another cradle of British aviation put into terminal decline

[skua]

So today BAe have confirmed their rumoured redundancy plans. The 900 to go at Brough looks like a death knell for that plant. It was founded in c 1920, by my great uncle. It increasingly looks like it will follow the other great founding places of the industry - Hatfield, Radlett, etc. No doubt to be turned into a trading estate (or like their Olympiua Works in Leeds, a Tesco). AAArgh!

Skua

[Davidsoffice]

It's sad but we can't go on producing things people don't want at prices they won't pay.
No planes, no trains and no automobiles.

[Ridge Runner]

Absolutely! We are no longer "Great", as in "Great Britain". Neither are we "United" as in "United Kingdom". Nowadays we are English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish.... much like being Portuguese, Egyptian, Chinese or Chilean. All very sad! :(

[Lightning Mate]

At least my BAe pension continues to rise annually. :)

Perhaps they should produce musical instruments - we will always have ceremonial bands in this country.

No guns, aeroplanes, tanks, or ships - but there will always be marching bands celebrating the things we used to be good at. :ugh:

[Genghis the Engineer]

It's sad but we can't go on producing things people don't want at prices they won't pay.
No planes, no trains and no automobiles.

The Supermarine works where my dad did his apprenticeship makes some very fine automobiles these days. Shame they say Honda on the boot, but they're still British designed and built.

G

[Chris Scott]

I wonder if the mis-spelling of their name clinched any sales abroad.

[PFR]

If only BAe had kept a stake in the civil a/c market - they might now have a fall back position now that markets more buoyant - but foolish of me that'd take a some long term planning and investment (see France, Germany, Spain, Canada, Brazil....and others..including China..).....something BAe and successive Governments ain't been good at. Short term bucks - military grave train contracts..oh dear:*
More heritage gone the way of Radlett, Hurn, Kingston, Weybridge, Hatfield, Dunsfold, Woodford....any more for any more:(

[brakedwell]

Hamble, Chilbolton and Lynham.

[chevvron]

Don't forget Dunsfold, Brooklands, Langley, Wisley although admittedly Dunsfold may soon become a Phoenix.

[Tiger_mate]

The decline of heavy industry in the UK is as much about the culture of its people as about Govt directions. If you go to France, most people drive a French car, likewise in Germany most drive a German car, all contribute to promoting the prosperity of the home grown industries.

The UK public has for decades been a cosmopolitan customer investing in imported goods; a trend that extended to corporate companies and in recent times, defence. The lions share of British Army vehicles are MAN trucks (German) and Pinzgauer (Austrian) where once Bedford, Leyland DAF and Land-Rover ruled supreme. Turning our back on the Commonwealth in favour of Europe meant that Japan filled the export gap where once loyalty to the UK was the order of the day. Yet a british car, truck, aircraft in Europe is a rare sight.

British Police, Fire and Ambulance also make extensive use of imported vehicles. Sadly I have to concede that the driving force behind this situation is/was inferior quality UK products and an acceptance of 'friday afternoon cars' that lacked reliability. I myself will only purchase a German car as build quality, customer care, and reliability are a given.

The success' in UK heavy industry across the board came from designers and planners, let down by Govt, Business investment and the public alike. (and in the case of Comet; bloody bad luck). One too many 'winter of discontent' and a hard earned positive reputation in favour of overseas equivalents. In short, the whole situation is a self-hack, and in the current economy, an unrecoverable one.

[ROSUN]

Chadderton too.

[Skipness One Echo]

If only BAe had kept a stake in the civil a/c market

They'd have gone bust, let's be honest they weren't great at making any money from it. Really.

BAe never designed an aircraft from scratch, the closest they got was the Jetsream 41 and er the ATP, both derivatives from HP and Avro. From nationalisation in 1977 the sum new aircraft was the HS146.

Embraer beat the Jetstream 41 to market by a decade with the Brasilia, the Fokker 50 wiped the floor with the ATP and the 146 had niche written all over it. We can build great aircraft but they tend not to be built for the mass market.

VC10, Trident and Concorde, indeed the only mass market success I think would be the Vscount, HS748 and possibly the BAC111.

[evansb]

Hey Genghis, quote "...they say Honda on the boot, but they're still British designed and built." end quote. Hondas are British designed? Which ones? I am aware that Honda closed the Offenbach, Germany car and motorcycle design studio, and they opened an R&D office in America.

[Sir George Cayley]

Don't forget Heaton Chapel either.

Is the runway at Brough still available?

SGC

[Churchills Ghost]

Tiger Mate; what you write is as true as it is sad.

Sincerely speaking Britain really has gone to the dogs and I mourn for those who believe there will be better days ahead as there won't.

You cannot sabbotage a country decade after decade with increasing vigour and expect the end result to be something better.

After the second World War we should have remained 'decidedly British', imposed strict border/immigration controls and exchanged short-term favour with the former colonies for long-term economic stability in which Commonwealth members could be partners.

This would have meant preserving, refining and invigorating British industry to make it competent and competitive. Sadly such actions require vision and someone to communicate and lead this vision - such a person Britain has not seen and now, immersed in the mire of EU legislation, even if such a visionary were to emerge, he or she would lack the authority to implement any significant course of action.

In two words ... "we're f**ked".

[PFR]

Sad but true Tiger_mate:(

Skipness One Echo
They'd have gone bust, let's be honest they weren't great at making any money from it. Really.

BAe never designed an aircraft from scratch, the closest they got was the Jetsream 41 and er the ATP, both derivatives from HP and Avro. From nationalisation in 1977 the sum new aircraft was the HS146.

Embraer beat the Jetstream 41 to market by a decade with the Brasilia, the Fokker 50 wiped the floor with the ATP and the 146 had niche written all over it. We can build great aircraft but they tend not to be built for the mass market.

VC10, Trident and Concorde, indeed the only mass market success I think would be the Vscount, HS748 and possibly the BAC111.

A few sweeping statements in there Skipness One Echo. The a/c you highlight were certainly developed if not substantially designed by BAe, albeit the companies that came to form it. The 146 went through a number developments to became the RJX which was shelved. BAe's problem, along with projects of its predecessors, was staying the course and timely development. Aerospatiale with the ATR are a great example - now at the -600. It's quite likely BAe could now sell the RJX's if it were in production - and they should have forged ahead with a twin engined variant before that (regardless of adverse pressure from Airbus). The potentail of the 1-11's was never fully released either. Tay re-engining at the last was considered, and even flown with De-Howard, but conflict concerns put paid to that also. And before that - because of commercial and political woes - it never benefitted from being offered with the JT-8D. Something American operators were clamouring for. (read DC-9, MD80 to see where that could have gone:rolleyes:)...and we won't get on to the 3-11 saga..:ouch:
Even smaller size a/c programs were squandered - the 125 to Hawkers (Raytheon), with more long-term vision and investment read Hawkers to see where that could have gone....there's more but it won't change where we at:sad: I even think the Jetstream program was not fully exploited..

We have to persuade, encourage, cajole, whatever to make a Government (of what ever colour) decide on a high tech manufacturing sector - and invest! regardless of EU or whatever rules - the French and the Germans have invested successfully without breaking the so called "golden rules" by building or providing incentives (by the tax or other) to get the infrastructure down or keep it in place..

Maybe this can help.....you can but hope...
Britain must encourage, support & adequately fund its own High-Tec industries like for aerospace & biotech research and manufacturing - e-petitions (http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/18090)

Otherwise I fear Churchills Ghost maybe right:confused:

I'm sure some will disagree - so tin hat going on:hmm:

[Savoia]

Had BAe possessed the foresight and will they certainly could have retained a number of civilian projects and the 125 and 146 are prime examples.

But, BAe must have felt compelled to add their contribution to keeping alive that British tradition of coming-up with fairly good ideas .. and then letting them go!

In the case of the 125, as we know, this went Stateside and the latest incarnation of the Hawker, the 4000, is currently set to lead the field in its class.

The 146 was/is an amazing piece of equipment and possesses truly startling shortfield performance. In one case it was the only jet aircraft capable of meeting my client's operational and performance requirements. The 146-type market remains viable in Asia and much of the developing world but .. as PFR states, they should have developed a twin variant.

BAe received numerous requests to develop a twin-engine 146, I know because I was one of those banging the "drop two engines" drum!

I had to chuckle when Antonov picked-up the 146 baton even going so far as to rename their project (in a winking tribute to BAe) the 148. I do expect the 148 to forge ahead and become a success.

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-8_8leUkuudM/ToajLV2IL0I/AAAAAAAAFIE/HKpej9Jj08U/s800/AeroSvit%252520Antonov%252520An%252520148%252520100B%252520U R-NTC%252520at%252520Milan%252527s%252520Malpensa%252520Airpor t%252520on%25252011th%252520Sep%25252011%252520taxiing%25252 0to%25252035%252520R%252520%252520%252528Michael%252520Eaton %252529.jpg
'The 146's Spiritual Successor' - Ukraine's AeroSvit Antonov An 148-100B UR-NTC taxiing towards runway 35R at Milan's Malpensa Airport on 11th September 2011 (Photo: Michael Eaton)

[PFR]

Indeed Savoia:hmm:
Everytime one sails down the approach near my current employer the ex-Hatflied chaps go misty eyed...........oh what could have been:{

[Earl of Rochester]

US managers keen for BAE's chief to separate them from UK parent

By Mark Leftly

Sunday, 2 October 2011

Pressure is mounting from within BAE Systems for chief executive Ian King to consider breaking up the company as part of the defence giant's latest strategic review.

An analyst note published on 20 September that called for the US arm to be sold off or demerged is understood to have been informally passed around a conference of 60 senior BAE managers in Boston a few days later. US managers are said to have been enthusiastic over the move, though other international executives were largely opposed.

The Société Générale note said that separating BAE Inc, the US arm, from a rebranded BAE Int would mean the entities would be worth approaching £13bn in total, equivalent to 380p a share. As a single entity, BAE is currently trading at less than 270p, a value of around £9bn. Sales from the US in 2010 were £9.6bn compared with £11.1bn from BAE Int.
A source close to BAE said: "The note was circulated and was the topic of conversation in the bar. The US guys were keen to go it alone."

BAE is one of a number of defence and aerospace companies that have been badly hit by spending cuts on both sides of the Atlantic. Last week, BAE confirmed reports that it was to cut nearly 3,000 jobs in the UK.

The common logic has been that the UK-based giant would want to retain operations in the US as it is the world's biggest defence market and the two countries account for around 70 per cent of sales. However, there is a growing view that there are few real operational benefits in having US and UK businesses combined as there is little in the way of cost savings through shared services and functions.

For example, a source close to Boeing boss Jim McNerney said that, despite years of speculation to the contrary, he thinks it would be "insane" to buy BAE. He would, though, be interested in the US arm should it ever become available.

Many shareholders are known to want BAE to assess the potential benefits of a break-up, in which they would get shares in both entities. As well as SocGen's forecast that the prices of the two new stocks would increase immediately, the US arm would become a takeover target and likely be sold at a strong premium to its share price.

Importantly, historic concerns that a separation would result in at least one of the new companies losing investment grade status in their credit ratings were dismissed by SocGen. This, plus pension fund issues, are seen as stumbling blocks to a demerger.

The idea is known to appeal to investors who are unhappy that the share price has fallen by nearly a third in 18 months. Several are understood to have indicated that they would like Mr King to pursue a more radical strategy than the current share buy-back and increased dividend programme.

One BAE investor said: "I think [Mr King] is under pressure to come up with something. The extreme view is that BAE has become little more than a venture capitalist buying businesses and destroying value."
Mr King is embarking on BAE's annual strategic review, which will be completed by the end of the year. Sources suggested that he had recently sent the SocGen note to 250 senior managers for comment, though the company "categorically" denied such a formal move had taken place.

A BAE spokesman said: "We meet regularly with our shareholders to ensure our strategy is aligned with their interests."

US managers keen for BAE's chief to separate them from UK parent - Business News, Business - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/us-managers-keen-for-baes-chief-to-separate-them-from-uk-parent-2364203.html)

[pr00ne]

Tiger_mate,

You really do have an old fashioned, out dated and totally inaccurate view of the world don’t you?
If you go to Paris, or any other large French City you will see Range Rovers and Mini’s in abundance, as well as numerous vehicles of Japanese or other Far eastern origin, many of which were manufactured in the UK. The UK has a larger manufacturing sector than France and ALL of the Japanese owned car plants in the UK export around 80% of their vast annual output to Europe, as well as many other places in the world, including Japan!

The UK public is no different to any other when it comes to consumer goods. They are nearly all manufactured in low wage economies as all consumer companies operate in a truly global economy.

As too this trend being extended to defence, MAN trucks for the British Army are manufactured in Austria and all of the bodies are of UK origin. Pinzgauer are British and all vehicles for the UK armed forces were manufactured in Guildford and Warwick. The current owners, BAE, who bought it off the folk who bought it off the Austrians, are closing down the present site when all UK orders are complete to ship the production to South Africa.

As to turning our back on the Commonwealth, tosh! The Empire, and what became the Commonwealth laboured under hugely restrictive trade practices in trading with the UK and as soon as these practices were dropped they set about establishing their own manufacturing operations, as opposed to being forced to buy British. Europe is a far more lucrative market than the Commonwealth and is our largest single trading partner and the largest recipient of our manufactured goods.

The UK is still the second largest Aerospace Industry on the planet and the 6th largest manufacturer in the world.

As to BAE retaining a stake in Airbus and their other civil aerospace programmes, they exist to make money for their shareholders, no other reason. They do that in abundance in the defence sector. EADS and Boeing are engaged in a cut throat market for civil airliners and are struggling to make these programmes pay, there is a reason why the French and German governments are finding it difficult to off load their EADS shareholdings..

[PFR]

pr00ne, Firstly thanks for your post, very helpful. I see here a lot about manufacturing, but what of design - and as importantly - development, leading to manufacture = UK PLC:ok:
Surely we don't just want to be a an Island fabrication and machine shop:hmm:

[Evanelpus]

Don't forget Bitteswell!

The 146 was/is an amazing piece of equipment

Let down by crap engines. A two engine 146 would have been brilliant but BAe were blinded by the four engine against two engine safety thing. I worked for them for over 25 years, the people at the sharp end were great but the upper management were entrenched with 1960's ideas and philosophies.

[Jig Peter]

ISTR that there was, at the time, no suitable engine for a "twin" 146, which was why deH went for the four converted helicopter engines (but I wasn't there then, and probably missed amny other things as well ...). The choice was "4 engines or none - and nothing to sell" ...

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Surely we don't just want to be a an Island fabrication and machine shop

You make an interesting point. There is a popular belief, particularly amongst the current age "ruling classes" that we should do nice clean and respectable things like design stuff. To be avoided is the dirty brutish business of actually making things.

The latter case ignores a basic principle that many people are actually motivated and are quite good at getting their hands dirty making, modifying and repairing stuff. Park them in a call centre or warehouse/supermarket and they will be unfulfilled and not be as productive as they could be. The flaw is, what price are they prepared to do it for? The "East" and certain parts of S America will always probably undercut them. That is where the made here, paid here, taxed here and spent here argument might be easily overlooked.

As an aside, I remember my late Dad's occasional frustration at "drawing office" coming up with airframe modifications that couldn't be made by following the drawing. The legend "report all errors to drawing office" was not much consolation at the start of the night shift after the drawing office had buggered off home. This may suggest a new point; you may need to know how to make it before you can design it. Unless a large sample of future designers are set loose making things, there may be reduced likelyhood of the best of the best ascending to be the inovative designers. It's a similar principle to the Army not having a large enough bedrock to select and train its Special Forces.