MRA4 end of an era & the end of Woodford

[manccowboy]

Today the last 2 remaining MRA4's were towed into the scrapping area for destruction tomorrow. These are the 2 test frames PA-01 ZJ516 & PA-02 ZJ518 and have both been in the finals hangers for the past 2 weeks having anything salvageable stripped from the frames.

This truly is an end of an era not only for the MRA4, but Woodford as a aircraft manufacturing plant which goes back over 87 years from when A.V.Roe opened the site in 1924.

All the following aircraft were built at Woodford:
Avro Anson
Avro Lancaster
Avro Lincoln
Avro Tudor
Avro Shackleton
Avro Vulcan
Avro Ashton
Hawker Siddeley HS 748
Hawker Siddeley Nimrod
BAe ATP
BAe 146

Goodbye Woodford you have served this country well :{

[TBM-Legend]

There are a few winners and losers in that list...

[Q-RTF-X]

Will this be an end to MR4A threads? I hope so

So far it would seem to be a Woodford thread and as manccowboy seems to be a resident of Stockport it's reasonable he has an interest in a nearby site with a history of involvement in aviation. I myself remember seeing the Vulcan on its first flight (with two chase aircraft) circling around while I was at school in Bramhall. Give the thread a chance RA and after all, if you don't like the content drift, you are free to exercise your right not to view this any more and move to pastures new.

[BEagle]

Those whose only contribution to this thread is spiteful schadenfreude should indeed move to pastures new.

The indecent haste to scrap Nimrod MRA4 is deeply distressing to many; nasty little trolls who like to stick the knife in at such times have no place on this website.

[Jabba_TG12]

The urge to be somewhat unkind to BAe, re their annoying habit of closing sites in this manner (as happened to Hatfield) when the work dries up is almost overwhelming.

I'll bite my lip for now. Really dont like the way this company behaves. :mad:

[manccowboy]

Really annoyed (http://www.pprune.org/members/283572-really-annoyed)

Nearly everyone of your posts reflects some sort of sarcasm and contribute in no way to any post you answer. You obviously have a big chip on your shoulder, maybe you need to get something off your chest.....don't hold it in. let it out.

Other than that you need to bite your lip and STFU

[betty swallox]

really annoyed,

Re-arrange....

bike-sheds, me, you now. I think you may find a crowd...

[carrier5]

I remember as a youngster living on a farm near Woodford in the mid 50s when the Vulcan was being constructed and marveling at the huge white aircraft taking off and landing.

I also remember falling into the cesspit at the farm.

Happy days.

[F3sRBest]

Jabba,

What else would you have BAES do? Keep sites open with no work?

Best wishes to all at Woodford and around the rest of BAES currently lookingh for jobs etc

[Linedog]

A lot of those aircraft were actually built at Chadderton, then transported to Woodford for final assy, and flight testing.

[1771 DELETE]

I think Woodford was already scheduled for closure, the demise of the MRA4 just hastened the decision. It may have already had an extension because the work that was due to happen at Southampton fell through and the whole build process had moved north.
On the side, i remember going there for MR2 training and staying at Bredbury Hall, those were the days.

[bobward]

Carrier 5 - I think most of the country has now joined you....

Please forgive what may seem a silly question. The last two Nimrods have had their systems gutted and the items salvaged. What sort of kit might they pass on, as surely most of the fittings were for ASW / intelligence work?

I'm not a trol or (far worse) a journo, just a genuine interest.

Thanks
Bob
:sad::8

[safetypee]

Don’t forget the ‘Avro’ RJ, which gave Woodford a lease of life, extended slightly by the Nimrod.

Aaah, de Havilland at Woodford – definitely the last of the line.

http://i51.tinypic.com/w16y55.jpg

[Big Tudor]

There are a few winners and losers in that list...
Just a quick look through t'interweb gives the following.

Anson – In service 1935-1968. 11,020 built
Lancaster – In service 1941-1963. 7,377 built.
Lincoln – In service 1945 – 1967. 604 built.
Tudor - only 38 built.
Shackleton – In service 1951-1990. 185 built.
Vulcan – In service 1956-1984. 136 built.
Ashton – only 6 built.
HS748 – In service 1960-?. 380 built.
Nimrod – In service 1969-2010. 49 built.
BAe ATP – In service 1988-? 64 built.
BAe146 – In service 1983-? 387 built.

With the exceptions of the Tudor, Ashton and ATP (personally never liked it) I'd say there were more winners than losers. Maybe not in terms of production numbers, but the aircraft in the list have proved their worth many times over.

Ok, standing by for the 146/RJ knockers to hit me down with cabin fumes! :p

[Mad_Mark]

Nimrod – In service 1969-2010. 49 built.Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Nimrod (R1) still in service - and just had an extension of at least a few more months?

And as for 'Really annoyed', please go easy on him; he obviously has some sort of social disorder and really should seek some sort of professional medical help :ooh: [I am not being sarcastic or taking the pi$$, I honestly think he has a mental problem - for him to act the way he does in here!]

MadMark!!! :mad:

[glad rag]

@ MadMark!!!

Yep, he's Tourists long lost twin.

[Rigga]

Cancellations and redundancy is never nice but, as much as I dislike BAES, I believe they are trying really hard not to make anyone who wants job elsewhere in the company redundant.

Many other companies wouldn't do that.

All the best for your futures
Rigga

[The Old Fat One]

Speak for yourselves...I'm maritime through and through, but I'm with Really Annoyed on this one.

Beags...you get out the wrong side of bed this morning?

[Big Tudor]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Nimrod (R1) still in service - and just had an extension of at least a few more months?

Yep, sorry MM, I'd forgotton about the R1. Guess that means they must be doing their job right then! :ok:

[Q-RTF-X]

A lot of those aircraft were actually built at Chadderton, then transported to Woodford for final assy, and flight testing.

Generally speaking that's the way it worked, Chadderton - Manufacture, Woodford - Assembly and Test. My late father-in-law worked at Woodford for years and offers of more lucrative work elsewhere never managed to lure him away; he simply liked the place.

[Jabba_TG12]

F3RB:

Of course, I understand what you're saying (although it seems BAe managed to strong-arm Brown into signing a the Carrier deal that would guarantee keeping Rosyth open and the workforce paid even if the boats were cancelled, so maybe there is a precedent) and I know that aircraft and other systems are developed and manufactured in response to a stated demand or requirement from a host nation or other government.

It just sits uneasy with me that BAe seem to have absolutely no qualms about disposing of the capability, both in terms of personnel/expertise and locations, once a particular contract is finished. It seems that they cant wait to get out of the "conventional" aviation business which gave them the backbone of the firm once it had been floated.

I mean look at it:

146 finishes: Hatfield closes.
Nimrod finishes: Woodford closes
Typhoon Tranche 3 finishes: Warton will close.
What price Brough going when the Hawk's time is up?

Once this capability is lost, it will never come back. It just strikes me as cutting off your nose to spite your face (at best) and naked asset stripping/slaughtering the cash cow once you've milked it at worst.

And considering how little of their workforce and how little of their business actually depends on the UK these days, it makes you wonder

a) What exactly the strategic direction of the company is and where it is going and

b) Why the British government seems to be completely beholden to this particular supplier considering the way its management are behaving?

Again, dont get me wrong, this is not a dig at the BAe workforce, not in any way shape or form. Its just that their management have been behaving in a particular way for some time now that is making me quite uneasy and distinctly suspicious of their motives.

[manccowboy]

The Old Fat One & Really Annoyed

It states clearly in my thread topic what the thread is about, you have a choice read it or don't. Don't come on here preaching to people about what topics you like and dislike. I posted this topic because there ARE people who are genuinely interested in the MRA4 and Woodford and I will continue to post on these subjects......probably even more so now because I know it annoys people who just want this bit of British history to die and be forgotten.

People like you make me sick :yuk:

[manccowboy]

146 finishes: Hatfield closes.

There was rumour and suspicion at the time that the 146/RJ was sacrificed because they needed the space at Woodford for the MRA4 contract......which was more lucrative.

Just a rumour but its probably true ;)

[Spurlash2]

As a youngster, late 60'-early 70's, did all my gliding (T21) out of there. Seem to remember the hangar with the gliders in had an 'A V Roe' sign at the top middle of the hanger doors.

The golf course next door also had redundant Nimrod nose radar (?) covers used as shelters from the weather. About 8 feet tall and could accommodate 2 people.

[ShortFatOne]

I, for one, am glad that you have had the courage to keep the updates coming. Having been involved in the program from the light blue end for the best part of 10 years, I was looking forward to taking the MRA4 into service with the RAF. I cannot describe the feelings that I felt (and still feel) about the decision last October, I certainly could not have maintained the decorum and decency that you have shown over the last few months. Now that the aircraft are gone, I wish you and everyone left at Woodford the very best of luck, whatever your futures hold.

SFO

[manccowboy]

The final pictures of PA-01 & PA-02 can be found here:

AVIATION NORTH-WEST - WOODFORD - NIMROD (http://www.edendale.co.uk/ANW/WFD.801.26.html)

AVIATION NORTH-WEST - WOODFORD - NIMROD (http://www.edendale.co.uk/ANW/WFD.801.27.html)

A full pictorial of the actual scrapping of ALL the MRA4's will be posted at a later date, due to obvious reasons this cannot be done at the present time. :oh:

[The B Word]

Jabba TG12

Sadly Sir, I agree. The Military Air Solutions division is finished. We can kid ourselves that 20-odd Mantis unmanned aircraft will save it, but it won't (BAE Systems and Dassault Aviation Sign MOU to develop UAS proposal - BAE Systems (http://www.baesystems.com/Newsroom/NewsReleases/autoGen_111214112312.html)). Once Typhoon is delivered, JSF is assembled and the last of the 28 Hawk 128s are delivered, that will be it.

Oh, and before people start talking Taranis; the Deep and Persistent Operational Capability (DPOC) was cancelled under SDSR. No need, we have JSF and Typhoon (allegedly!).

The end is in sight as far as I can see. The ability to design, manufacture, assemble and maintain a truly "Sovereign Capability" went years ago. Anyway, the one eyed idiot has spent all of our money even if we wanted to spend well over the market price to support this dwindling industry.

Time to get that B1 or B2 EASA Licensed Engineer ticket chaps and fill a maintenance job with the airlines with better job prospects than aircraft manufacture.

The B Word

[GrahamO]

Of course, I understand what you're saying (although it seems BAe managed to strong-arm Brown into signing a the Carrier deal that would guarantee keeping Rosyth open and the workforce paid even if the boats were cancelled, so maybe there is a precedent)

The situation with the boats was different. BAE have a contract lasting an additional 15 or so years called TOBA. This guarantees minimum levels of business in the dockyard (not guaranteed to keep both going) which maintains the minimum capability to deliver 'complex' ships I.e. RFA are not covered. In practice, SDSR aside, this would have only been an issue for a couple of years between the drop off of carrier work, and the start of FSC, so signing it was relatively safe.

Along comes SDSR, and changes the rules, but it's far too late. Ship 1 steelwork blocks are practically complete, and virtually all the steel for ship 2 has been delivered, some of the blocks are under construction, and all the long lead time stuff is on order. Putting aside the TOBA minimum levels, cancelling the carriers would mean the MOD would have to pay for the disposal of about 200,000 tons of steel, two thirds of which has already been welded together into hulls. For this reason alone, the decommissioning costs would almost exceed the construction costs thus incurred, plus all the cancellation costs of stuff ordered. It wasn't much due to clever cancellation costs in a clever contract, but more of the practicalities of disposal, of 200,000 tons of steel.

Carving up an MRA4 is easy, a carrier less so.

So why no TOBA for aircraft then? Personal view from me is that aircraft are too complex, too varied and the UK has not really been successful on our own for decades. Pre-SDSR we could not build one on our own, without major problems, and our last two reasonable attempts (Tornado, Typhoon) could not have been done alone without bankrupting the UK. So that, in the round, we have no sovereign manufacturing capabilities to protect whereas in shipbuilding we still do.

It must be bitterly disappointing for all those losing their jobs but the days of maintaining strategic facilities at any cost have gone.

Thought the shipbuilding situation may aid understanding ..... If not offer any succour.

[mmitch]

I see that Woodfords Vulcan '603' is in a sad state as well and likely to be scrapped soon? Like the site it stands on. :sad:
mmitch.

[manccowboy]

I see that Woodfords Vulcan '603' is in a sad state as well and likely to be scrapped soon? Like the site it stands on. :sad:
mmitch.

Yes the Vulcan is being scrapped in a few weeks, I believe the XH558 trust will be taking anything useful off it before its scrapped. I don't know whats happening to the RJ yet though there's rumour its being de-winged and moved off site.

Woodford will be closed by early June.

[NutLoose]

http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt359/talbotino/DSC_0129vulcan.jpg





Lot more about her fate :(

XM603 Update - Key Publishing Ltd Aviation Forums (http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=65136)

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

manccowboy. Your list is missing a few important Types: the Ten (618), Tutor (621), Cadet (631, 638 and 643), York (685), Athena (701) and the not numerous but nonetheless important 707 series.

It would be good to know that old AV's original aeroplane sheds that Spurlash2 refers to and the Club House have preservation orders on them; but I bet they don't.

[J31 MAN]

Not to mention the Blenheims, Halifaxes, Canberras etc all built under licence.

[Jabba_TG12]

Thanks for the explanation Graham, but I'm afraid it doesnt make me feel any better about either the situation or the behaviour of the company.

I give up, I really do. I dont think theres a single day gone by recently when I havent been staggered by the speed of the "race to the bottom" which we seem to be stuck in. :suspect:

Its almost as if we cant p*ss everything down the drain quick enough. :ugh:

[F3sRBest]

or the behaviour of the company.

Would you care to elaborate on this? :)

[Mend em]

Jabba,

Fair questions you raise - but let's look at the situation from the other end of the telescope.

1. We are the only Western Country who's government insists on competing away national capabilities.

2. We have an incompetent Civil Service who are trying to protect their backsides from redundancy caused by outsouring their roles to a far more efficient Industrial base. Hence every piece of 'government' news about our industry has an anti-industry bias (too-expensive, incompetent, late, the only way of 'saving' the armed forces is more civil servants blah blah blah). BAES, as the biggest, takes most flak - but RR are not far behind.

3. We have an airforce whose most vocal members shout out that if it's not American it must be rubbish.

4. We have a public who don't really want anything to do with defence - it's a bit like not wanting to know where meat comes from - and certainly don't see the need to preserve national capability (particularly when the civil service, government and operators all appear to proclaim industry's incompetence, poor cost effectiveness, shoddy products etc).

5. As an industry we have been suffering a gradual decline for years, such that we are now only really competent as system suppliers (rather than a complete weapon system). We do not have enough throughput, nor any indictaion of any future orders, to warrant 'investing for the future' by maintaining empty sites.

Whilst I don't always agree with the level of emotion put across by MancC, nor necessarily his targets, in this case he is spot on. This is the end of an era - the UK no longer has the capability to design and develop large military systems aircraft. This is entirely down to lack of demand/political will to continue to pay for that privilege, which is an argument for the politicians and if this is the direction the country wants to take then we who work in the industry will just have to accept it.

Against such a backdrop, why oh why do you think any Company should be expected to maintain capability and capacity out of the goodness of their shareholders hearts?

(Rant over - I feel better now)

[manccowboy]

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

Your quite right about my list not being complete, but I don't claim to be a AVRO historian :O

There's a picture here of the original A.V.Roe hangers AVIATION NORTH-WEST - WOODFORD AERODROME (http://www.edendale.co.uk/ANW/WFD.G2.5.html)

And there's a A.V.Roe museum of sorts Aeroflight Avro Heritage Centre (http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/museums/avro-heritage-centre.htm)

Last but not least the WiKi for AVRO Avro - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.V._Roe_and_Company)

I'll try and find out what the plans are for the clubhouse and museum, I should imagine plans have been made but kept under wraps for the time being.

If I find anything out I'll post here.

[iRaven]

Nimrod and Woodford is but a distant echo for this GLOBAL company...

BAE Systems Awarded Contract for P-8a Mission Computer Systems - BAE Systems (http://www.baesystems.com/Newsroom/NewsReleases/autoGen_11129144133.html)

[Flarkey]

The (US) Navy plans to purchase approximately 117 P-8A aircraft to replace its P-3 fleet.

117!!! :eek: Puts the MRA4 program into insignifcance!

[Mandator]

The auction of machine tools and fittings, including a 10m antique boardroom table and 20 matching chairs is now being advertised; it takes place at the end of the month.

[Jabba_TG12]

F3RB:

That particular comment was in hindsight a tad emotive, I accept that. However, it feels to me (regardless of whether it is factually accurate or not, I readily accept that as I've never worked for BAe, any uneducated commetn by me is unlikely to be) as if, as another poster has said, there is an intention to divest the company of these assets and the capability to produce these assets once a particular order finishes and to become, so far as the British are concerned, a systems/components producer as against what they started with when they were floated. Was this BAe's intention all along?

I think if I were a Saab employee, I would be sweating over the future of my company once the Gripen's future is clearer and if no more of those can be sold. Is the same going to happen to them? Will BAe look to offload them once the prize assets have been stripped from that company too?

Again, I realise its not speaking from a position of great knowledge, but I cast an eye across the channel to Dassault: Not exactly the same, I know, doesnt have a throbbing export order book for Rafale, just like we dont for Typhoon, but I'm not aware of them closing down thier factories as soon as the orders are completed.

Someone earlier on mentioned sovereign capability. I suppose, yes, it does revolve around that. Yes, I accept that this is, regrettably in the current climate to be lost. And I accept that any private company shouldnt necessarily, unilaterally, be compelled to retain such a capability for sentimental reasons. it means that for any future requirements post-Typhoon that the orders are automatically going to go overseas, more than likely the US and that as another poster says, the Airships will get what they hankered after; off the shelf US made kit.

But, s**t, were we not good at this stuff once? To me, it feels like it is being p*ssed away and wasted. And, try as I might to be able to see it from the other end of the telescope, honestly I do, the company (again, I stress, what I see as being its strategic direction, not the actions of the workforce) must look to itself and see that in certain recent ventures that whilst it may have delivered shareholder value - which is all it is obliged to do - that it has not exactly covered itself in glory. Only so much of the blame can go in the direction of the MOD and the RAF. The way the MRA4 project was conducted from beginning to end, as with the AEW3, frankly, was an abomination. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I do not recall anything about the small print saying that the winner of the bid for MR2 replacement had to be "son of Nimrod" - in much the same way as some of us rightly chide the US for re-running their KC135 replacement programme until Boeing won it.

Like I say, I dont claim to be authoritative on any of this stuff, nor am I or have I ever been in any kind of position to influence or do anything about it.

I just get a suspicious, bad, regretful, gut feeling about it, thats all. :sad:

[Jabba_TG12]

Mendem:

If I may address each point in turn:

"1. We are the only Western Country who's government insists on competing away national capabilities."

Not sure I strictly agree, but I can see the broad thrust of what you're saying. When exactly has this happened? Tornado and Typhoon were collaborative projects; With the exception of the abomination that was AEW3, when have BAe ever bid for military aircraft manufacturing work against a foreign competitor and lost?

Or are you saying this in a wider industrial context, not just aircraft manufacturing?

2. We have an incompetent Civil Service who are trying to protect their backsides from redundancy caused by outsouring their roles to a far more efficient Industrial base.

Partly true, I can accept that to a degree, but in fairness, you look at the amount of such work that the company has bid for and won. Its not been the civil service who have lost out big time there, it has been the military themselves, being sold out by their higher-ups. And, FWIW, "more efficient" is not always better. Its not always just about "cheaper" or total cost of ownership.

"Hence every piece of 'government' news about our industry has an anti-industry bias (too-expensive, incompetent, late, the only way of 'saving' the armed forces is more civil servants blah blah blah)."

I cant speak for the last line. I personally dont recall that being said, but if anyone did, they are, IMHO absolutely wrong. It wouldnt surprise me if someone said it, but would disappoint me a hell of a lot more if someone in a position of authority actually fell for it.

"BAES, as the biggest, takes most flak - but RR are not far behind."

This is where I'm afraid, my sympathy is thinning out. Surely it has not been beyond the wit and imagination of the company to address the ballooning budgets, the constant slippage of delivery dates. Yes, I appreciate the goalposts nearly always move, but maybe the company could have taken some steps to push the blame back onto where it belongs - HMG - if this is truly the case. I know, asking for open honesty from a corporate is practically as naive as asking for it from a politician - but what are the rest of us meant to believe? Regardless of why, all we see is "late", "over-budget", "doesnt do what it is supposed to do".

3. We have an airforce whose most vocal members shout out that if it's not American it must be rubbish.

I cannot excuse that. Ironic that those who were probably the most vocal probably rose to prominence within the flying rank flying British kit...

4. We have a public who don't really want anything to do with defence - it's a bit like not wanting to know where meat comes from - and certainly don't see the need to preserve national capability (particularly when the civil service, government and operators all appear to proclaim industry's incompetence, poor cost effectiveness, shoddy products etc).

Yep, I dont dispute that. They see defence as being there primarily to provide jobs, not to produce what the nation needs for its defence, first and foremost.

5. As an industry we have been suffering a gradual decline for years, such that we are now only really competent as system suppliers (rather than a complete weapon system).

But this is one of the things I'm getting at. Why is this the case? Where did it all start to go so badly pear shaped considering the company when it was floated was effectively handed a nationalised monopoly? What happened to this competence? Did it just walk out the door never to be replaced?

"We do not have enough throughput, nor any indictaion of any future orders, to warrant 'investing for the future' by maintaining empty sites."

See above. Dont you ever wonder why?

Whilst I don't always agree with the level of emotion put across by MancC, nor necessarily his targets, in this case he is spot on. This is the end of an era - the UK no longer has the capability to design and develop large military systems aircraft. This is entirely down to lack of demand/political will to continue to pay for that privilege, which is an argument for the politicians and if this is the direction the country wants to take then we who work in the industry will just have to accept it.

Paying for the privilege though, should not, by the same token mean an open cheque book and permanent rights to consistently deliver late, derivative products that do not do what they said on the tin. I accept the aspects about political will, I accept the lack of demand, I find it hard to accept that if the company truly believes that it is making a best of breed product, that it can not compete successfully against other manufacturers, not necessarily just in the US, but also the Russians, Dassault, Embraer, et al. Or is it good enough for us, but not good enough for any of them?

Against such a backdrop, why oh why do you think any Company should be expected to maintain capability and capacity out of the goodness of their shareholders hearts?

I dont necessarily expect the company do maintain the capability. I'm just disturbed by how fast they seem to want to run away from having had any such capability. Almost as if it was something they never wanted in the first place and couldnt get shot of quick enough.

And, like I said to F3RB, I'm not basing any of what I feel on having worked for Bae, because I havent. I have no particular axe to grind against anyone. Lord knows there are enough other contributors who have seen a lot more than me from both sides of the fence and who'se contributions can be a lot more authoritative. Mine is just bad, suspicious gut feeling, thats all.

[F3sRBest]

Jabba,

Thanks for the response and it's good to see a reasoned opinion for once on here. I totally understand where you are coming from and that is precisely the problem. The lack of understanding of what happens in the private sector is one of the key issues that drives the problems we currently have on acquisition programmes.

Having sat on both sides of the fence, I am in do doubt that both sides share some of the blame, and actually, the misperceptions of what happens 'on the other side' (driven by the simple fact that we don't communicate well!) are key to that.

I, like you, have no facts on Dassault, but I suspect French shareholders and the 'French City' would be very unhappy with Dassault keeping assets, stock and infrastructure on its books and draining its balance sheet.

If you were spending your own money would you pour it down the drain to support a Customer who has no money and doesn't know what he wants from one day to the next?

The whole acquisition process needs a shake up - let's hope Bernard Grey is allowed to do it. His recent comments to the HCDC were very informative!

[STATSMAN]

I'm hoping that the site will go back to farm land not housing as at Hadfield ( more footballer's houses). I believe there is a covnent when the land was purchased that after aircraft production finished the land had to become a farm.

John (Old Boy Pownall Green County Primary)

[safetypee]

When Hatfield closed many of those who moved North were dismayed to find a map of the Woodford area showing a Manchester ring road and the Poynton by-pass planned through the airfield. I hope that these are not resurrected.
IIRC there is public footpath crossing the centre of the runway.

Save the club house and Doris’s canteen; unfortunately the latter disappeared long ago.
IIRC the club house was home to a famous aviation trophy – can’t recall which one though?

[GrahamO]

I dont necessarily expect the company do maintain the capability. I'm just disturbed by how fast they seem to want to run away from having had any such capability. Almost as if it was something they never wanted in the first place and couldnt get shot of quick enough.

Two entirely separate items;

If you are maintaining and paying for something you cannot sell, you get rid of it as quick as possible. If your money is falling out of your pocket at £10 a minute, you don't spend an hour thinking about the best type of new pocket - you just stop the money flow. In general it is cheaper to scrap something today, as tomorrow labour will be more expensive.

The second issue you raise is not logical - you just don't know what its like to have something, which costs money every day you keep it when a customer stops paying for it. You get rid asap.

[tornadoken]

Woodford is closing because it has no work. The world is awash with military Aero faciliites that have no work and are closing. The Peace Dividend.

Defence spend is nugatory; its sole justification is that you never can tell who, next week, will be your friend, and who not. All UK Govts. since 1945 have all spent to be better safe than sorry - Attlee's (when until April,1948 UK had no enemy), Macmillan's (Sandys), Wilson's (Healey), Blair/Brown, and in last year's Review, Cameron's. If its currency is convertible at market, a State has a limit on men/material/money that can be diverted from civil-earning. Gibbon's view of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire was that number is 1%. Japan's prosperity, 1951-into the Nineties, was in part due to holding Defence at 1% of GDP, while UK touched (briefly) 10%. We now hover >2%, and have a presence on, below, and above the waves. It is proper to ask "why", and to query SSBN, Main Battle Tank, indeed anything beyond a Rapid Deployment contribution to a Coalition. If a Party taxes us to buy military kit in excess of a consensus need (today, it seems: 1xsolo, Falklands-style; plus 1xCoalition, ex-Yugo-style), that Party will not govern long.

"Touch labour" for civil aircraft, just as for every other volume product, is cheaper in warmer climes than in Manchester. It's not cheap labour, it's all the factors of production - China can dig up bauxite, and generate energy into its factories in its own currency, such that all $ earned from exported products can be presented as net benefit.

BAE, like, say Daimler, designs/markets/product supports in its Centres of Excellence, buys tin and boxes at market, and assembles where/how the market dictates. It carves out niches, such as making bits of Boeing wings.

Like posters here, every site, every sector has a life-cycle. Making military aeroplanes is in the decline phase. The wonder is not that Woodford is about to take up non-Aero duties, but that it endured so long.

[Mend em]

Jabba - thanks for the response, which went into more effort than my rant perhaps deserved.

I cannot speak for any company, but in my experience there is absolutely no conspiracy, or move to 'get out' as quickly as possible, other than from hard economics. If anything, one of the problems that the industry has brought upon itself is the sentimental attachment to facilities, which have been 'kept going' against the background of decline, just on the offchance. This leads to increasing costs per hour for the work that there actually is, which makes the work less competitive, which reduces the order book, and so on. It could be argued that the extremely rapid and hard faced 'dash' to close un-needed facilities is the only way to keep the residual industry competitive - something which has finally been recognised.

[GrahamO]

In addition, my experience associated with strategic maritime facility upkeep suggests that by the time the facilities have been 'acknowledged' by MOD to be unsustainable/unaffordable, said facilities have been so for a long period of time.

As has been discussed on many threads, the Abbeywood chaps can be a little tardy in making decisions, and quite good at ignoring the inevitable, so by the time comes to close something down, it is hardly a surprise that the company does so quickly - they have normally been subsidised by the contractor under good will alone pending a decision.

Why should a company take their time when it costs their money ? How long it exists is irrelevant.

[Sir George Cayley]

Woodford's aviation heritage predates the lists of a/c listed so far. Alliot Verdon Roe established an aircraft production factory there in the mid twenties.

At around the same time 3 men and a lad started the Lancashire Aero Club at Eccles nr Manchester. The first club house was at Woodford and they flew Avro Avians until the war intervened.

LAC trained pilots at Woodford who went on to help form the first wave of wartime RAF pilots. It is also where Roy Chadwick lost his life in the Tudor crash. This together with all that's been said here marks this aerodrome as a significant aeronautical heritage site.

It could be said that the destruction would brand the directors of BAe Philistines. But I think we knew that anyway.

Sir George Cayley

[davejb]

Whilst accepting some of what Graham says, I think he and Tornadoken (particularly the latter) have rather missed the point of defence.

For example Gibbon (Tornadoken) may well have decided 1% was a decent figure for GDP spent on defence - correct me if I got this wrong, but vol 1 was published in 1776 or thereabouts, so unless we're discussing a universal constant like Pi or the speed of light in a vacuum, I don't see that it is particularly sensible to base defence spending on the opinion of somebody who died 200 years ago, based on an empire that peaked almost 2000 years earlier.

You almost can't express a suitable defence budget on GDP terms - first off, let's consider this idea - in 2010 the UK produces goods and services valued at 10 squillion bucks, we spend 0.5 squillion on defence because we perceive the threats to be X, Y , Z.

In 2011 we have a very bad year, it starts when the chancellor sticks 5 squillion on the second favourite in the Derby and goes downhill from there... the threats haven't changed, so should we halve the defence budget simply because our GDP fell? Does it actually make sense to decide defence will cost X, because defence ought to be Y% of GDP, and to hell with the fact that the PM has signed us up to 3 brushfires, an NFZ, and a small war in the meantime?

Shouldn't our defence budget be something we work out based on the tasks we allocate to the armed forces and the kit they need to do it?

MBT's - we still have them, they were used in the Gulf, to be truthful I'm a cautious soul, I like to keep one foot on the ground, I'd like to wait a while longer before we bin something that potent. I don't think the Russians are coming, but I'm not convinced we'll never need MBT's again. If you are then well done, I'll just go check past posts to see how long ago you predicted the current turmoil in the Middle East and Africa....

Companies deliver profits to shareholders, that is indeed their role and it is a little naive to expect anything more from them, so my brain agrees with Graham to a fair degree - but we're also talking about defence capability, and I feel that there should be some sort of quid pro qou in all this where we maintain a capability in exchange for having provided BAE with a stable economy to operate within for the past few decades. Reality intrudes of course, and loyalty means nothing - a sad fact many servicemen are now learning.

There's a tendency to view the past in a rosy light, yes we had hundreds of jet fighters 50 years ago, just as well considering how many crashed and killed their pilots each year..... but like a good few I think we're now awfully close to the lowest we've ever been, and I don't think BAE are doing very much to alter that perception.

It mat be inevitable, but that doesn't stop it being sad.
Dave

[Jabba_TG12]

Thanks for the replies chaps.

Graham:

If you are maintaining and paying for something you cannot sell, you get rid of it as quick as possible. If your money is falling out of your pocket at £10 a minute, you don't spend an hour thinking about the best type of new pocket - you just stop the money flow. In general it is cheaper to scrap something today, as tomorrow labour will be more expensive.

with respect, taxpayers money has been pouring in faster than the 10 quid a minute is leaking out...

But eitherway, we're not just talking simplistic, widget making/bread selling business scenarios here.

The second issue you raise is not logical - you just don't know what its like to have something, which costs money every day you keep it when a customer stops paying for it. You get rid asap.

If you are maintaining and paying for something you cannot sell, you get rid of it as quick as possible. If your money is falling out of your pocket at £10 a minute, you don't spend an hour thinking about the best type of new pocket - you just stop the money flow. In general it is cheaper to scrap something today, as tomorrow labour will be more expensive.

The second issue you raise is not logical - you just don't know what its like to have something, which costs money every day you keep it when a customer stops paying for it. You get rid asap.

How about trying to find other customers for whatever it is? Its not as if BAe havent tried with Typhoon.

I just hope none of your kids, should you have any, ever have any intentions of becoming engineers of any kind... because by this kind of logic, as soon as any order is finished and the books appear empty for a while, whatever is left of British industry might as well give up and go home. Maybe most of the Formula 1 teams who dont so much as scrape two or three points a season and certainly never win anything ought to chuck their workers on the dole as well and "get rid".

[manccowboy]

Yes the Vulcan is being scrapped in a few weeks, I believe the XH558 trust will be taking anything useful off it before its scrapped. I don't know whats happening to the RJ yet though there's rumour its being de-winged and moved off site.

Found out the RJX is being scrapped, more than likely will be done at the same time as the Vulcan, the site will be vacated by early June so they both don't have long either way.

[The Helpful Stacker]

3. We have an airforce whose most vocal members shout out that if it's not American it must be rubbish.


I think perhaps, in a moment of understandable emotion, tbis comment over-simplifies things a little.

As a 'supporter' (Stacker) rather than an 'operator' of the various bits of kit the RAF used over the years the issue that makes the British kit 'rubbish' is the struggle to get aftersales support from the manufactuer in order to effectively field and operate the kit.

Simple market forces mean that buying kit that has had a large production run and is being used by a large amount of customers will result in simplier aftersales support than buying a small amount of kit from a supply of which you are the only customer.

The British kit may be technically superior to the US kit but if the Brit kit is sat unusable or of limited use because the manufactuer of a part went out of business due to limited follow-up business then its only so much junk.

At least thats how I understand things from beneath my pile of blankets.

[GrahamO]

How about trying to find other customers for whatever it is? Its not as if BAe havent tried with Typhoon.

I just hope none of your kids, should you have any, ever have any intentions of becoming engineers of any kind... because by this kind of logic, as soon as any order is finished and the books appear empty for a while, whatever is left of British industry might as well give up and go home. Maybe most of the Formula 1 teams who dont so much as scrape two or three points a season and certainly never win anything ought to chuck their workers on the dole as well and "get rid". You have answered your own question really - if so few will by Typhoon, who else would ever buy anything else that is made there ? Its a glib and easy answer to suggest that people 'go out and find other customers' - do you really believe that hasn't been tried ? Maybe it has and nobody wants to place more business in an area with a long track record of not delivering and being over budget.

As to my kids, I would strongly recommend that remain engineers, but would not let the near the aerospace sector.

As to the Formula 1 teams, your analogy is not really that good - its naval architects with fluid hydrodynamics skills that people like MacLarens use (although I cannot speak for the others), and the Head of Engineering design is an ex-defence sector naval architect.

The suggestion that a Formula 1 team would take the action you suggest is frankly childish. The sponsor would ditch them after 10 years of failure to deliver, or when the sponsors have no money left, or the rules have changed such that the vehicle cannot be competitive and all they have is a large and expensive warehouse with guys testing stuff that is never going to see the light of day, nobody will buy and its costing a fortune.

If anything F1 makers are more mercenary - like JPS did when 'skirts' were banned, like Sauber did when they didnt perform, like Toyota did when they didn't perform. Do you really think they keep all their F1 crew, team and facilities 'just in case another mug comes along with more cash'.

Its soooooo easy to spend other peoples cash isn't it ?

[Easy Street]

I have trouble with the notion of maintaining a "sovereign defence industry". If BAES cannot reliably and quickly deliver hi-tech projects in peacetime, why should we rely on them to do it when the sh*t hits the fan? We are told time and again that BAES' first duty is to its shareholders - presumably that would not change in an all-out war?

Would we suddenly nationalise them and find that they majestically transform into a superb, selfless powerhouse of defence design and production? There is no incentive for BAES shareholders to allow preparation for such a contingency by training 'spare' designers and technicians...

If our defence budget continues to dwindle then I can't see the point in pretending we can keep building leading-edge aircraft in sufficient quantity to matter. Ten F-35 might be able to deter an air force of 100 old Migs - but change the maths to one F-35 versus 10 old Migs and suddenly you probably wish that we had a few dumbed-down platforms instead. Equally, a second-hand P3 beats a non-existent MRA4.

My belief is that the "sovereign defence industry" is all about jobs and nothing to do with capability. If we keep trying to build bleeding-edge platforms in quantities compatible with the UK defence budget, we will end up with tiny numbers of platforms (if we're not already there....) Decision time is surely approaching - bin the sovereign 'capability' and jobs, buy off-the-shelf US kit as most of NATO does, and retain the US/UK intelligence and technology-sharing agreements; OR commit forever to European industrial collaboration (saving most of the British jobs in the process) and accept that we might not remain at the bleeding edge with the Americans. Time to get off the fence.

(Edit - if we do perceive that the threat posed by rival nations warrants bleeding-edge platforms in useful quantities, there is a third option - increase the defence budget. I didn't include that in my original post as I thought it was too "blue-sky" to be credible!)

[iRaven]

EZStreet

Hear, hear ... :D

[The B Word]

Likewise

Here, here :D

(note the spelling which is often hotly debated!)

[cattery8575]

Hi, Just been to BAE Woodfood for a auction veiwing, great way to get a tour around the airfield and into some of the buildings, we drove southside and we passed a nose section of a Nimrod being loaded onto a wagon, got the camera out but was told no photos, anyone know where it is off to,also some jet cowlings.
Took a photo through the fence and one of the truck outside the main gate, was this the last Nimrod to leave Woodford?.

[mmitch]

It's been reported elswhere that the nose is going to Cranfield.
mmitch.

[763 jock]

A lot of bits went to Henshaws in Macclesfield. They are local scrap metal dealers who were on site a couple of weeks ago.

[vulcanxl426]

Well all i can say is i have it on very very good authority that 603 will not be scrapped just yet .

There is someone out there trying to save her well bits of her and no its not the tvoc .

They are just awaiting a meeting date from bae to disscuss dismantling and removal of the airframe.

Thats all i know

[RumPunch]

Anyone confirm if the BAE lads that involved in the test team and final production side of things are signed into contracts that stop them from talking what actually happened from there point of view.
I know its history and most will just forget about it over time, but I am still certain that an inquiry must take place to explain the incredible waste of cash to the taxpayer which about 90% of them have no idea how much money has been thrown away.

[EGCD]

Rum punch,

I can confirm that those from the Production Line or Test Team at Woodford have not had to sign anything or have not been asked to say anything about the MRA4. And why shouldn't we be allowed to talk, the problem was not all ours or indeed all Woodford's fault.

There are some questions I would like to put myself to the Site Manager and Quality Manager - they are the guys who should be asked what happened if there is ever an inquiry.

[EGCD]

It really was the end of an era at Woodford today. All the workers who have not been able to find another job finished today and the doors and gates are now padlocked shut. We all start gardening leave for 90 days, and then that's it. A small team of HR and facilities personnel will remain on site until september.

[obnoxious]

please read on

Woodford Manchester EGCD - Opens up Limited Period (normally closed to private aircraft) « Blog (http://www.othertonairfield.co.uk/blog/blog.php?entry_id=1292198578&title=woodford-manchester-egcd---opens-up-limited-period-%28normally-closed-to-private-aircraft%29:ok:)

[Brakes to Park]

I think Woodford was already scheduled for closure, the demise of the MRA4 just hastened the decision. It may have already had an extension because the work that was due to happen at Southampton fell through and the whole build process had moved north.
On the side, i remember going there for MR2 training and staying at Bredbury Hall, those were the days.

Another era ends possibly. Bredders has gone into administration with about £12M of debt :{

Bredbury Hall: In pictures after Stockport hotel goes into administration - Manchester Evening News (http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/whats-on/whats-on-news/bredbury-hall-pictures-after-stockport-6865723)

[kapton]

I remember being at Woodford in the early 2000's and seeing an MRA4 positioned on one of the pans. Later, in conversation with a BAE engineer I asked how the project was going. I was really surprised by his reply. It went something like this. ' It'll never fly mate. It's a lemon which will cost 30,000 jobs'. I thought I was talking to the MR Grumpy of Woodford, but after he gave me some of his observations of the project, I thought that it wouldn't be too long before the project was cancelled. If an engineer who was in a junior position in the company could predict the outcome with such certainty, then to my way of thinking it must have been a view which was widely held within the company. As it happened, BAE kept polishing one of its many turds it manages to sell to the MOD, until it became painfully obvious that the thing was a dud. The man's predictions were correct though. It did cost thousands of jobs and misery for many. But Heigh Ho! Many of those responsible for the debacle managed to put the unfortunate episode behind them and move on to better things!

[Flap Track 6]

Kapton, having been a member of the Filton MRA4 wing design team myself, it was indeed a view widely held within the company. The project was a politically motivated mash up against a wholly unrealistic initial budget. It was not helped by the different parts of Bae having to work together, despite them all having their own different ways of working and there being no trust between them. When things started to go wrong, there was an outbreak of finger pointing instead of collective working to solve any issues. It was by far the worst project I've ever worked on and should be used in business schools as an example.

[ShotOne]

For those interested in this site, keep an eye on avroheritage.com. It's run by a dedicated bunch mostly of former BAe engineers with about a million years of RAF/Avro/BAe experience amongst them. Until recently you could visit their centre in the old factory. That's now closed but it's moving to a new site at the far side of the runway near the simulator building which is due to open later this year.