Buy British! ...or not?? [Archive]

Courtney Mil

23rd May 2014, 20:48

Coke, a very good question, Mate.

F-15 only realy became a serious option when we were already committed to (what was then called) Eurofighter. The F-111 tradgedy was a different story and I don't think we ever really had a gap for F-16 to fill.

But that doesn't answer your question. If you ignore all the banter and stuff (I'll call it "stuff" for now) we asked for a long range interceptor and got the F2/3. Apart from the ridiculous failure to make the aircraft totally automated and simple to operate, BAe did what they were supposed to do. And, our crews acquitted themselves superbly in wars and excercises - sometimes much to the surprise of our allies (you decide which ones).

I have to admit to being involved in various evaluations in some of the choices you refer to and, to me, the issues often came down to what we would have bought - apart from just ("just") buying the aircraft, what would have bought and what would we have to buy (and keep buying) to have a supportable operational platform?

Probably, buying US or French or Russian wouldn't have been as bad as many claim. The effect on the rump of British defence industry would have been disasterous.

I'm looking forward to this thread.

Courtney Mil

23rd May 2014, 20:52

Wensleydale

23rd May 2014, 21:01

Back in the 1970s, having dropped out of the contract to share 24 E-3As with NATO, UK was to buy 6 x AWACS - however, in the meantime, a change of Government happened and Union power forced the Government to buy British and the Nimrod AEW was born.

Enough said, really.

Sideshow Bob

23rd May 2014, 21:06

Tiger_mate, please do tell exactly what do QinetiQ manufacture?

Stendec5

23rd May 2014, 21:19

What constitutes "British" these days? Just watched a wonderful video called
"RAF in the 1950s" (get it off Amazon) Watching this you can see a huge industry that could justly claim to be British in all/most ways, ie design, testing, building, production etc.
However a succession of (mainly) Tory/Labour governments have consistently hit the armed forces/defence industry such as our military/industrial capability has been so reduced that the equations simply don't add-up any more, especially in terms of economies of scale.
If (any) government decided to design/produce an all-British strike-attack aircraft for example, it would cost several billions to get it to pre-production standard. Given the penny-packet way in which the RAF order aircraft the project would be totally unviable unless major overseas sales could be gauranteed.
The only realistic way is a total change in strategic/military thinking such as
Britain becoming a major power once again thus justifying a major all-round increase in military spending OR seeking collaboration with sundry nations to share the costs of small/medium power status.
The important point I suppose is that tens of thousands of skilled jobs would be a stake if we shopped around. To lose such a skills base, even much reduced on what it once was, would be a disaster.

NutLoose

23rd May 2014, 21:19

Profits

......

Courtney Mil

23rd May 2014, 21:24

Sideshow,

I take your point and understand exactly where you're coming from. I worked there (before it was QQ) and was equally sceptical. But they do produce a lot of data, knowledge, research and evaluation. They do not manufacture much, but they are one of the last bits of "commercial" defence research we have left.

Not disagreeing with your point of view, though.

cokecan

23rd May 2014, 21:49

Courtney,

wasn't the F-14/15 considered as part of the 'shall we try and build a fighter out of the GR1?' process - i'm convinced i've read that many times..?

part of the strategic issue is whether US client states - proper allies rather than tin-pot ****holes - have ever been stiffed by the US when it came to buying spares, MLU's etc..?

it purely military equipment terms it looks to me to be a no brainer - i rather doubt anyone is going to seriously argue that the UK was militarily more secure with F3's than F-15A/C's, or more potent with GR1/GR4's than F-111/F-15E, or that the fleet in 1982 was better off with Type 42 than Spruance class - or would they?

tornadoken

23rd May 2014, 22:11

S5: 1950s' RAF was not Brit-mounted. Avionics was intertwined, UK/US; ADEN gun was German; aerodynamics was German/NACA as much as RAE; fabrication was muchly off Cincinatti tools, and production of Hunter, Canberra, Valiant, Javelin, Gannet....was heavily subsidised by Uncle Sam.

UK has never been wholly techno-sovereign in Aero. Many UK piston aero engines began as French licences. Aerofoil sections might be NACA or they might be Gottingen. All, bar none, material which we turn into kit is imported.

A to OP's Q is that, no, it matters not who invented the kit we use. See Israeli Air Force, fighting on US and French craft, never on indigenous designs. What matters is whether we have access to spares, tools, (now code) to sustain readiness. Starting with 1941 Lend/Lease, UK appointed Sister Firms as Design Authority, competent to keep kit flying even if Supply was disrupted by hostile action. Now,to ensure operational sovereignty v. commercial or political action, Ministers have stressed, on (US) F-35, access to source code, and on (Israeli) Watchkeeper, Design Authority into a UK entity (which happens to be French owned).

Willard Whyte

24th May 2014, 01:43

kharmael, the Disco Sport, Disco Junior od whatever it's going to be called, will not be a Freelander. It will be a slightly smaller Disco. The beauty of the Freelander has always been its smaller size.

Interesting stats:

Original ('70) Range Rover:

Wheelbase 100 in (2,540 mm)
Length 176 in (4,470 mm)
Width 70 in (1,778 mm)
Height 70 in (1,778 mm)

Original (2001) Freelander:

Wheelbase 101.0 in (2,565 mm)
Length 175.0 in (4,445 mm)
Width 71.1 in (1,806 mm)
Height 68.9 in (1,750 mm)

The current FL is bigger still...

Obviously cars get bigger generation on generation for various reasons, (some good, some bad), but jeez.

typerated

24th May 2014, 02:46

Sometimes it works the other way around - in my view we should have developed the Buccaneer Mk 3 instead of trying to buy US F-111s or joint compromise in the Tornado GR1. We could at least have sold them to the Germans, Italians and Saudis.

We could easily have built the Viggen under license (perhaps with UK equipment) it would have transformed the RAF in the 70s. Replacing the Lightning as an interceptor and also filling the role of the Jags and Harriers.It would have been quite a frontline with the F4 and new Buccaneers.

In the 80s we should have gone F-15C - (or even better for the UK F-15D with the radar in the back) probably with the conformal tanks that were later fitted to the Es

Ogre

24th May 2014, 03:21

Back in the days when aircraft were built from wood and canvas and baling wire, any nation could state that they wholey own the aircraft manufacturing process.

Then the product became more complex, and instead of one company making everything they started sub contracting specialists to make part of the aircraft; engines, hydraulics, avionics etc. If all the companies were based in the same country, then it could still be classed as a national aircraft industry.

Then parts of the aircraft got more complex, and some companies folded or got bought out by bigger companies some of which were based in other countries. By now, if you want to build an aircraft which is going to be the best you can get, then you have to go to the best company for each of these parts. If you want to get cheaper, then you still need to go to another company (perhaps another nation) becuase you don't have the time and money to build the capability yourself.

So these days if you want an aircraft engine you have a half dozen names at most, Rolls Royce is probably the only one in the UK. The number of companies who can manufacture the specialist airframe parts is pretty small, avionics systems will come from one or two big names and so it goes on.

So if you want a wholey British built aircraft you either have to develop some specialist areas (costing money) or pick the second or third best in the world suppliers and hope the capability is up to scratch. But at least the money you pay for the aircraft, and all of the components that make up the aircraft, will go into the coffers of British companies who will pay their employees who spend the money in British shops.

However, if you just decide to stuff it and buy something that was designed and manufactured in another country, all of a sudden all those British jobs that were in with a chance of taking part now have nothing to do. No work and the companies close, the expertise and experience goes off to do whatever will pay the bills and all of a sudden we don't have the capability anymore.

Shotone, by all means buy your new military hardware overseas, but don't expect to come back in 10 years and decide to buy British because you won't be able to. And if you do buy from somewhere else, you either take the off-the-shelf package which may not fit the bill, or tweak it to your spec and pay the price. But in paying the price you are putting more money into the pockets of a company in another country.

West Coast

24th May 2014, 03:42

Seems to me the logic of that is buy British to keep a sector of the industry alive, not because its the best kit for the mission.

Natural selection has its place in business as well.

Ogre

24th May 2014, 03:54

West Coast

It is certainly true, but conversely if you want to make it the best kit for the mission perhaps you need to invest in British industry....

Oh and stop meddling with the contract. How much money is wasted when the MOD has Champagne wishes but only wants to pay Beer prices.

500N

24th May 2014, 03:54

Ogre

However, if you just decide to stuff it and buy something that was designed and manufactured in another country, all of a sudden all those British jobs that were in with a chance of taking part now have nothing to do. No work and the companies close, the expertise and experience goes off to do whatever will pay the bills and all of a sudden we don't have the capability anymore.

Shotone, by all means buy your new military hardware overseas, but don't expect to come back in 10 years and decide to buy British because you won't be able to. And if you do buy from somewhere else, you either take the off-the-shelf package which may not fit the bill, or tweak it to your spec and pay the price. But in paying the price you are putting more money into the pockets of a company in another country.

Not always the case.

Uk apache took the helicopter and re engined it plus a few other things.

Aust has taken a number of platforms and added value or modified them in Australia using Australian workers.

You can do both but I also agree with west coast.

At what point do you buy off the shelf versus buy and modify ?

We have the same problem here in aus.

West Coast

24th May 2014, 04:05

Ogre

I understand your point, but what's the ultimate goal of the kit, keep an industry propped up or give the troops the best kit?

Artificially keeping an industry artificially afloat provides no incentive to improve.

I don't mean to sound like a hypocrite, the US does the same.

EW73

24th May 2014, 05:55

You buy Landrover on purpose?

I just bought a Jeep!

We don't make any SUVs in this part of the world!

GreenKnight121

24th May 2014, 06:19

In the 80s we should have gone F-15C - (or even better for the UK F-15D with the radar in the back) probably with the conformal tanks that were later fitted to the Es

The F-15C entered service with CFT capability. Initially known as FAST packs (Fuel And Sensor Tactical), each unit carried an additional 849 US gallons (3,213.8 L) of fuel, while retaining hardpoints for four AIM-7F Sparrow missiles or bombs.

They were first tested on the F-15B in 1974.

While they are optional on F-15C/Ds, all U.S. F-15Es, and Strike Eagle export variants such as the IAF and Singapore models are fitted with CFT's between the wing and fuselage, and require modification to fly without them. That is because they are permanently mounted, to remove the G-limits placed on those aircraft with the CFTs mounted temporarily.

The disadvantage of the CFTs for the F-15C/D is that their usefulness as a maneuvering fighter is reduced (unless the CFTs are empty) and they cannot be jettisoned in-flight. That is why they are not normally installed except for aircraft in specific locations - like the F-15C/Ds that were assigned to Iceland.

Whenurhappy

24th May 2014, 06:21

Perhaps if anyone has any doubts why we buy 'British' equipment, they should read the Government's Prosperity Agenda. It is one of the biggest drivers of FCO activity these days; foreign governments see us using British equipment on operations, or bobbing around the oggin, and they are more likely to buy it. The numbers of jobs the defence industry supports is truly astounding and still allows the UK to have a pretty credible R&D and manufacturing base.

And let's not think solely of selling the kit. There is the in-service sustainment - upgrades, training, refurbishment and disposal. Moreover unit costs are driven down if the UK sells this kit abroad and remember, irrespective of the seller, most military equipment is sold Government to Government.

It's about business and jobs, and defending the UK from economic failure. Sounds trite? Look at the figures...

Ogre

24th May 2014, 06:23

500N, I agree, back in the day the UK took ex-US F4 Phantoms and put Rolls Royce engines in them. That sort of thing puts some work the way of local companies, but makes the engineering a bit of a nightmare.

You comment about Australia is true, so lets consider the upcoming Australian P-8 purchase. How much will Australian companies actually do,and how much will be done by US based companies who operate in Australia? Slight difference, but the latter probably means the intellectual work is kept in overseas hands.

West Coast. I agree again, the main purpose is to give the troops the best kit. But Off-The-Shelf (OTS) kit may not be the best that your troops need, they may want it to do something slightly different or some other whistles and bells that the OTS kit doesn't have.

Buying OTS means you get the OTS package. If you want it in a different colour or with wider wheels you need to pay more. More money for the OTS manufacturer, or as 500N pointed out you can get the work done locally - on the proviso that you actually have workers who can do the work. Any monkey can follow the instructions ifall they are doing is fitting the bits someone else designed and built, but what does that do for the state of your nation if you only fit someone elses kit.

At the end of the day you can go the easy way and buy the OTS package, as long as you are happy the OTS package is exactly what you want for the life of type (which for an aircraft could be 30 years plus). However buying OTS means if you suddenly change your mind about what you want it to do (different government, different type of operation...) then who do you go to to make the changes? Suddenly you have no local experience to do the work, so it's back to the manufacturer (which means it gets done at their cost, their schedule, and they keep the intellectual property). If you do have a local capability to modify your OTS kit, you now have a whole raft of engineering and property issues around design authority, change it without the original manufacturers permission you could lose all warranty or design support ("not the kit we designed anymore, sorry we won't help you").

Buying OTS kit from somewhere else is easy if its a new vehicle which you expect to last 5 years, but the longer you need to keep it I suggest you need to think about buying local

ShotOne

24th May 2014, 06:45

Ogre, you seem to have the impression I wanted a particular answer when I started the thread but that's not the case. You raise a valid point about OTS versus bespoke ordering, but this applies whether the gear is bought here or overseas and probably warrants a thread of its own. Have you ever purchased any machinery with your own money on that basis? What would, say, an ipad look like if ordered to an MOD spec? A bit like a chest freezer I suspect!

Ogre

24th May 2014, 06:59

ShotOne

No, but I have worked in the defence engineering business for many years. I have dealt with contracts where we have Commercial OTS, Modified/Military OTS, and Government furnished OTS ("We bought this stuff, now fit it to our planes and make it do everything we want") and had to make it fit. When the military want something they lay a whole raft of military specifications on it, everything from the colour it is to be painted to the temperature and humidity it has to survive under. Mil-Spec is tougher that civil spec, so your Ipad would have to survive a harsher environment, withstand shock loads above and beyond what Apple rate it for, operate at a reliability in those environments that Apple never dreamed you would want to use it in, and make it usable by any (and every) member of the armed forces with the minimum of training.

In short, it would look like a chest freezer because the contract wants it to do everything everywhere and keep doing it.

I understand the question you asked originally, what I am trying to explain is that it's not like buying a German car rather than a British (!) one. There is a lot to think that the end user never gets to see (other than complain about lugging his chest freezer Ipad around).

I have a couple of stories about the evolution of the development of a laptop computer for the military, maybe one day I'll get the chance to write it down

500N

24th May 2014, 07:45

All we'll and good buying your countries product to get capability but
It seems what occurs in aus is a off the shelf will do 90 percent of requirements but someone wants that ten percent and it ends up visiting billions when no one seems to be able to say is it really required.

Why did aus buy tiger ? Because they allowed work to be done in aus ?

Why when Australia's major fighting partner is the us and they use apache,
They operate here in aus and close by.

You also talk about expertise, aus builds for airbus, f35 - 14 of them - and other high end war fighting equipment.

Ogre

24th May 2014, 07:57

500N

All very well, but "doing work" and "designing, manufacturing and integrating" are different beast. One needs people to read manuals and follow instructions, the other require engineering skills of a different level.

If Tiger allowed work to be done in aus, was it design and development or assembly?

As for F35, how much aircraft engineering do you really think Australians working for Australian companies will do? And how much will Australians working for other nations companies do? Other nations companies who could easy pack up and ship off home.

500N

24th May 2014, 08:15

Ogre

Don't know who does what but tend yo think assembly.

I know f35 work is worth 6.3 billion over the life.

500N

24th May 2014, 08:17

Re and "designing, manufacturing and integrating" are different beast

We seem to major a real cluster fck of it when we try to do it !

Courtney Mil

24th May 2014, 08:40

Perhaps the big issue these days is that the UK isn't a big enough customer to support its own defence aircraft industry, hence the need to ensure overseas sales and partnering. F-35 might be a close as we're going to get to "buying British" since Typhoon in fast jet terms. Does anyone here think we'll build a new MPA, tanker, AEW, transport at Warton anytime soon?

Interesting to look at the BAES website and look for combat aircraft. All I found was this...Combat Aircraft

We design and build some of the most advanced combat aircraft in the world.

Then the only thing they mention is Typhoon. :sad:

dagenham

24th May 2014, 08:44

In the event of an actual shooting war with China or Russia, how will attrition replacements be built? It won't be easy to get parts from all corners of the world and then pulled together only to be flown somewhere else!

Guess it will be buckets of sunshine ASAP

Courtney Mil

24th May 2014, 08:48

When Monsieur Cameron declares war on China I doubt attrition replacement will be the biggest issue!

CoffmanStarter

24th May 2014, 08:55

On a lighter note ... Who remembers this National Campaign from 1968 ?

http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af162/CoffmanStarter/imagejpg1_zpse4bc8af8.jpg

It saddens me ... we have the finest science and engineering minds on the planet but never seem to truly capitalise the commercial potential. Leaving Aviation to the side for one moment ... You may think Pfizer were after a tax advantage to HQ here in the UK ... forget it ... they were after the IP held by AstraZeneca for sure ...

gr4techie

24th May 2014, 09:54

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned it already but the problem with only buying British is you are giving Bae or Land Rover a monopoly and therefore a licence to take the pee and do the f' they want. Thats why we are paying stupid money for late products and we are the only customer in the world who gets told what to do by the seller.
If we opened up more competition for a contract, it would keep Bae, Land Rover et all on their toes and give the power back to the customer.

When it comes to contracts it wouldn't surprise me if there's dodgy lobbying, "favours" and back handers going on.

glad rag

24th May 2014, 10:07

I just bought a Land Rover. But three days after ordering, the nice Mr LR told me they won't build my vehicle because they've stopped making the Freelander. Fortunately, a very nice French LR dealer found me one in the system. Great dealer, but why would LR kill their best line?

Moral, buy your British goods from France. :ok:

Awesome Courts, an end of line special :D

Heathrow Harry

24th May 2014, 12:06

Mechta

24th May 2014, 13:02

The writing on the wall for a totally buy British Aerospace policy was really the TSR-2 - the cost of developing it and building it was eating more and more of the defence budget

You have to be able to pay the costs of the industrial base, the research base and actually have enough money to buy and operate the damn things on a continuous cycle - you can't "take a break" between programmes
If the TSR-2 had been sold overseas in the numbers that the Phantom had, the development costs would have been repaid in spades.

Without a British defence industry, where do all the apprentices learn the skills to keep us a country capable of building to aerospace standards?

Also if we import all our defence equipment, a greater burden is placed upon the British taxpayer as none of the taxes which pay for it are paid by people working within those defence manufacturers.

The hidden cost of joint ventures must also be borne on mind. Translation, travel, cultural differences (e.g. bank holidays on different days), delays waiting for decisions and placing contracts to placate the partners rather than because they are the best supplier, all mean that the cost saving over going it alone, is a lot less than anticipated. One advantage that the UK has is that we are a geograpically compact country. You can go to a meeting at a supplier and be back in a day.

Lowe Flieger

24th May 2014, 15:14

A tricky question. The answer you get starts with the objectives you are trying to meet. For example:

1. Provide the best possible equipment for your forces?
2. Acquire them at the most cost-effective price?
3. Preserve your industrial skills and knowledge base for strategic reasons?
4. Provide employment and recycle government expenditure within your economy for political reasons?

Depending on which of these you choose, either exclusively or, severally by priority, very different outcomes can result. Governments are by and large consensus driven, and so most likely will hedge their bets by attempting a combination of objectives, which I believe is one reason why complex military procurements often fall between several stools, and few have the good fortune to hit on a happy medium that actually keeps all interests reasonably content.

For a large defence budget (relative to most countries) the UK actually has small forces and forces thinly resourced with top-class equipment at that. We should literally be getting a bigger bang for our buck. Home-grown complex projects are now so costly in development and production that a 'UK-only' solution is a practical non-starter. If R&D costs are spread over a tiny production run, the resulting unit cost is unsupportable unless you have guaranteed export prospects. The US is big enough to order huge numbers for its home market, so driving cost and price down through economies of scale. They can afford to suit themselves, and at the same time invest in and produce lots of stuff that can then be attractively priced for export markets too. We can't. If it can only be sold to us it is going to be too expensive by definition. Protecting our industry from competition can result in complacency, poor quality, over-pricing and unsuitable systems over the longer term.

Facing the fact that the UK cannot by itself produce a go it alone major military aircraft programme, how do we maximise the skills that still undoubtedly exist within our now shrunken industry? Positive discrimination might produce short term benefits on objectives 3 & 4 above, but longer term prove detrimental to 1 & 2. The answer probably best lies with the commercial organisations that produce high-tech military equipment. BAE has long since morphed into an international company. It has to seek the best markets for its expertise wherever they might be and often in conjunction with other major players.

The reality will, however, always be that major military acquisition programmes are, by definition, driven by governments, so the political imperatives will always be colliding with rational demands. Collaborative programmes are the UK's best chance of retaining a worthwhile share of this high-tech business and so are a necessary evil, loaded as they are with all the frustrations of trying to comply with multiple masters with a variety of often conflicting objectives.

My personal view from all these conflicting factors is that the UK military objective should be to procure the best equipment at the best price.The UK defence industry's challenge is to be one of the foremost providers that meet those objectives, even if they are in a collaboration with others. Over the long term this would produce the optimum capability most often, at the most affordable price, while retaining first class skills.

And the best way to get the best out of whatever equipment you have is to invest in the best trained, best led, best motivated boys and girls so we can get more than we have a right to expect from the tools they may be given.

LF

charliegolf

24th May 2014, 15:32

Mechta said:

If the TSR-2 had been sold overseas in the numbers that the Phantom had, the development costs would have been repaid in spades.

Have we ever achieved that with any piece of defence equipment? Serious question. Swiss and Saudis, canberra and harrier to US, built there. Chiefy tanks in the ME, I seem to remember. What else?

CG

NutLoose

24th May 2014, 16:36

Spitfires, Hunters and Hawks

cokecan

24th May 2014, 16:55

was not the TSR2 the most niche of niche capabilities - a very fast, very low level strike bomber?

it couldn't have been turned into a fighter, it couldn't have done CAS, it doesn't appear to have been much of a stand-off ALCM deliverer - it was a one trick pony, and one trick ponies don't sell to people who can only afford one or two fleet types.

NutLoose

24th May 2014, 16:59

I thought the Aussies had expressed an interest in them.

As for a one trick pony, remember the time period, a Canberra wasn't designed as a fighter either, you had Lightnings and Hunters for that, it would probably have made an ideal reconnaissance or jammer aircraft, as it had a lot of avionics room in it.

500N

24th May 2014, 18:54

"I thought the Aussies had expressed an interest in them."

I thought so to, then bought the F-111 when it was cancelled to do it.

nimbev

24th May 2014, 22:33

I thought the Aussies had expressed an interest in them.Of course Australia would have 'expressed an interest' if they were in the market for a strike/attack aircraft. Doesnt mean that they would have bought TSR2 or even that they ever had any serious intentions of so doing. Potential customers express an interest in almost everything in sight as a data gathering exercise and to justify purchase of their selected option. When I worked in industry we very carefully evaluated our chances of success before agreeing to bid for a contract as bid costs ran into tens of millions and ate up valuable and often scarce resources.

robin

24th May 2014, 23:04

The UK has long given up on even pretending to want a sovereign military aircraft industry.

The downside we've just seen is that buying off the shelf means we don't have aircraft that necessarily meet our needs.

Whatever we think about the Nimrod saga, we have nothing close to meeting the UK's maritime patrol needs. Our dear Defence Secretary was on Radio 4 yesterday pretending it didn't matter and we can rely on the support of our NATO colleagues.

Still, he does have a Treasury background and has the personality to match

500N

24th May 2014, 23:26

nimbev

But they were in the market for an aircraft, the aim being to be able to bomb Indonesia
- or as one Major General said, fly down the main street of Jakarta !

As it was it nearly happened !

Ogre

25th May 2014, 02:47

Back in the day when TSR2 was built, you had one aircraft type to do one job and it was financially viable to do that. The requirement was just that, a fast low level aircraft capable to Tacticla Strike (buckets of sunshine) and Reconnaisance. That's what TSR stands for! Now we can't afford to have that luxury, so each airframe must be capable of doing multiple roles (which means you have to sacrifice some performance to get the best fit).

Perhaps one British success story no-one has mentioned is Hawk. We built that back in the 70's, exported two seat and single seat varients to numerous countries and still support them. Perhaps instead of bying one Typhoon we should buy X Hawks and tweak each one to be role specific? Go cheaper, buy bulk and take the hit on the whistles and bells. Saying that they would have to be manufactured in India because we probably don't have the capability at Brough to build them anymore....

500N, The rumour I heard was that the RAAF wanted to buy TSR2 but were talked out of it by Lord Mountbatten.

GR4Techie - the only reason there is a monopoly is because they are the only players left! Do you have enough salt and vinegar for that chip on your shoulder?

GreenKnight121

25th May 2014, 04:25

I thought the Aussies had expressed an interest in them.

I thought so to, then bought the F-111 when it was cancelled to do it.

Actually, the RAAF evaluated TSR2, F-111, Mirage IV, F-4C, and A-5.

The RAAF flat-out rejected Mirage IV & F-4C, and said that F-111 showed the most promise, with the largest and best-funded development/support/long-term modification/upgrade support.

They then said "In the long run we prefer F-111, but since the A-5 Vigilante is in production, in service, and available right now (instead of 5+ years down the road for either TSR2 or F-11), then that's what we want you to buy, and we can look at F-111/TSR2 after 1970".

The Aussie government said "Sorry, but you only get one - and if we buy F-111 then the US will love us and protect us and call us their best friends forever" - and, in October 1963 (before TSR2 was canceled on 1 April 1965) officially ordered F-111.

This link allows you to read the entire 101-page RAAF evaluation document set for all 5 aircraft:
http://naa12.naa.gov.au/scripts/Imagine.asp?B=1533518&I=1&SE=1

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/Bager1968/Aircraft/RAAF%20F-111C/F-111p1of3.jpg (http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/Bager1968/Aircraft/RAAF%20F-111C/F-111p1of3.jpg)

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/Bager1968/Aircraft/RAAF%20F-111C/F-111p2of3.jpg (http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/Bager1968/Aircraft/RAAF%20F-111C/F-111p2of3.jpg)

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/Bager1968/Aircraft/RAAF%20F-111C/F-111p3of3.jpg (http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/Bager1968/Aircraft/RAAF%20F-111C/F-111p3of3.jpg)

500N

25th May 2014, 04:38

Greenknight.

Thanks for posting that :ok:

I'll have a good read.

AtomKraft

25th May 2014, 05:02

Cracking post, Green Knight.

Now they're all buried in holes in the ground, and maybe it could have been Aussie TSR-2s in them self same holes.

So really, in the long term......

500N

25th May 2014, 05:06

Atom,

Well, nearly all !

To be honest, I was amazed at how many the US Gov't let us keep in one piece.

AtomKraft

25th May 2014, 05:17

500.

Yes, I stand corrected thanks. ;)

Actually, I hear the Aussie Gov't has done quite well and saved a few for various museums. :ok:

I looked around AMARC a few years ago, and there were hundreds of the things.
Sadly, after the fiasco with the F-14 spares, they were mostly shredded.

Some went for range targets, but mostly, gone, gone, gone......:{

500N

25th May 2014, 05:23

Atom

Yes, sadly, the F-14 spares fiasco !

I have one just down the road from me at the RAAF Museum at Pt Cook :ok:
I think it was 7 in total got saved.

Hey, we have an F-35 mock up :O

AtomKraft

25th May 2014, 05:36

500.

Since we're yakking, I did a 'self guided' tour of AMARC one Sunday afternoon- figured it would be quietest then- and had a good look around some of the Swingers stored on the RIT side.

They were great looking things, particularly those old EF- models.

Only way I'll ever see the Aussie ones is with a pick and shovel.

There's something about old aeroplanes......

There used to be an ex Navy F-111B in a scrappy outside the airport at Mojave.
It's not there anymore, but I hope someone's looking after her.

500N

25th May 2014, 05:41

The US seems to have a completely different view to keeping things,
maybe because it just has so many more.

But it also retires aircraft that are historic for keeping.

ie - the aircraft that Bush was in when it landed on the aircraft carrier.
The two F-14's that shot down the Libyan jets in the Bay of Sidra incident,
both were retired and put on display.

What was really pleasing for me was the F-111 raid on Libya as it really
did show it's true colours - and I think made people sit up and think wow,
an old aircraft like that can still do it.

But that is my POV !

Heathrow Harry

25th May 2014, 09:16

One of the problems of the UK defence industry has been that we continually aim for top line products and this is encouraged by the various services

We don't sell much overseas because we can only afford small production runs and the equipment is very expensive & hi-spec anyway

If we were willing to (say) produce a destroyer that cost 70% of a 45 we might sell some more - but then would the RN be happy??

The real classic here is the Mirage III - not as effective as a Lightning but cheap and flashy - sold by the cart load

The last planes we built that were cheap enough to sell worldwide in numbers were the Hunter (which was already out performed by the American and Russians when it was built) and the Hawk - a fairly straightforward, reasonably priced trainer

LowObservable

25th May 2014, 12:54

This argument has been going on for 50+ years. The correct answer is "it depends" as it usually is.

Importing equipment saves you R&D (ooray!) but is bad for balance of payments and local employment (boo!). License build and offsets bring local employment (ooray!) but adds time and cost (boo!).

Building indigenously keeps all the jobs at home (ooray!) but is very expensive and risky (boo!). But then you've got a shot at exports (ooray!) but sometimes the export market doesn't like your product (boo!).

So it's situation-dependent, and you consider facts, such as the following:

How many systems do I need and what's the R&D bill? The UK has bought all its SLBMs from the U.S. and the French have made their own, a huge burden on their budget. Hundreds of fighters may be different.

What are the export prospects? See SLBMs... However, be wary of the promises of marketing vps, for the truth is not in them.

Is what's available to import relevant to my needs? US warships, for instance, are big and expensive.

Is the right way to go an international joint venture? Like other JVs, the goals must be to access a combination of capital, market and industrial capability - so if you go into a JV trying to protect a complete supply chain, it most likely won't work. (Note the sacrifices made to create Airbus, which for almost a decade was the redheaded stepchild when it came to government funding because the UK "only" built the wings.)

Speaking of supply chains, everything is global these days and autarky will carry a heavy bill. This means you can look at every piece of your system and decide whether to invent and make it yourself; pay someone else to make it to your spec with their mature technology; or buy it off-the-shelf - all while keeping some very high-value-added integration and support at home.

This is how Sweden, with the population of Michigan and GDP of Pennsylvania, manages to build fighters, AEW aircraft and submarines.

Conversely, if you look at some UK programs, you can see issues of autarky, indigenous systems bought in small numbers and national issues over-weighed in JVs. Not to mention the "reverse Swede" maneuver of "Anglicising" imported or license-built systems, which (from a cost-effectiveness standpoint) worked as well as you might expect.

RAFEngO74to09

25th May 2014, 14:15

GreenKnight121,

Thanks for posting the doc regarding the Australian TFX decision. It was interesting to see that the US offered B-47s as a stopgap for the F-111A and the UK might have offered V-bombers (presumably surplus Vulcan B1/B1A) as a stopgap for the TSR2.

t43562

25th May 2014, 16:01

My modification to this question: since the cost of having soldiers, sailors and pilots is completely wasted if they are not used for anything, why could one not purchase military protection from overseas too - just as one might purchase hardware? This way the lowest cost provider with the biggest advantage of scale could provide the most cost effective protection.

This is not something I want, but if one is prepared to totally disregard the importance of national capability in R&D and production then why not do the same with training and people?

LowObservable

25th May 2014, 17:16

t - National capability is not irrelevant.

However...

As weapons technology has become more diverse and sophisticated (think about nukes and space, for example) it became very difficult for smaller nations to keep up with larger economies. This started to be a big trend with steam warships (British yards were fairly churning out export battleships and cruisers in the early c20) and reached a point where only the Sovs and the US could maintain a full indigenous capability across all weapons in the Cold War.

So economics may drive you to the point where importing some weapons is the only alternative to giving up some capabilities. Again, see the French situation: they can afford to build Rafale only slowly - but that is to a great extent because they also have their Franco-French nuclear deterrent, spy satellites &c, that the UK does not.

ShotOne

25th May 2014, 18:16

Interesting question, t. I guess the counter-argument is such forces are felt to be less likely to fight in the last ditch for someone else's country.

It does raise the question, and I declare an interest here, of our dependence on foreign-flagged airlines for transport and trooping. The RAF, for decades, has only had aircraft to carry a small % of our forces on deployment. Originally UK airlines did this but now the contracts are often, indeed usually placed overseas, sometimes with airlines controlled by foreign governments. So our ability to deploy or recover our forces hinges on the whim of those governments who may or may not approve of what we're doing.

Surely this should ring alarm bells both in terms of our ability to respond to a national emergency AND our wider national interest; and it doesnt do GB Plc any good when the prime minister goes on a "Buy British" tour in an Angolan airliner!

500N

25th May 2014, 18:27

Shotone

Some discussion was had on the Aussie thread about this same subject
with all the troops flying to the mid east. Third party contractors.

However, when it comes down to it, I am sure BA could come to the party if it wanted to.

When in a dire emergency, Qantas is who our Gov't calls on and they always seem to be able to come up with the goods to evacuate Australian citizens - Bali being one example.

PIK3141

25th May 2014, 18:33

If push came to shove the entire fleets of British Airways and every other British airline would be available. Foreign aircraft currently chartered are used because they are available and, no doubt, cheap.

Mechta

25th May 2014, 19:01

Continued support can be difficult if your supplier wishes to remain neutral (e.g. Suez), or as in Argentina's case in the Falklands War, the Type 42 Destroyers, Canberras, Aircraft Carrier and Blowpipe missiles were all supplied by the opposition.

My modification to this question: since the cost of having soldiers, sailors and pilots is completely wasted if they are not used for anything, why could one not purchase military protection from overseas too - just as one might purchase hardware? This way the lowest cost provider with the biggest advantage of scale could provide the most cost effective protection.

This is not something I want, but if one is prepared to totally disregard the importance of national capability in R&D and production then why not do the same with training and people? Nothing new. Mercenaries have been fighting wars for other people for centuries. North Korean soldiers would no doubt work for a fraction of the cost of our current armed forces...:E

Once you are dependent on others, you are also dependent on what they are prepared to sell you. Look up 'Monkey model' Russian equipment.

Easy Street

25th May 2014, 20:11

ShotOne,

No military, least of all the Americans, has ever considered that it needed to have enough airlift capacity to move its entire deployable force. That would be an extraordinary waste of money. Air logistics planning for massed forces always assumes the use of contracted or requisitioned assets to provide surge capacity. It's one reason why flag carrier airlines used to get favourable treatment from governments, long since forgotten (unless you're Air France). The answer is to encourage the national aviation industry, not to spend a fortune on airframes to sit idle.

Stendec5

25th May 2014, 20:27

Why don't we buy up a 100 or so A-10 Thunderbolts currently languishing in the Desert Boneyard together with a big spares package. Presto, the Raff would have the best close-support aircraft ever built, in service for the next 20 years.
Perhaps then, collaborate with the French and/or Germans to build a state of the art strike-attack aircraft.
This way, we get something tangible NOW, and something promising for the future AND keep a good R&D base intact.

Chugalug2

25th May 2014, 20:56

PIK3141:-
If push came to shove the entire fleets of British Airways and every other British airline would be available.
If push came to shove the government might well requisition the UK Civil Airfleets, but it might have trouble securing the crews! I remember when, having recently left the RAF (ex transporter) and joined a charter airline, things got rather fraught in the Cold War. Mrs Thatcher's government was supposed to be considering that very course of action in order to speedily reinforce NATO in Europe in the event of a possibility of an increased Warpac threat. The reaction of my fellow aviators was scarcely enthusiastic, with much talk of contracts and terms of service, which was hardly helped by my cheery talk of Martial Law! :E

ShotOne

25th May 2014, 20:59

I agree with all of that, easy; my issue isn't with airlift being outsourced. The Americans DON'T flag out their airlift overseas. Indeed all govt or military air transport must, by law, travel with a US carrier.

PIK, is it either reasonable or sustainable to expect to rely on availability of UK aircraft "when push comes to shove" having handed the business overseas for years?

NutLoose

25th May 2014, 21:04

I could just imagine Ryanair or Easy Jet arguing the toss over excess baggage as you board carrying your muskets.

ShotOne

25th May 2014, 22:10

..just beat me to the post, chug! If we were in a situation where Brit crews were reluctant to respond to a national emergency, what chance would there be of finding foreigners to do so, martial law or not? In fact the evidence of two world wars is that civilian crews of our merchant fleet stepped up to the plate in the face of extreme hazard; without it we would have been utterly stuffed!

GreenKnight121

25th May 2014, 22:16

The real classic here is the Mirage III - not as effective as a Lightning but cheap and flashy - sold by the cart load

The ONLY thing the Lightning was more (or even as) effective at is "sprint-interceptor" - quick time to altitude and interception point.

Everything else a fighter is expected to do - actually hang around for a while in the combat area, go more than a hundred miles from base (and make it back), dogfight more than one opponent per mission, carry a half-decent air-ground load - all of that the Mirage III was much more effective at, which is why it sold all over the world.

And again, here we have the classic UK model - produce a world-beating but highly specialized item that meets a specific and narrow UK need - but which few other nations find buyable. Even the UK needed a general-purpose fighter (Phantom) to fill all the roles Lightning couldn't do.

Heathrow Harry

26th May 2014, 08:12

exactly - I think currently the RN's type 45's are a classic example - they can do everything (actually not true - we had to leave off surface-to surface missiles because of the £££) but the cost!!

Even we can't afford enough of them and no-one else has expressed the slightest interest

Courtney Mil

26th May 2014, 19:41

My God. The way you guys are talking, anyone might think the UK might just be in danger of becoming a country that, due to lack of funding, is trying to punch way above its weight. But what do I know?

airpolice

26th May 2014, 21:14

GreenKnight, standby for the Lightning Brigade storming in to defend the aluminium rocket.

While I was employed by HMG to work underground in Northumberland, I was able to listen to the best that Binbrook had to offer, as they did their bit in war games.

Nobody could deny the aircraft could get to where it was needed, as quick as a flash, (subject of course to a K2 following at a distance) but when they called splash five or six times in a trip, well.... oh how we laughed.

Two missiles and that's yer lot.

If only a tanker could replenish weapons.

I'm not denying the value of continued close combat practice, once you are turning in to the enemy, for the seventh time, instead of bolting for home after two squeezes of the trigger, but really......

You need to bear in mind that training is training.

If it comes to war, real proper scary shooty ****en dead war, might has right of it's own.

When all twentyfive serviceable Typhoons are shot down and the enemy (whomever it may be) are swarming all over us, we may wish that we had a hundred Hawks still to launch.

As to the OP's point, well I recall many years ago that Fife Constabulary bought BMW traffic cars for patrol and pursuit work, as they were considered to be the finest, high performance, four door cars available.

There was a bit of aggro on the basis that they were "foreign" cars.

The local authority and the Police pointed out that Fife has no car manufacturing plants. Therefore every car is foreign.

Given the impending breakup of the UK, and indeed Europe if they don't get their **** in one sock, we may see this attitude coming into the aviation industry.

Scotland's next First Minister might not care who builds aircraft for the Viet Jock Air Force, if they are not built at Prestwick they might as well be built St. Louis.

Willard Whyte

26th May 2014, 21:26

Scotland's next First Minister might not care who builds aircraft for the Viet Jock Air Force, if they are not built at Prestwick they might as well be built St. Louis.

Well, they might be able to afford some very second hand Mirage IIIs.

Given the political leanings of comrade Salmond perhaps Venzuela might give him some.

airpolice

26th May 2014, 21:31

Willard, like many others, you suggest that Wee Eck's may be the next arse on the big seat.

I'm thinking that it might go another way.......... A huge Yes vote followed by a Labour win at the elections.

If you think the SNP will enjoy telling Westminster to **** off, imagine what the old school lefty jocks will do!

tucumseh

27th May 2014, 05:51

And again, here we have the classic UK model - produce a world-beating but highly specialized item that meets a specific and narrow UK need - but which few other nations find buyable.

As opposed to the US, who have on occasion done all of the above, but with the added bonus of having snake oil salesmen who sold obsolescent and obsolete crap to the UK.

Examples. Apache avionics. BOWMAN radios. At least on Apache we changed our minds before delivery (much to the chagrin of the MoD Apache project team and US).

But the real howler was; we bought better, more modern radios to replace Clansman; then upgraded and bought a system that actually met the requirements (e.g. LPI); both much to the chagrin of the BOWMAN project team. (But kudos to the BOWMAN OR officer who had the balls to start a URD "As BOWMAN won't be good enough"). Then we let the BOWMAN contract anyway and bought the obsolescent kit. :ugh: That's one thing we are world beaters at. Shooting ourselves in the foot. But hey, it generated minimum wage jobs in Reading and Basingstoke. But we could have done that and bought kit we actually needed (and worked).