MRA4 end of an era & the end of Woodford
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Aylesbury
Age: 58
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F3RB:
That particular comment was in hindsight a tad emotive, I accept that. However, it feels to me (regardless of whether it is factually accurate or not, I readily accept that as I've never worked for BAe, any uneducated commetn by me is unlikely to be) as if, as another poster has said, there is an intention to divest the company of these assets and the capability to produce these assets once a particular order finishes and to become, so far as the British are concerned, a systems/components producer as against what they started with when they were floated. Was this BAe's intention all along?
I think if I were a Saab employee, I would be sweating over the future of my company once the Gripen's future is clearer and if no more of those can be sold. Is the same going to happen to them? Will BAe look to offload them once the prize assets have been stripped from that company too?
Again, I realise its not speaking from a position of great knowledge, but I cast an eye across the channel to Dassault: Not exactly the same, I know, doesnt have a throbbing export order book for Rafale, just like we dont for Typhoon, but I'm not aware of them closing down thier factories as soon as the orders are completed.
Someone earlier on mentioned sovereign capability. I suppose, yes, it does revolve around that. Yes, I accept that this is, regrettably in the current climate to be lost. And I accept that any private company shouldnt necessarily, unilaterally, be compelled to retain such a capability for sentimental reasons. it means that for any future requirements post-Typhoon that the orders are automatically going to go overseas, more than likely the US and that as another poster says, the Airships will get what they hankered after; off the shelf US made kit.
But, s**t, were we not good at this stuff once? To me, it feels like it is being p*ssed away and wasted. And, try as I might to be able to see it from the other end of the telescope, honestly I do, the company (again, I stress, what I see as being its strategic direction, not the actions of the workforce) must look to itself and see that in certain recent ventures that whilst it may have delivered shareholder value - which is all it is obliged to do - that it has not exactly covered itself in glory. Only so much of the blame can go in the direction of the MOD and the RAF. The way the MRA4 project was conducted from beginning to end, as with the AEW3, frankly, was an abomination. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I do not recall anything about the small print saying that the winner of the bid for MR2 replacement had to be "son of Nimrod" - in much the same way as some of us rightly chide the US for re-running their KC135 replacement programme until Boeing won it.
Like I say, I dont claim to be authoritative on any of this stuff, nor am I or have I ever been in any kind of position to influence or do anything about it.
I just get a suspicious, bad, regretful, gut feeling about it, thats all.
That particular comment was in hindsight a tad emotive, I accept that. However, it feels to me (regardless of whether it is factually accurate or not, I readily accept that as I've never worked for BAe, any uneducated commetn by me is unlikely to be) as if, as another poster has said, there is an intention to divest the company of these assets and the capability to produce these assets once a particular order finishes and to become, so far as the British are concerned, a systems/components producer as against what they started with when they were floated. Was this BAe's intention all along?
I think if I were a Saab employee, I would be sweating over the future of my company once the Gripen's future is clearer and if no more of those can be sold. Is the same going to happen to them? Will BAe look to offload them once the prize assets have been stripped from that company too?
Again, I realise its not speaking from a position of great knowledge, but I cast an eye across the channel to Dassault: Not exactly the same, I know, doesnt have a throbbing export order book for Rafale, just like we dont for Typhoon, but I'm not aware of them closing down thier factories as soon as the orders are completed.
Someone earlier on mentioned sovereign capability. I suppose, yes, it does revolve around that. Yes, I accept that this is, regrettably in the current climate to be lost. And I accept that any private company shouldnt necessarily, unilaterally, be compelled to retain such a capability for sentimental reasons. it means that for any future requirements post-Typhoon that the orders are automatically going to go overseas, more than likely the US and that as another poster says, the Airships will get what they hankered after; off the shelf US made kit.
But, s**t, were we not good at this stuff once? To me, it feels like it is being p*ssed away and wasted. And, try as I might to be able to see it from the other end of the telescope, honestly I do, the company (again, I stress, what I see as being its strategic direction, not the actions of the workforce) must look to itself and see that in certain recent ventures that whilst it may have delivered shareholder value - which is all it is obliged to do - that it has not exactly covered itself in glory. Only so much of the blame can go in the direction of the MOD and the RAF. The way the MRA4 project was conducted from beginning to end, as with the AEW3, frankly, was an abomination. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I do not recall anything about the small print saying that the winner of the bid for MR2 replacement had to be "son of Nimrod" - in much the same way as some of us rightly chide the US for re-running their KC135 replacement programme until Boeing won it.
Like I say, I dont claim to be authoritative on any of this stuff, nor am I or have I ever been in any kind of position to influence or do anything about it.
I just get a suspicious, bad, regretful, gut feeling about it, thats all.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Aylesbury
Age: 58
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mendem:
If I may address each point in turn:
"1. We are the only Western Country who's government insists on competing away national capabilities."
Not sure I strictly agree, but I can see the broad thrust of what you're saying. When exactly has this happened? Tornado and Typhoon were collaborative projects; With the exception of the abomination that was AEW3, when have BAe ever bid for military aircraft manufacturing work against a foreign competitor and lost?
Or are you saying this in a wider industrial context, not just aircraft manufacturing?
2. We have an incompetent Civil Service who are trying to protect their backsides from redundancy caused by outsouring their roles to a far more efficient Industrial base.
Partly true, I can accept that to a degree, but in fairness, you look at the amount of such work that the company has bid for and won. Its not been the civil service who have lost out big time there, it has been the military themselves, being sold out by their higher-ups. And, FWIW, "more efficient" is not always better. Its not always just about "cheaper" or total cost of ownership.
"Hence every piece of 'government' news about our industry has an anti-industry bias (too-expensive, incompetent, late, the only way of 'saving' the armed forces is more civil servants blah blah blah)."
I cant speak for the last line. I personally dont recall that being said, but if anyone did, they are, IMHO absolutely wrong. It wouldnt surprise me if someone said it, but would disappoint me a hell of a lot more if someone in a position of authority actually fell for it.
"BAES, as the biggest, takes most flak - but RR are not far behind."
This is where I'm afraid, my sympathy is thinning out. Surely it has not been beyond the wit and imagination of the company to address the ballooning budgets, the constant slippage of delivery dates. Yes, I appreciate the goalposts nearly always move, but maybe the company could have taken some steps to push the blame back onto where it belongs - HMG - if this is truly the case. I know, asking for open honesty from a corporate is practically as naive as asking for it from a politician - but what are the rest of us meant to believe? Regardless of why, all we see is "late", "over-budget", "doesnt do what it is supposed to do".
3. We have an airforce whose most vocal members shout out that if it's not American it must be rubbish.
I cannot excuse that. Ironic that those who were probably the most vocal probably rose to prominence within the flying rank flying British kit...
4. We have a public who don't really want anything to do with defence - it's a bit like not wanting to know where meat comes from - and certainly don't see the need to preserve national capability (particularly when the civil service, government and operators all appear to proclaim industry's incompetence, poor cost effectiveness, shoddy products etc).
Yep, I dont dispute that. They see defence as being there primarily to provide jobs, not to produce what the nation needs for its defence, first and foremost.
5. As an industry we have been suffering a gradual decline for years, such that we are now only really competent as system suppliers (rather than a complete weapon system).
But this is one of the things I'm getting at. Why is this the case? Where did it all start to go so badly pear shaped considering the company when it was floated was effectively handed a nationalised monopoly? What happened to this competence? Did it just walk out the door never to be replaced?
"We do not have enough throughput, nor any indictaion of any future orders, to warrant 'investing for the future' by maintaining empty sites."
See above. Dont you ever wonder why?
Whilst I don't always agree with the level of emotion put across by MancC, nor necessarily his targets, in this case he is spot on. This is the end of an era - the UK no longer has the capability to design and develop large military systems aircraft. This is entirely down to lack of demand/political will to continue to pay for that privilege, which is an argument for the politicians and if this is the direction the country wants to take then we who work in the industry will just have to accept it.
Paying for the privilege though, should not, by the same token mean an open cheque book and permanent rights to consistently deliver late, derivative products that do not do what they said on the tin. I accept the aspects about political will, I accept the lack of demand, I find it hard to accept that if the company truly believes that it is making a best of breed product, that it can not compete successfully against other manufacturers, not necessarily just in the US, but also the Russians, Dassault, Embraer, et al. Or is it good enough for us, but not good enough for any of them?
Against such a backdrop, why oh why do you think any Company should be expected to maintain capability and capacity out of the goodness of their shareholders hearts?
I dont necessarily expect the company do maintain the capability. I'm just disturbed by how fast they seem to want to run away from having had any such capability. Almost as if it was something they never wanted in the first place and couldnt get shot of quick enough.
And, like I said to F3RB, I'm not basing any of what I feel on having worked for Bae, because I havent. I have no particular axe to grind against anyone. Lord knows there are enough other contributors who have seen a lot more than me from both sides of the fence and who'se contributions can be a lot more authoritative. Mine is just bad, suspicious gut feeling, thats all.
If I may address each point in turn:
"1. We are the only Western Country who's government insists on competing away national capabilities."
Not sure I strictly agree, but I can see the broad thrust of what you're saying. When exactly has this happened? Tornado and Typhoon were collaborative projects; With the exception of the abomination that was AEW3, when have BAe ever bid for military aircraft manufacturing work against a foreign competitor and lost?
Or are you saying this in a wider industrial context, not just aircraft manufacturing?
2. We have an incompetent Civil Service who are trying to protect their backsides from redundancy caused by outsouring their roles to a far more efficient Industrial base.
Partly true, I can accept that to a degree, but in fairness, you look at the amount of such work that the company has bid for and won. Its not been the civil service who have lost out big time there, it has been the military themselves, being sold out by their higher-ups. And, FWIW, "more efficient" is not always better. Its not always just about "cheaper" or total cost of ownership.
"Hence every piece of 'government' news about our industry has an anti-industry bias (too-expensive, incompetent, late, the only way of 'saving' the armed forces is more civil servants blah blah blah)."
I cant speak for the last line. I personally dont recall that being said, but if anyone did, they are, IMHO absolutely wrong. It wouldnt surprise me if someone said it, but would disappoint me a hell of a lot more if someone in a position of authority actually fell for it.
"BAES, as the biggest, takes most flak - but RR are not far behind."
This is where I'm afraid, my sympathy is thinning out. Surely it has not been beyond the wit and imagination of the company to address the ballooning budgets, the constant slippage of delivery dates. Yes, I appreciate the goalposts nearly always move, but maybe the company could have taken some steps to push the blame back onto where it belongs - HMG - if this is truly the case. I know, asking for open honesty from a corporate is practically as naive as asking for it from a politician - but what are the rest of us meant to believe? Regardless of why, all we see is "late", "over-budget", "doesnt do what it is supposed to do".
3. We have an airforce whose most vocal members shout out that if it's not American it must be rubbish.
I cannot excuse that. Ironic that those who were probably the most vocal probably rose to prominence within the flying rank flying British kit...
4. We have a public who don't really want anything to do with defence - it's a bit like not wanting to know where meat comes from - and certainly don't see the need to preserve national capability (particularly when the civil service, government and operators all appear to proclaim industry's incompetence, poor cost effectiveness, shoddy products etc).
Yep, I dont dispute that. They see defence as being there primarily to provide jobs, not to produce what the nation needs for its defence, first and foremost.
5. As an industry we have been suffering a gradual decline for years, such that we are now only really competent as system suppliers (rather than a complete weapon system).
But this is one of the things I'm getting at. Why is this the case? Where did it all start to go so badly pear shaped considering the company when it was floated was effectively handed a nationalised monopoly? What happened to this competence? Did it just walk out the door never to be replaced?
"We do not have enough throughput, nor any indictaion of any future orders, to warrant 'investing for the future' by maintaining empty sites."
See above. Dont you ever wonder why?
Whilst I don't always agree with the level of emotion put across by MancC, nor necessarily his targets, in this case he is spot on. This is the end of an era - the UK no longer has the capability to design and develop large military systems aircraft. This is entirely down to lack of demand/political will to continue to pay for that privilege, which is an argument for the politicians and if this is the direction the country wants to take then we who work in the industry will just have to accept it.
Paying for the privilege though, should not, by the same token mean an open cheque book and permanent rights to consistently deliver late, derivative products that do not do what they said on the tin. I accept the aspects about political will, I accept the lack of demand, I find it hard to accept that if the company truly believes that it is making a best of breed product, that it can not compete successfully against other manufacturers, not necessarily just in the US, but also the Russians, Dassault, Embraer, et al. Or is it good enough for us, but not good enough for any of them?
Against such a backdrop, why oh why do you think any Company should be expected to maintain capability and capacity out of the goodness of their shareholders hearts?
I dont necessarily expect the company do maintain the capability. I'm just disturbed by how fast they seem to want to run away from having had any such capability. Almost as if it was something they never wanted in the first place and couldnt get shot of quick enough.
And, like I said to F3RB, I'm not basing any of what I feel on having worked for Bae, because I havent. I have no particular axe to grind against anyone. Lord knows there are enough other contributors who have seen a lot more than me from both sides of the fence and who'se contributions can be a lot more authoritative. Mine is just bad, suspicious gut feeling, thats all.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jabba,
Thanks for the response and it's good to see a reasoned opinion for once on here. I totally understand where you are coming from and that is precisely the problem. The lack of understanding of what happens in the private sector is one of the key issues that drives the problems we currently have on acquisition programmes.
Having sat on both sides of the fence, I am in do doubt that both sides share some of the blame, and actually, the misperceptions of what happens 'on the other side' (driven by the simple fact that we don't communicate well!) are key to that.
I, like you, have no facts on Dassault, but I suspect French shareholders and the 'French City' would be very unhappy with Dassault keeping assets, stock and infrastructure on its books and draining its balance sheet.
If you were spending your own money would you pour it down the drain to support a Customer who has no money and doesn't know what he wants from one day to the next?
The whole acquisition process needs a shake up - let's hope Bernard Grey is allowed to do it. His recent comments to the HCDC were very informative!
Thanks for the response and it's good to see a reasoned opinion for once on here. I totally understand where you are coming from and that is precisely the problem. The lack of understanding of what happens in the private sector is one of the key issues that drives the problems we currently have on acquisition programmes.
Having sat on both sides of the fence, I am in do doubt that both sides share some of the blame, and actually, the misperceptions of what happens 'on the other side' (driven by the simple fact that we don't communicate well!) are key to that.
I, like you, have no facts on Dassault, but I suspect French shareholders and the 'French City' would be very unhappy with Dassault keeping assets, stock and infrastructure on its books and draining its balance sheet.
If you were spending your own money would you pour it down the drain to support a Customer who has no money and doesn't know what he wants from one day to the next?
The whole acquisition process needs a shake up - let's hope Bernard Grey is allowed to do it. His recent comments to the HCDC were very informative!
Last edited by F3sRBest; 18th Mar 2011 at 11:19. Reason: can't speel
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: 2 miles from threshold 23R
Age: 74
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From A Bramhall Boy of the 1950's
I'm hoping that the site will go back to farm land not housing as at Hadfield ( more footballer's houses). I believe there is a covnent when the land was purchased that after aircraft production finished the land had to become a farm.
John (Old Boy Pownall Green County Primary)
John (Old Boy Pownall Green County Primary)
When Hatfield closed many of those who moved North were dismayed to find a map of the Woodford area showing a Manchester ring road and the Poynton by-pass planned through the airfield. I hope that these are not resurrected.
IIRC there is public footpath crossing the centre of the runway.
Save the club house and Doris’s canteen; unfortunately the latter disappeared long ago.
IIRC the club house was home to a famous aviation trophy – can’t recall which one though?
IIRC there is public footpath crossing the centre of the runway.
Save the club house and Doris’s canteen; unfortunately the latter disappeared long ago.
IIRC the club house was home to a famous aviation trophy – can’t recall which one though?
@Jabba TG12
I dont necessarily expect the company do maintain the capability. I'm just disturbed by how fast they seem to want to run away from having had any such capability. Almost as if it was something they never wanted in the first place and couldnt get shot of quick enough.
If you are maintaining and paying for something you cannot sell, you get rid of it as quick as possible. If your money is falling out of your pocket at £10 a minute, you don't spend an hour thinking about the best type of new pocket - you just stop the money flow. In general it is cheaper to scrap something today, as tomorrow labour will be more expensive.
The second issue you raise is not logical - you just don't know what its like to have something, which costs money every day you keep it when a customer stops paying for it. You get rid asap.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: london
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Woodford is closing because it has no work. The world is awash with military Aero faciliites that have no work and are closing. The Peace Dividend.
Defence spend is nugatory; its sole justification is that you never can tell who, next week, will be your friend, and who not. All UK Govts. since 1945 have all spent to be better safe than sorry - Attlee's (when until April,1948 UK had no enemy), Macmillan's (Sandys), Wilson's (Healey), Blair/Brown, and in last year's Review, Cameron's. If its currency is convertible at market, a State has a limit on men/material/money that can be diverted from civil-earning. Gibbon's view of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire was that number is 1%. Japan's prosperity, 1951-into the Nineties, was in part due to holding Defence at 1% of GDP, while UK touched (briefly) 10%. We now hover >2%, and have a presence on, below, and above the waves. It is proper to ask "why", and to query SSBN, Main Battle Tank, indeed anything beyond a Rapid Deployment contribution to a Coalition. If a Party taxes us to buy military kit in excess of a consensus need (today, it seems: 1xsolo, Falklands-style; plus 1xCoalition, ex-Yugo-style), that Party will not govern long.
"Touch labour" for civil aircraft, just as for every other volume product, is cheaper in warmer climes than in Manchester. It's not cheap labour, it's all the factors of production - China can dig up bauxite, and generate energy into its factories in its own currency, such that all $ earned from exported products can be presented as net benefit.
BAE, like, say Daimler, designs/markets/product supports in its Centres of Excellence, buys tin and boxes at market, and assembles where/how the market dictates. It carves out niches, such as making bits of Boeing wings.
Like posters here, every site, every sector has a life-cycle. Making military aeroplanes is in the decline phase. The wonder is not that Woodford is about to take up non-Aero duties, but that it endured so long.
Defence spend is nugatory; its sole justification is that you never can tell who, next week, will be your friend, and who not. All UK Govts. since 1945 have all spent to be better safe than sorry - Attlee's (when until April,1948 UK had no enemy), Macmillan's (Sandys), Wilson's (Healey), Blair/Brown, and in last year's Review, Cameron's. If its currency is convertible at market, a State has a limit on men/material/money that can be diverted from civil-earning. Gibbon's view of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire was that number is 1%. Japan's prosperity, 1951-into the Nineties, was in part due to holding Defence at 1% of GDP, while UK touched (briefly) 10%. We now hover >2%, and have a presence on, below, and above the waves. It is proper to ask "why", and to query SSBN, Main Battle Tank, indeed anything beyond a Rapid Deployment contribution to a Coalition. If a Party taxes us to buy military kit in excess of a consensus need (today, it seems: 1xsolo, Falklands-style; plus 1xCoalition, ex-Yugo-style), that Party will not govern long.
"Touch labour" for civil aircraft, just as for every other volume product, is cheaper in warmer climes than in Manchester. It's not cheap labour, it's all the factors of production - China can dig up bauxite, and generate energy into its factories in its own currency, such that all $ earned from exported products can be presented as net benefit.
BAE, like, say Daimler, designs/markets/product supports in its Centres of Excellence, buys tin and boxes at market, and assembles where/how the market dictates. It carves out niches, such as making bits of Boeing wings.
Like posters here, every site, every sector has a life-cycle. Making military aeroplanes is in the decline phase. The wonder is not that Woodford is about to take up non-Aero duties, but that it endured so long.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jabba - thanks for the response, which went into more effort than my rant perhaps deserved.
I cannot speak for any company, but in my experience there is absolutely no conspiracy, or move to 'get out' as quickly as possible, other than from hard economics. If anything, one of the problems that the industry has brought upon itself is the sentimental attachment to facilities, which have been 'kept going' against the background of decline, just on the offchance. This leads to increasing costs per hour for the work that there actually is, which makes the work less competitive, which reduces the order book, and so on. It could be argued that the extremely rapid and hard faced 'dash' to close un-needed facilities is the only way to keep the residual industry competitive - something which has finally been recognised.
I cannot speak for any company, but in my experience there is absolutely no conspiracy, or move to 'get out' as quickly as possible, other than from hard economics. If anything, one of the problems that the industry has brought upon itself is the sentimental attachment to facilities, which have been 'kept going' against the background of decline, just on the offchance. This leads to increasing costs per hour for the work that there actually is, which makes the work less competitive, which reduces the order book, and so on. It could be argued that the extremely rapid and hard faced 'dash' to close un-needed facilities is the only way to keep the residual industry competitive - something which has finally been recognised.
In addition, my experience associated with strategic maritime facility upkeep suggests that by the time the facilities have been 'acknowledged' by MOD to be unsustainable/unaffordable, said facilities have been so for a long period of time.
As has been discussed on many threads, the Abbeywood chaps can be a little tardy in making decisions, and quite good at ignoring the inevitable, so by the time comes to close something down, it is hardly a surprise that the company does so quickly - they have normally been subsidised by the contractor under good will alone pending a decision.
Why should a company take their time when it costs their money ? How long it exists is irrelevant.
As has been discussed on many threads, the Abbeywood chaps can be a little tardy in making decisions, and quite good at ignoring the inevitable, so by the time comes to close something down, it is hardly a surprise that the company does so quickly - they have normally been subsidised by the contractor under good will alone pending a decision.
Why should a company take their time when it costs their money ? How long it exists is irrelevant.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Woodford's aviation heritage predates the lists of a/c listed so far. Alliot Verdon Roe established an aircraft production factory there in the mid twenties.
At around the same time 3 men and a lad started the Lancashire Aero Club at Eccles nr Manchester. The first club house was at Woodford and they flew Avro Avians until the war intervened.
LAC trained pilots at Woodford who went on to help form the first wave of wartime RAF pilots. It is also where Roy Chadwick lost his life in the Tudor crash. This together with all that's been said here marks this aerodrome as a significant aeronautical heritage site.
It could be said that the destruction would brand the directors of BAe Philistines. But I think we knew that anyway.
Sir George Cayley
At around the same time 3 men and a lad started the Lancashire Aero Club at Eccles nr Manchester. The first club house was at Woodford and they flew Avro Avians until the war intervened.
LAC trained pilots at Woodford who went on to help form the first wave of wartime RAF pilots. It is also where Roy Chadwick lost his life in the Tudor crash. This together with all that's been said here marks this aerodrome as a significant aeronautical heritage site.
It could be said that the destruction would brand the directors of BAe Philistines. But I think we knew that anyway.
Sir George Cayley
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst accepting some of what Graham says, I think he and Tornadoken (particularly the latter) have rather missed the point of defence.
For example Gibbon (Tornadoken) may well have decided 1% was a decent figure for GDP spent on defence - correct me if I got this wrong, but vol 1 was published in 1776 or thereabouts, so unless we're discussing a universal constant like Pi or the speed of light in a vacuum, I don't see that it is particularly sensible to base defence spending on the opinion of somebody who died 200 years ago, based on an empire that peaked almost 2000 years earlier.
You almost can't express a suitable defence budget on GDP terms - first off, let's consider this idea - in 2010 the UK produces goods and services valued at 10 squillion bucks, we spend 0.5 squillion on defence because we perceive the threats to be X, Y , Z.
In 2011 we have a very bad year, it starts when the chancellor sticks 5 squillion on the second favourite in the Derby and goes downhill from there... the threats haven't changed, so should we halve the defence budget simply because our GDP fell? Does it actually make sense to decide defence will cost X, because defence ought to be Y% of GDP, and to hell with the fact that the PM has signed us up to 3 brushfires, an NFZ, and a small war in the meantime?
Shouldn't our defence budget be something we work out based on the tasks we allocate to the armed forces and the kit they need to do it?
MBT's - we still have them, they were used in the Gulf, to be truthful I'm a cautious soul, I like to keep one foot on the ground, I'd like to wait a while longer before we bin something that potent. I don't think the Russians are coming, but I'm not convinced we'll never need MBT's again. If you are then well done, I'll just go check past posts to see how long ago you predicted the current turmoil in the Middle East and Africa....
Companies deliver profits to shareholders, that is indeed their role and it is a little naive to expect anything more from them, so my brain agrees with Graham to a fair degree - but we're also talking about defence capability, and I feel that there should be some sort of quid pro qou in all this where we maintain a capability in exchange for having provided BAE with a stable economy to operate within for the past few decades. Reality intrudes of course, and loyalty means nothing - a sad fact many servicemen are now learning.
There's a tendency to view the past in a rosy light, yes we had hundreds of jet fighters 50 years ago, just as well considering how many crashed and killed their pilots each year..... but like a good few I think we're now awfully close to the lowest we've ever been, and I don't think BAE are doing very much to alter that perception.
It mat be inevitable, but that doesn't stop it being sad.
Dave
For example Gibbon (Tornadoken) may well have decided 1% was a decent figure for GDP spent on defence - correct me if I got this wrong, but vol 1 was published in 1776 or thereabouts, so unless we're discussing a universal constant like Pi or the speed of light in a vacuum, I don't see that it is particularly sensible to base defence spending on the opinion of somebody who died 200 years ago, based on an empire that peaked almost 2000 years earlier.
You almost can't express a suitable defence budget on GDP terms - first off, let's consider this idea - in 2010 the UK produces goods and services valued at 10 squillion bucks, we spend 0.5 squillion on defence because we perceive the threats to be X, Y , Z.
In 2011 we have a very bad year, it starts when the chancellor sticks 5 squillion on the second favourite in the Derby and goes downhill from there... the threats haven't changed, so should we halve the defence budget simply because our GDP fell? Does it actually make sense to decide defence will cost X, because defence ought to be Y% of GDP, and to hell with the fact that the PM has signed us up to 3 brushfires, an NFZ, and a small war in the meantime?
Shouldn't our defence budget be something we work out based on the tasks we allocate to the armed forces and the kit they need to do it?
MBT's - we still have them, they were used in the Gulf, to be truthful I'm a cautious soul, I like to keep one foot on the ground, I'd like to wait a while longer before we bin something that potent. I don't think the Russians are coming, but I'm not convinced we'll never need MBT's again. If you are then well done, I'll just go check past posts to see how long ago you predicted the current turmoil in the Middle East and Africa....
Companies deliver profits to shareholders, that is indeed their role and it is a little naive to expect anything more from them, so my brain agrees with Graham to a fair degree - but we're also talking about defence capability, and I feel that there should be some sort of quid pro qou in all this where we maintain a capability in exchange for having provided BAE with a stable economy to operate within for the past few decades. Reality intrudes of course, and loyalty means nothing - a sad fact many servicemen are now learning.
There's a tendency to view the past in a rosy light, yes we had hundreds of jet fighters 50 years ago, just as well considering how many crashed and killed their pilots each year..... but like a good few I think we're now awfully close to the lowest we've ever been, and I don't think BAE are doing very much to alter that perception.
It mat be inevitable, but that doesn't stop it being sad.
Dave
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Aylesbury
Age: 58
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the replies chaps.
Graham:
If you are maintaining and paying for something you cannot sell, you get rid of it as quick as possible. If your money is falling out of your pocket at £10 a minute, you don't spend an hour thinking about the best type of new pocket - you just stop the money flow. In general it is cheaper to scrap something today, as tomorrow labour will be more expensive.
with respect, taxpayers money has been pouring in faster than the 10 quid a minute is leaking out...
But eitherway, we're not just talking simplistic, widget making/bread selling business scenarios here.
The second issue you raise is not logical - you just don't know what its like to have something, which costs money every day you keep it when a customer stops paying for it. You get rid asap.
If you are maintaining and paying for something you cannot sell, you get rid of it as quick as possible. If your money is falling out of your pocket at £10 a minute, you don't spend an hour thinking about the best type of new pocket - you just stop the money flow. In general it is cheaper to scrap something today, as tomorrow labour will be more expensive.
The second issue you raise is not logical - you just don't know what its like to have something, which costs money every day you keep it when a customer stops paying for it. You get rid asap.
How about trying to find other customers for whatever it is? Its not as if BAe havent tried with Typhoon.
I just hope none of your kids, should you have any, ever have any intentions of becoming engineers of any kind... because by this kind of logic, as soon as any order is finished and the books appear empty for a while, whatever is left of British industry might as well give up and go home. Maybe most of the Formula 1 teams who dont so much as scrape two or three points a season and certainly never win anything ought to chuck their workers on the dole as well and "get rid".
Graham:
If you are maintaining and paying for something you cannot sell, you get rid of it as quick as possible. If your money is falling out of your pocket at £10 a minute, you don't spend an hour thinking about the best type of new pocket - you just stop the money flow. In general it is cheaper to scrap something today, as tomorrow labour will be more expensive.
with respect, taxpayers money has been pouring in faster than the 10 quid a minute is leaking out...
But eitherway, we're not just talking simplistic, widget making/bread selling business scenarios here.
The second issue you raise is not logical - you just don't know what its like to have something, which costs money every day you keep it when a customer stops paying for it. You get rid asap.
If you are maintaining and paying for something you cannot sell, you get rid of it as quick as possible. If your money is falling out of your pocket at £10 a minute, you don't spend an hour thinking about the best type of new pocket - you just stop the money flow. In general it is cheaper to scrap something today, as tomorrow labour will be more expensive.
The second issue you raise is not logical - you just don't know what its like to have something, which costs money every day you keep it when a customer stops paying for it. You get rid asap.
How about trying to find other customers for whatever it is? Its not as if BAe havent tried with Typhoon.
I just hope none of your kids, should you have any, ever have any intentions of becoming engineers of any kind... because by this kind of logic, as soon as any order is finished and the books appear empty for a while, whatever is left of British industry might as well give up and go home. Maybe most of the Formula 1 teams who dont so much as scrape two or three points a season and certainly never win anything ought to chuck their workers on the dole as well and "get rid".
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Stockport
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes the Vulcan is being scrapped in a few weeks, I believe the XH558 trust will be taking anything useful off it before its scrapped. I don't know whats happening to the RJ yet though there's rumour its being de-winged and moved off site.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
3. We have an airforce whose most vocal members shout out that if it's not American it must be rubbish.
As a 'supporter' (Stacker) rather than an 'operator' of the various bits of kit the RAF used over the years the issue that makes the British kit 'rubbish' is the struggle to get aftersales support from the manufactuer in order to effectively field and operate the kit.
Simple market forces mean that buying kit that has had a large production run and is being used by a large amount of customers will result in simplier aftersales support than buying a small amount of kit from a supply of which you are the only customer.
The British kit may be technically superior to the US kit but if the Brit kit is sat unusable or of limited use because the manufactuer of a part went out of business due to limited follow-up business then its only so much junk.
At least thats how I understand things from beneath my pile of blankets.
@Jabba TG12
How about trying to find other customers for whatever it is? Its not as if BAe havent tried with Typhoon.
I just hope none of your kids, should you have any, ever have any intentions of becoming engineers of any kind... because by this kind of logic, as soon as any order is finished and the books appear empty for a while, whatever is left of British industry might as well give up and go home. Maybe most of the Formula 1 teams who dont so much as scrape two or three points a season and certainly never win anything ought to chuck their workers on the dole as well and "get rid".
I just hope none of your kids, should you have any, ever have any intentions of becoming engineers of any kind... because by this kind of logic, as soon as any order is finished and the books appear empty for a while, whatever is left of British industry might as well give up and go home. Maybe most of the Formula 1 teams who dont so much as scrape two or three points a season and certainly never win anything ought to chuck their workers on the dole as well and "get rid".
As to my kids, I would strongly recommend that remain engineers, but would not let the near the aerospace sector.
As to the Formula 1 teams, your analogy is not really that good - its naval architects with fluid hydrodynamics skills that people like MacLarens use (although I cannot speak for the others), and the Head of Engineering design is an ex-defence sector naval architect.
The suggestion that a Formula 1 team would take the action you suggest is frankly childish. The sponsor would ditch them after 10 years of failure to deliver, or when the sponsors have no money left, or the rules have changed such that the vehicle cannot be competitive and all they have is a large and expensive warehouse with guys testing stuff that is never going to see the light of day, nobody will buy and its costing a fortune.
If anything F1 makers are more mercenary - like JPS did when 'skirts' were banned, like Sauber did when they didnt perform, like Toyota did when they didn't perform. Do you really think they keep all their F1 crew, team and facilities 'just in case another mug comes along with more cash'.
Its soooooo easy to spend other peoples cash isn't it ?
I have trouble with the notion of maintaining a "sovereign defence industry". If BAES cannot reliably and quickly deliver hi-tech projects in peacetime, why should we rely on them to do it when the sh*t hits the fan? We are told time and again that BAES' first duty is to its shareholders - presumably that would not change in an all-out war?
Would we suddenly nationalise them and find that they majestically transform into a superb, selfless powerhouse of defence design and production? There is no incentive for BAES shareholders to allow preparation for such a contingency by training 'spare' designers and technicians...
If our defence budget continues to dwindle then I can't see the point in pretending we can keep building leading-edge aircraft in sufficient quantity to matter. Ten F-35 might be able to deter an air force of 100 old Migs - but change the maths to one F-35 versus 10 old Migs and suddenly you probably wish that we had a few dumbed-down platforms instead. Equally, a second-hand P3 beats a non-existent MRA4.
My belief is that the "sovereign defence industry" is all about jobs and nothing to do with capability. If we keep trying to build bleeding-edge platforms in quantities compatible with the UK defence budget, we will end up with tiny numbers of platforms (if we're not already there....) Decision time is surely approaching - bin the sovereign 'capability' and jobs, buy off-the-shelf US kit as most of NATO does, and retain the US/UK intelligence and technology-sharing agreements; OR commit forever to European industrial collaboration (saving most of the British jobs in the process) and accept that we might not remain at the bleeding edge with the Americans. Time to get off the fence.
(Edit - if we do perceive that the threat posed by rival nations warrants bleeding-edge platforms in useful quantities, there is a third option - increase the defence budget. I didn't include that in my original post as I thought it was too "blue-sky" to be credible!)
Would we suddenly nationalise them and find that they majestically transform into a superb, selfless powerhouse of defence design and production? There is no incentive for BAES shareholders to allow preparation for such a contingency by training 'spare' designers and technicians...
If our defence budget continues to dwindle then I can't see the point in pretending we can keep building leading-edge aircraft in sufficient quantity to matter. Ten F-35 might be able to deter an air force of 100 old Migs - but change the maths to one F-35 versus 10 old Migs and suddenly you probably wish that we had a few dumbed-down platforms instead. Equally, a second-hand P3 beats a non-existent MRA4.
My belief is that the "sovereign defence industry" is all about jobs and nothing to do with capability. If we keep trying to build bleeding-edge platforms in quantities compatible with the UK defence budget, we will end up with tiny numbers of platforms (if we're not already there....) Decision time is surely approaching - bin the sovereign 'capability' and jobs, buy off-the-shelf US kit as most of NATO does, and retain the US/UK intelligence and technology-sharing agreements; OR commit forever to European industrial collaboration (saving most of the British jobs in the process) and accept that we might not remain at the bleeding edge with the Americans. Time to get off the fence.
(Edit - if we do perceive that the threat posed by rival nations warrants bleeding-edge platforms in useful quantities, there is a third option - increase the defence budget. I didn't include that in my original post as I thought it was too "blue-sky" to be credible!)
Last edited by Easy Street; 19th Mar 2011 at 21:01.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Cheadle
Age: 66
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nimrod March 2011
Hi, Just been to BAE Woodfood for a auction veiwing, great way to get a tour around the airfield and into some of the buildings, we drove southside and we passed a nose section of a Nimrod being loaded onto a wagon, got the camera out but was told no photos, anyone know where it is off to,also some jet cowlings.
Took a photo through the fence and one of the truck outside the main gate, was this the last Nimrod to leave Woodford?.
Took a photo through the fence and one of the truck outside the main gate, was this the last Nimrod to leave Woodford?.