Should the UK procure and licence build US designed aircraft?
Should the UK procure and licence build US designed aircraft?
As part of BFJT at Linton each course is required to do a presentation loosely connected to UK airpower. In light of recent defence procurement problems we have chosen the above as our subject and are presenting an argument in favour. Any thoughts, opinions, or comments would be much appreciated.
Regards 211 cse.
Regards 211 cse.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Should the UK procure and licence build US designed aircraft?
I thought it had already been done;
twinact, you beat me to the 'post' button, but thought I'd highlight our point.
I thought it had already been done;
twinact, you beat me to the 'post' button, but thought I'd highlight our point.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It could be argued that actually it is not a 'problem' but infact a huge saving in risk and R&D. Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) or start from scratch yourself? Keep British Industry in the loop with the 'licenses' and do a bit of component swaps (engines, DAS etc) and bobs your uncle. Many will still argue that we should be with an F-15E over the Typhoon or a PC3 Orion over Nimrod MR4.
Why American and not European? If you're only talking about pointy-jets, why not Gripen...or Rafale...or even Su-27/34, come to that? That's what I'd ask you!
Looking only to the west is about 60 years out of date. And no, you may NOT use that strapline!
Looking only to the west is about 60 years out of date. And no, you may NOT use that strapline!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: South Central UK
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a particular issue with procuring US products, in most cases the US Government will not 'sell', even to the UK, the most capable product due to their technology export restrictions. Hence, in the case of an 'export standard' air platform the airframe may be up to par but the clever electronic bits will have a lesser capability than the same item fitted to a US operated air platform. Even if the latest kit is provided, provision of relevant technical data or support equipment is often denied, thus preventing full exploitation and local development of a system.
It is likely similar restrictions could be applied by other nations, albeit in a less Draconian manner.
Hence, what may appear a good idea often has important adverse issues that must be fully considered. The devil is always in the detail!
lm
It is likely similar restrictions could be applied by other nations, albeit in a less Draconian manner.
Hence, what may appear a good idea often has important adverse issues that must be fully considered. The devil is always in the detail!
lm
I think most people here are looking at it from the wrong perspective - that of the end user. From an industry point of view if we procure all COTS/MOTS equipment from overseas we lose our industrial know-how and before long there isn't an economy to defend. Imagine a UK without BAE Sys and its subsidiarys....
F4K
F4M
Another thing to bear in mind is that the actual airframe cost is invariably quite a small part of the total procurement cost. Mission systems, UK specific safety requirements and defensive aids fits, plus training and support requirements (which will be pretty much UK specific as well) will mean that there is no such thing as a truly "off the shelf" buy of a foreign military aircraft (excepting, perhaps, some near-civil types).
Certainly it could be argued that we should buy exactly the same kit as, say the US, but the counter to that is that we operate on a vastly different scale and require much greater force flexibility (and hence broader platform and crew capability) as a result.
It is this latter point that so often ends up moving the goalposts in procurement, and causing the inevitable delays and cost growth. We always seem to want to do absolutely everything we possibly can with each platform, simply because we don't generally have the resources any more to dedicate platforms to a narrow range of tasks.
It should be an interesting presentation, I hope that it stimulates some of the wider issues around this challenging and ongoing procurement dilemma.
[Edited to add:
When did we buy Blackhawks, SS? My memory doesn't stretch to us having ever had them on inventory (but I could be wrong) ]
Certainly it could be argued that we should buy exactly the same kit as, say the US, but the counter to that is that we operate on a vastly different scale and require much greater force flexibility (and hence broader platform and crew capability) as a result.
It is this latter point that so often ends up moving the goalposts in procurement, and causing the inevitable delays and cost growth. We always seem to want to do absolutely everything we possibly can with each platform, simply because we don't generally have the resources any more to dedicate platforms to a narrow range of tasks.
It should be an interesting presentation, I hope that it stimulates some of the wider issues around this challenging and ongoing procurement dilemma.
[Edited to add:
When did we buy Blackhawks, SS? My memory doesn't stretch to us having ever had them on inventory (but I could be wrong) ]
VP,
Wastelands had a licence to build the Blackhawk. It was, IIRC, mooted as a possible Puma/Wessex replacement for the RAF. I don't think that they ever made use of the licence, although as I write, I have a nagging doubt that that is not actually correct.
Wastelands had a licence to build the Blackhawk. It was, IIRC, mooted as a possible Puma/Wessex replacement for the RAF. I don't think that they ever made use of the licence, although as I write, I have a nagging doubt that that is not actually correct.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Thanks Archimedes,
All info available from http://www.whl.co.uk/
VP959, the info about the Blackhawk from the WHL site is as follows;
"A direct result of the Sikorsky association was an agreement that Westland would build the Blackhawk under licence, for supply to a Middle-East customer. A single aircraft was built and flown, but events were overtaken by the outbreak of the Gulf War after which the requirement had changed."
What a waste!!!!!!
Pity the British didn't procure it for themselves.
The AH roadshow never acknowledged this when asked!
All info available from http://www.whl.co.uk/
VP959, the info about the Blackhawk from the WHL site is as follows;
"A direct result of the Sikorsky association was an agreement that Westland would build the Blackhawk under licence, for supply to a Middle-East customer. A single aircraft was built and flown, but events were overtaken by the outbreak of the Gulf War after which the requirement had changed."
What a waste!!!!!!
Pity the British didn't procure it for themselves.
The AH roadshow never acknowledged this when asked!
Archimedes,
WHL did indeed have a Blackhawk licence from Sikorsky, but they never built any for the UK and I'm pretty sure the licence has now expired, perhaps partly to do with the severing of the long standing WHL/Sikorsky relationship a few years ago.
Cheers,
VP
[Edited to add (posts crossed...):
I knew that SS, but the fact remains that the UK never purchased or operated a Blackhawk]
WHL did indeed have a Blackhawk licence from Sikorsky, but they never built any for the UK and I'm pretty sure the licence has now expired, perhaps partly to do with the severing of the long standing WHL/Sikorsky relationship a few years ago.
Cheers,
VP
[Edited to add (posts crossed...):
I knew that SS, but the fact remains that the UK never purchased or operated a Blackhawk]
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
VP,
The question is, Should the UK procure and licence build etc....
Who owned the aircraft?
Mmmm, a British company? (Britain, part of UK !)
No mention in question about purchase/operate !
SS
The question is, Should the UK procure and licence build etc....
Who owned the aircraft?
Mmmm, a British company? (Britain, part of UK !)
No mention in question about purchase/operate !
SS
Semantics and hairsplitting SS, as well you know. I read the original question as intended, I suspect, in that "UK procure" means "UK Government procure", not "Middle East Government procure".
If your interpretation of "UK procure and licence build" is "any defence aircraft made under licence by a British company, irrespective of purchaser" then why is the Blackhawk singled out as the only one in your delightful little montage? Surely you could have included all of the "British" made, licence built export aircraft if that's the way you originally interpreted it? I rather suspect that you originally made a simple mistake by including the Blackhawk picture, but don't have the testicular fortitude to admit it.
Anyway, being somewhat pedantic, WHL (more correctly the overarching company, Agusta Westland) is now effectively a wholly Italian company, not British. It's been half Italian for the past few years in fact.
VP
If your interpretation of "UK procure and licence build" is "any defence aircraft made under licence by a British company, irrespective of purchaser" then why is the Blackhawk singled out as the only one in your delightful little montage? Surely you could have included all of the "British" made, licence built export aircraft if that's the way you originally interpreted it? I rather suspect that you originally made a simple mistake by including the Blackhawk picture, but don't have the testicular fortitude to admit it.
Anyway, being somewhat pedantic, WHL (more correctly the overarching company, Agusta Westland) is now effectively a wholly Italian company, not British. It's been half Italian for the past few years in fact.
VP
It's not all one way...
...someone will doubtless want to say something about offsets.
...someone will doubtless want to say something about offsets.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The F-4 procurement programme in the 60s/70s might have created the ideal template if it had been carried out a bit more scientifically: buy a decent American airframe, slap in some good British engines, add some British and American/British electronics, hang on some British and other weapons and off you go. You get a decent bit of kit that keeps a substantial chunk of the design and building work in the UK. Sadly, the desire to fit a turbofan engine meant replacing a long, thin, reliable engine with a short, fat, unreliable one. Naturally it didn't fit, and so began a rather sorry and expensive tale. Nevertheless, with the application of a bit more common sense it could have worked, and it might have set a reasonable trend for the future whereby we bought only airframes and kitted them out with homegrown engines and electronics.
I've just spotted T&B's post. Unfortunately things don't seem to work so well in the opposite direction. With both the AV-8B and Hawk acquisition programmes there was a good deal of wailing, gnashing of teeth and debate about why the USN/USMC should buy British designs rather than American ones and both programmes were delayed considerably by political attempts to get them cancelled in favour of 100% American products. I don't think we have quite the same hang-ups anymore.
I've just spotted T&B's post. Unfortunately things don't seem to work so well in the opposite direction. With both the AV-8B and Hawk acquisition programmes there was a good deal of wailing, gnashing of teeth and debate about why the USN/USMC should buy British designs rather than American ones and both programmes were delayed considerably by political attempts to get them cancelled in favour of 100% American products. I don't think we have quite the same hang-ups anymore.
