Two).

The guy has both the vision, drive, means and ability to put his dreams in action. His Tier One work was those sub-orbital shots...his final plans lay in private space-stations and so on. There are many following in his wake, all over the world.

[Lima Juliet]

Not UK plc admittedly, but if you get the chance, hop on YouTube and watch some of the videos featuring interviews with Burt Rutan (the brains behind Virgin Galactic/SpaceShipOne+Two).

The guy has both the vision, drive, means and ability to put his dreams in action. His Tier One work was those sub-orbital shots...his final plans lay in private space-stations and so on. There are many following in his wake, all over the world.

The British part of this great dream of yours started with a beardy-weirdy called Richard who sold records from his parents house on mail order - hardly a great engineering and innovative feat!!! But a great entrepreneur...

Burt Rutan is an American Aero-Engineering graduate serving his test engineering "apprenticeship" with the USAF at Edwards AFB before setting up his composite aircraft business - he is a brilliant example of what the UK lacks today.

With the "rest of the world" I guess you include Steve Bennett's Starchaser - the only Brit to "get off the ground" for the Ansari prize that Rutan won. If I remember rightly the Starchaser was hardly innovative and achieved a vaguely successful flight in Morecombe Bay a few years ago. I put it to you that the most innovative we have been of late is the "Top Gear Reliant Space Shuttle"! :D

http://www.topgear.com/us/images/pic/pic_epguide_S09_E04_11.jpg

LJ

[Pontius Navigator]

The electronic systems are all that need upgrading as we become more capable, and I believe this is happening.
.

as we become more capable

I may be taking this deliberatly out of context but I think we are becoming more capable.

When I started as aircrew the kit we used in training was pretty 'simple' a suitable system of cogs and levers. We were shown the insides of gyros and pressure instruments. It was all analogue and we could 'see' a working example with cause and effect. We weren't taught any great technical detail. The ASI and API with the G4B were the heights of system integration.

As we got newer equipments we needed to learn more of the controls and what the systems would do but as they were still analogue systems, and the way we were taught, our training encompassed more of the system - the NBS. Again we were taught done to box level and shown what was in the box.

As we moved to digital systems, one LRU looked just like the next so we were only shown one LRU and the whole mounted pack. Our detailed knowledge of the kit reduced yet again. But the knowledge required to operate the kit grew exponentially.

To cope with ever greater breadth of knowledge required we reduced the depth of knowledge taught. The question therefore is could a 1950s educated school child handle 1980 or 1990s designed kit or would they need to start with 1940s kit and work up?

In short, I believe knowledge and application is acquired incrementally. Our first dog was an avid b&w TV watcher and would watch anything when we first got the TV. Now many generations later her descendant take TV as a matter of course and is a discriminating viewer watching only animal programmes of interest. :)

Finally hobby horse, it is a Government responsibility to provide a properly educated range of workers to manage the State economy.

[A and C]

The problem with British industry is not that we can't do the job from a practical piont of view but that the city is sutch a short term investor that the money is not avalable for investment.

To see what british engineering can do all you have to do is look at F1, most of the cars are built in the UK as are the engines but perhaps this is not a typical example.

A far better example would be the Triumph motorcycle brand, in the 70's the byword for under investment with a product based on a bike first built in 1938 with a production line to match.
This week the headline in Motor Cycle News is "Triumph is king!" rating the latest Speed Triple the best bike in it's class above the best that Italy & Japan has to offer.
Triumph has emerged from a failing industry only because one businessman had the vision to invest in state of the art development and production, it has taken more than twenty years of hard work to reach the top of the business, unfortunatly most city investors won't wait that long and so british industry fails simply because it can't get the money for R & D or modern production equipment. The thinking in the city is just too short term.

[Chancros]

Since retiring from industry I have done some teaching at universities, both engineering and some management. I think young people are as clever as they ever were, and much more focussed on what they want. However, they are let down by basic maths, English etc. As a grammar school boy myself I now value all those bits of chalk thrown at me. If young people see that engineering can lead to well paid, interesting jobs, they will go into it.

Regarding Pontius Navigator's view on updates. horses for courses! Harrier updates have generally been good, although Sea Harrier FRS.2 needed more thrust, but had fantastic integration. But it was an update 'on the cheap' so we lost them early. Current Nimrod programme makes one wonder why they did not just build a new airframe - would have been cheaper. But someone asssumed using tired old bits of ancient, salt corroded airframes would be cheaper. And then digitised one airfame onto CAD and assumed all the others were identical - 1940's tech had 2 inch tolerances on wing fittings, but all the old hands who knew this had been pensioned off, so the CAM built wings only fit one airfame. So cheap became bloody expensive.

"could a 1950s educated school child handle 1980 or 1990s designed kit" - yes, I did. However, I think there is a real lack of mechanical engineering skills, and too much reliance on electronic as partial compensation. Ben Rich's comment about making a house fly with FBW seems to be taught in universities these days - no need for good basic design, FBW will sort it out! It's understanding the interaction of the black boxes with the airframe that matters. Who teaches that? Experience.

"You old duffers really do bang on a bit, don't you?" - I thought that is the point of being an old duffer!

[Yeoman_dai]

Personally I resent being called an old duffer, i'm only 22! :}:p

[Wader2]

Current Nimrod programme makes one wonder why they did not just build a new airframe - would have been cheaper.

Well it worked successfully for the Mk 2 upgrade. It worked for the 1966 Dominie avionics upgrade although they did avoid doing the engines and tried to avoid a radar upgrade.

But someone asssumed using tired old bits of ancient, salt corroded airframes would be cheaper.

Probably because the staff who had overseen the upgrade to Mk 2, when the Mk 1 had only been in service 8-9 years, had all retired. The Mk 2 was alswys weight limited so the only bit worth keeping was, as you said, the 30 year old fuselage.

And then digitised one airfame onto CAD and assumed all the others were identical - 1940's tech had 2 inch tolerances on wing fittings, but all the old hands who knew this had been pensioned off, so the CAM built wings only fit one airfame. So cheap became bloody expensive.

Now there's a surprise. Oddly, when Mr Roe's old factory took Sir Freddie Page's old jets and made a jig from one set of wings, they found all the wing sets they made would only fit one airframe. But that was 35 years or so ago.

Clearly the guys at Mr Roe's factory had all retired by the time some thought they could take one of Sir Godfree's planes and do it again, even if Mr Hawker was the one that first built them in Mr Roe's factory.

It's not just lack of engineering skills but lack of historical research too. History isn't just kings and queens but can be reseach as recently as a few years past.

W2

[Wensleydale]

How many new requirements are set by contractors who need a new requirement to make their money.....

For example, take Link16. Almost every month a new Change Proposal is put forward (usually as the result of sales pitch and pressure from industry) and an amendment made to the STANAG with the demand that the change is implemented upon each platform. This is very problematical as the resources are not available to update the software on all platforms at the same rate. The result is incompatibility and confusion as to who can do what and when etc. Even worse, the age of the computers fitted to each platform are of different spec and capability - for example the AWACS computer was designed in the 1970s (I have more processing power in my watch). Each modern demand for a change is extremely difficult to engineer in a computer of the same vintage as the BBC B. The in phrase is "Playing Doom on a ZX-81".

The mid-life update for the E-3D computer system has recently been turned off (funding) and all modern data-link/communication/sensor capabilities that have to be fitted in order to maintain compatibility with other systems have to be re-engineered into 1970s technology.

Unless aircraft systems are kept up to date and compatible then we will continue to face problems and delays. After all, I am sure that the MOD/Government do not make use of pre-pentium computers running modified copies of DII functions.... As the pace of change of modern systems has increased, then the chance of staying up to date has reduced through continuing costs.

[The Oberon]

One would not have had to go back that far to find out about the bespoke nature of the Nimrod airframes. Woodford discovered exactly the same thing when making alterations for the AEW3, early 80s.

[Wader2]

One would not have had to go back that far to find out about the bespoke nature of the Nimrod airframes. Woodford discovered exactly the same thing when making alterations for the AEW3, early 80s.

"I told you so" springs to mind, but nobody loves a smart arse.

"You must be positive and forward thinking Bloggs."

When Bloggs knows there is a hole in the road at the roundabout that you are about to go round for the third time. :(

[Jig Peter]

:) Yeoman Dai - your wise comments here & elsewhere often make me wonder if your "22" isn't perhaps for the second time round ... jest, joke, whatever, but teasing - yes ...
Fogies is fogies, whatever the calendar says, innit now ???
Carry on blogging, Y D, you're (usually) worth a read.
Respecfully yours,
Jig Peter

[Chancros]

Yes, Woodford did manage to repeat history without learning from it, although Warton saw to that the second time round!

Regarding my ideas on having more engineering resources, I opened another thread:

http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/384972-please-mr-obama.html

which put forward the idea of using Obama's now redundant, but new, VH-71 (Merlin) helos in Afghanistan. I assumed that there would be political and engineering limits to this, but also seems there are too few crews.

Eyes too big for our belly all round. A crime young people will die needlessly, serving a skinflint country.