Why do we always re-engineer our aircraft??
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Germany
Age: 63
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do we always re-engineer our aircraft??
Ok its not a wind up....I was just wondering why in the UK forces we buy perfectly good airframes from our Sherman Tank cousins then bugger about with the design ie, putting in british engines instead of the ones it was designed, trialled & tested with, or tinker about with the other techie bits for a long time until the initial budget is overspent by a couple of 100% ??
Is it just me or do we (the brits) have an awful habit of buggering up our procurement orders in this way??
Is it just me or do we (the brits) have an awful habit of buggering up our procurement orders in this way??
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: On the outside looking in
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Why do we always re-engineer our aircraft??
Aside from issues of politics (jobs, workshare etc) it's about adaptability. We spend an awful lot of money on these bits of kit. However, the threat they were designed to deal with is ever changing. So, rather than go out and buy a anew ac specifically designed for mission x, why not adapt an existing ac to carry out mission x. It goes on all the time and, just like the human race, it's evolution.
sw
sw
Champagne anyone...?
Re: Why do we always re-engineer our aircraft??
Evolution 
genius! 
It's about creating jobs in the UK with perhaps a slight nod at interoperability. It's also about taking half decent airframes, binning all the good bits and bodging in bits of overpriced underperforming homemade rubbish.
Possibly.
genius! It's about creating jobs in the UK with perhaps a slight nod at interoperability. It's also about taking half decent airframes, binning all the good bits and bodging in bits of overpriced underperforming homemade rubbish.
Possibly.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: 6 miles 14
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Why do we always re-engineer our aircraft??
Perhaps we don't anymore! Remember the 74 Sqn Phantoms not spey powered them ones very smokey and I believe the C17s are US standard too. Maybe we learned our lesson. "If it aint broke dont fix it"
Re: Why do we always re-engineer our aircraft??
If you accept the main differences between the “air vehicle” and the “aircraft” are engines, avionics and weapons then;
a. Rolls Royce are excellent, quite apart from supporting UK industry and political factors.
b. As above, most UK avionics (except, in my experience, EW). Buying US sourced kit is easy, supporting it (80% of through life costs) is a nightmare.
c. I admit limited experience on weapons but what I have done has largely been governed by security aspects (as are airborne radars and to a lesser extent comms).
Interoperability – MoD has no real policy on, and cannot afford to be, interoperable with anyone other than UK forces, and even then that is merely an unfunded aspiration.
Functionality – The US routinely adds, and more importantly removes, functionality at the drop of a hat and usually without telling anyone. France is also notorious for this (Lynx, Gazelle, Puma). If we follow, we incur expensive, unnecessary and unplanned mods; if not, we fall behind and need to separately maintain an “old” build standard which is quickly obsolescent. To do that, we need master drawings, source code etc.
Standardisation – There is very little you can buy from the US that will simply plug and play in UK aircraft. They build to their standards, not ours.
Related to the above, we will always be a minor user to almost any US defence supplier and at the bottom of the food chain when it comes to buying spares, design changes etc.
Supportability – The first thing in any User Requirement for aircraft to be flown off CVS/RFA/SUS/DUS is “On Board Commonality”. They simply don’t have the space to carry rafts of spares, so we specify kit which is common to our aircraft, as far as possible. For example, until recently the 3 main aircraft on a CVS (SHAR, Merlin, AEW) required only two (huge) ATE suites. A third could not be squeezed in, so regardless of who wins any competition for the kit, they are directed to use one or other of these suites. If you look at the fit on these aircraft, you’ll see that in many cases the same kit, or variants thereof, is in at least two of them or capable of being tested on the same ATE. This is why Merlin has a mixture of avionics spanning the 70s, 80s and 90s. Its avionic fit hasn’t changed much since it was determined in 1983-ish. The downside is that much of it is now very old as the air vehicle part of the programme slipped a decade or so.
Obviously there is much more to this and I have simplified it somewhat, but I hope this helps. People do think about these things, but the common denominators are always politics and money.
a. Rolls Royce are excellent, quite apart from supporting UK industry and political factors.
b. As above, most UK avionics (except, in my experience, EW). Buying US sourced kit is easy, supporting it (80% of through life costs) is a nightmare.
c. I admit limited experience on weapons but what I have done has largely been governed by security aspects (as are airborne radars and to a lesser extent comms).
Interoperability – MoD has no real policy on, and cannot afford to be, interoperable with anyone other than UK forces, and even then that is merely an unfunded aspiration.
Functionality – The US routinely adds, and more importantly removes, functionality at the drop of a hat and usually without telling anyone. France is also notorious for this (Lynx, Gazelle, Puma). If we follow, we incur expensive, unnecessary and unplanned mods; if not, we fall behind and need to separately maintain an “old” build standard which is quickly obsolescent. To do that, we need master drawings, source code etc.
Standardisation – There is very little you can buy from the US that will simply plug and play in UK aircraft. They build to their standards, not ours.
Related to the above, we will always be a minor user to almost any US defence supplier and at the bottom of the food chain when it comes to buying spares, design changes etc.
Supportability – The first thing in any User Requirement for aircraft to be flown off CVS/RFA/SUS/DUS is “On Board Commonality”. They simply don’t have the space to carry rafts of spares, so we specify kit which is common to our aircraft, as far as possible. For example, until recently the 3 main aircraft on a CVS (SHAR, Merlin, AEW) required only two (huge) ATE suites. A third could not be squeezed in, so regardless of who wins any competition for the kit, they are directed to use one or other of these suites. If you look at the fit on these aircraft, you’ll see that in many cases the same kit, or variants thereof, is in at least two of them or capable of being tested on the same ATE. This is why Merlin has a mixture of avionics spanning the 70s, 80s and 90s. Its avionic fit hasn’t changed much since it was determined in 1983-ish. The downside is that much of it is now very old as the air vehicle part of the programme slipped a decade or so.
Obviously there is much more to this and I have simplified it somewhat, but I hope this helps. People do think about these things, but the common denominators are always politics and money.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Why do we always re-engineer our aircraft??
So if UK is a unique case for armaments (as every country possibly is) why in Gods name did the politicians destroy our defence industry and in particular our aircraft industry. Did we not at one time have the best in the world? What happened? For those of you been around long enough to fly both British built and others what is your preference and why?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Why do we always re-engineer our aircraft??
Your answer for 10 is "because we were paying the Yanks back for our war loans and couldn't afford to research, develop and procure stuff all on our own anymore".
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: ISLE OF MAN
Posts: 780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Why do we always re-engineer our aircraft??
why not do as the ruskis used to?
Capture/borrow/blag something, thern reverse engineer it
I am really good when I put my mind to it!
Capture/borrow/blag something, thern reverse engineer it
I am really good when I put my mind to it!
Re: Why do we always re-engineer our aircraft??
Because the Boss is going to work for SELEX/BAES/Insert Any Other Company*Delete as Applicable In a couple of years when he leaves his/her current IPT job.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: ISLE OF MAN
Posts: 780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Why do we always re-engineer our aircraft??
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOh - cynical!
I have to say, considering what we p*ss down the drain in the name of local engineering, for overdue, out of date stuff we have developed ourselves, I'd rather buy a load of US stuff in kit form, and build them and maintain them locally. If Tony and George ever fall out, then we have the ability to engineer our way out of any withfrawl of spares, etc.
That way, more hospitals, better schools, more plod funding
and better lead in times
I have to say, considering what we p*ss down the drain in the name of local engineering, for overdue, out of date stuff we have developed ourselves, I'd rather buy a load of US stuff in kit form, and build them and maintain them locally. If Tony and George ever fall out, then we have the ability to engineer our way out of any withfrawl of spares, etc.
That way, more hospitals, better schools, more plod funding
and better lead in times
Re: Why do we always re-engineer our aircraft??
WorkingHard,
“Why in Gods name did the politicians destroy our defence industry and in particular our aircraft industry, did we not at one time have the best in the world?”
Not this hoary old chestnut again!!!!
The UK currently has the second largest Aerospace industry on the planet, no guessing who comes first! The UK defence industry is the second largest exporter with a market share of over 20% with Russia and France trailing behind.
As to the UK Aerospace industry once being the best in the world, when? When did we ever make the best? Don’t trot out the old ‘Golden Age’ of the fifties and sixties, it may have been a super time to be a UK aircraft spotter but in terms of commercial success????
DozyWannabee,
The UK paid £26Billion in debt interest last year out of a total Govt budget of £519Billion, UK debt is less than that of any of our industrial competitors; France, Germany the US and Japan, even Canada! It is WAY less than the likes of Italy.
As to not affording to research, develop and procure or own stuff, 80% of the MOD capital spend is with UK companies.
Not even the US can afford to go it alone any more, look at the JSF, a UK workshare of over 19% of a multi thousand aircraft programme is bound to be a whole lot cheaper than if we had gone ahead and developed our own 150 aircraft programme. Provides a WHOLE lot more UK R and D and production jobs as well.
Standto,
You obviously have missed the whole IPR debate if you think we can simply assemble US kit over here and “engineer” our way out if we disagree, believe me, we can’t!
“Why in Gods name did the politicians destroy our defence industry and in particular our aircraft industry, did we not at one time have the best in the world?”
Not this hoary old chestnut again!!!!
The UK currently has the second largest Aerospace industry on the planet, no guessing who comes first! The UK defence industry is the second largest exporter with a market share of over 20% with Russia and France trailing behind.
As to the UK Aerospace industry once being the best in the world, when? When did we ever make the best? Don’t trot out the old ‘Golden Age’ of the fifties and sixties, it may have been a super time to be a UK aircraft spotter but in terms of commercial success????
DozyWannabee,
The UK paid £26Billion in debt interest last year out of a total Govt budget of £519Billion, UK debt is less than that of any of our industrial competitors; France, Germany the US and Japan, even Canada! It is WAY less than the likes of Italy.
As to not affording to research, develop and procure or own stuff, 80% of the MOD capital spend is with UK companies.
Not even the US can afford to go it alone any more, look at the JSF, a UK workshare of over 19% of a multi thousand aircraft programme is bound to be a whole lot cheaper than if we had gone ahead and developed our own 150 aircraft programme. Provides a WHOLE lot more UK R and D and production jobs as well.
Standto,
You obviously have missed the whole IPR debate if you think we can simply assemble US kit over here and “engineer” our way out if we disagree, believe me, we can’t!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Why do we always re-engineer our aircraft??
PROONE - I am very happy to be corrected on the figures you supplied. If they are accurate (no disrepect intended to you) then we are very successful. Why oh why do we have this perception then that it is different? Why is the Harrier being built in the USA and we are not building it? Am i wrong on that also?
Re: Why do we always re-engineer our aircraft??
WorkingHard,
Figures from the SBAC and Stockholm International Peace Institute respectively.
No-one builds the Harrier anywhere any more, if you mean the AV-8B and the UK GR5/7, they were a co-operative programme between the US and UK with the UK providing the fuselage, tailplane, undercarriage, engine and ejection seat, the US providing the wing and nose and each providing its own specific avionics. They were assembled on two final assembly lines, one in the US and one in the UK.
A lot of the perception about the UK aerospace industry revolves around Airbus and the feeling that it is somehow French. It is not, the French may assemble the things but they only make the very forward fuselages. The rest is concived, designed engineered, manufactured, fitted out and tested all over Europe, with a very large percentage taking place in the UK.
Final assembly is not very high tech, it is not a value add process and it does nothing to increase your tecnological capability. BAE were offered the A320 final assembly and they turned it down.
Figures from the SBAC and Stockholm International Peace Institute respectively.
No-one builds the Harrier anywhere any more, if you mean the AV-8B and the UK GR5/7, they were a co-operative programme between the US and UK with the UK providing the fuselage, tailplane, undercarriage, engine and ejection seat, the US providing the wing and nose and each providing its own specific avionics. They were assembled on two final assembly lines, one in the US and one in the UK.
A lot of the perception about the UK aerospace industry revolves around Airbus and the feeling that it is somehow French. It is not, the French may assemble the things but they only make the very forward fuselages. The rest is concived, designed engineered, manufactured, fitted out and tested all over Europe, with a very large percentage taking place in the UK.
Final assembly is not very high tech, it is not a value add process and it does nothing to increase your tecnological capability. BAE were offered the A320 final assembly and they turned it down.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Why do we always re-engineer our aircraft??
Well PROONE you have proved yet again the PPRUNE is an amazing source of information. Thank you and I'm sure amny readers will be very pleased to see the UK industry is alive and well.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: england
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Why do we always re-engineer our aircraft??
I was told by a bloke who knows, the reason the UK never bought F15 / F16 was they used different electrical standards which were not compatable with any UK support / systems etc
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Pianosa
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Why do we always re-engineer our aircraft??
Originally Posted by HOODED
Perhaps we don't anymore! Remember the 74 Sqn Phantoms not spey powered them ones very smokey and I believe the C17s are US standard too. Maybe we learned our lesson. "If it aint broke dont fix it"
I also beleive that the C-17s are leased, and were just grabbed from a USAF production batch. Eventually aren't we supposed to give them back?
Re: Why do we always re-engineer our aircraft??
Aren't pr00ne's posts amusing - he makes 'Comical Ali' seem almost convincing!
OK - so, for example, the V-bombers were not a 'commercial' success, but at the time of the 'Golden Age' you sneer at, they were cutting edge designs produced as a rsult of national will. Both political parties supported them, incdentally. I imagine that the manufacturers of all those Meteors, Vampires and Venoms did, however, consider them to be pretty successful.
It was only in the age of meddling post-Sandys politicians and spineless leadership that the UK stopped most of its major design programmes.
Hamburg turns out Airbus narrow bodies like a sausage (or Bratwurst) machine - heaven knows why BWoS turned down the task. Indeed, if they'd pushed harder, perhaps the RAF wouldn't still be flying knackered old VC10s and TriShaws but would have been flying 21st century A310 multi-role transport tanker aircraft for around 5 years by now....
OK - so, for example, the V-bombers were not a 'commercial' success, but at the time of the 'Golden Age' you sneer at, they were cutting edge designs produced as a rsult of national will. Both political parties supported them, incdentally. I imagine that the manufacturers of all those Meteors, Vampires and Venoms did, however, consider them to be pretty successful.
It was only in the age of meddling post-Sandys politicians and spineless leadership that the UK stopped most of its major design programmes.
Hamburg turns out Airbus narrow bodies like a sausage (or Bratwurst) machine - heaven knows why BWoS turned down the task. Indeed, if they'd pushed harder, perhaps the RAF wouldn't still be flying knackered old VC10s and TriShaws but would have been flying 21st century A310 multi-role transport tanker aircraft for around 5 years by now....