BAE Systems & MRA4
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I knew there was a reason Hatfield, Weybridge and Wisley were shut down, I just couldn't pin it down. Lord, they must have been at it for years, what a revelation.
Of course Filton and Yeovil kind of messes up the plot though.
Of course Filton and Yeovil kind of messes up the plot though.
No doubt this thread was started as a result of the recent bad news at ISK, and possibly quite rightly so.
I am no apologist for BAE systems, indeed, on the basis of the H-C report I believe some of their senior management should have been prosecuted for fraud and possibly corporate manslaughter, but I have this annoying habit of preferring people to actually get their facts right. On that basis I have the following comments to make (this is not a dig at you personally Jamesdevice - but most of the comments seem to be in response to yours!).
1. The Upholder class were built by Vickers when it was an independent company and had nothing to do with BAE or GEC. Which is not to say they didn't have numerous faults.
2. In my personal experience, Stingray was a reliable and aggressive little ASW torpedo. As a "lightweight" ASW weapon it is not carried by submarines, and therefore does not attack the launching sub. Whether or not it attacks a ship it is launched from I cannot comment on, certain weapon settings should prevent this. To the best of my knowledge it never tried to attack any airborne platform that launched it...
3. Typhoon. Many pprune contributors have made incorrect comments on this platform over the years, no doubt either because they are young, and so weren't around during its development, or have forgotten some of the facts. It was a 4 nation project, so any faults cannot be laid solely at BAEs door. In terms of the extended development and cost overruns, people seem to forget what actually happened. During the development period the German military became very tight on money. For several years they just said, "..we have no money to contribute this year, cancel it if you want, if not, we'll be back next year to talk again...". The project went into minimal tick over, but costs were still incurred, even though no real progress was made. This added several years to the project. While not the only cause of delay, this was undoubtedly a major contributor.
Typhoon was only required as an air defence platform by the Germans, Spanish and the Italians, it was only the Brits, who wanted to replace both the Tornado F3 and Jag with the Typhoon, who initially had any requirement for any ground attack capability.
Finally, Typhoon is a software intensive aircraft. I don't think people fully appreciate the issues this can create (F-22 computer lock ups on crossing 180 E/W) in terms of testing, configuration control, etc....
4. Type 45 missile - once again a multi nation programme, but any faults appear solely attributable to BAE?
I did a course many years ago, during which the students were told some procurement cock up stories - like the new PLB that was entering the trials phase. When about to board a launch to go out and do some trials work at sea, the company representative looked suprised, and said it probably wouldn't work. The new PLB wasn't waterproof - why not, because that was not specified in the requirements!! You get what you ask for.
We suggested as a course that a sort of "procurement OCU" should be set up, which all military officers should do prior to going into a procurement related jobs - if it only saved one or two mistakes the cost of the course would be saved many times over.
The staff response - they thought we were being a "difficult course"!
I am no apologist for BAE systems, indeed, on the basis of the H-C report I believe some of their senior management should have been prosecuted for fraud and possibly corporate manslaughter, but I have this annoying habit of preferring people to actually get their facts right. On that basis I have the following comments to make (this is not a dig at you personally Jamesdevice - but most of the comments seem to be in response to yours!).
1. The Upholder class were built by Vickers when it was an independent company and had nothing to do with BAE or GEC. Which is not to say they didn't have numerous faults.
2. In my personal experience, Stingray was a reliable and aggressive little ASW torpedo. As a "lightweight" ASW weapon it is not carried by submarines, and therefore does not attack the launching sub. Whether or not it attacks a ship it is launched from I cannot comment on, certain weapon settings should prevent this. To the best of my knowledge it never tried to attack any airborne platform that launched it...
3. Typhoon. Many pprune contributors have made incorrect comments on this platform over the years, no doubt either because they are young, and so weren't around during its development, or have forgotten some of the facts. It was a 4 nation project, so any faults cannot be laid solely at BAEs door. In terms of the extended development and cost overruns, people seem to forget what actually happened. During the development period the German military became very tight on money. For several years they just said, "..we have no money to contribute this year, cancel it if you want, if not, we'll be back next year to talk again...". The project went into minimal tick over, but costs were still incurred, even though no real progress was made. This added several years to the project. While not the only cause of delay, this was undoubtedly a major contributor.
Typhoon was only required as an air defence platform by the Germans, Spanish and the Italians, it was only the Brits, who wanted to replace both the Tornado F3 and Jag with the Typhoon, who initially had any requirement for any ground attack capability.
Finally, Typhoon is a software intensive aircraft. I don't think people fully appreciate the issues this can create (F-22 computer lock ups on crossing 180 E/W) in terms of testing, configuration control, etc....
4. Type 45 missile - once again a multi nation programme, but any faults appear solely attributable to BAE?
I did a course many years ago, during which the students were told some procurement cock up stories - like the new PLB that was entering the trials phase. When about to board a launch to go out and do some trials work at sea, the company representative looked suprised, and said it probably wouldn't work. The new PLB wasn't waterproof - why not, because that was not specified in the requirements!! You get what you ask for.
We suggested as a course that a sort of "procurement OCU" should be set up, which all military officers should do prior to going into a procurement related jobs - if it only saved one or two mistakes the cost of the course would be saved many times over.
The staff response - they thought we were being a "difficult course"!
Last edited by Biggus; 3rd Sep 2011 at 07:24.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Next door
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phil R quote
The engineer's perspective of it is that the MoD is notorious for presenting poorly-written, ever-changing specifications, designing things already exist, ordering off the shelf then making so many mods that they may as well have made new, complaining when this behaviour extends deadlines and inflates costs, and generally behaving in a capricious, difficult and inefficient manner. This commonly has engineers (not necessarily management) bouncing their heads off the wall at the obviousness and the stupidity of it all.
From what I read on this forum this is a familiar situation (right down to the architectural/cranial percussion) to actual military users of this equipment too, which suggests to me that there is something hideously, enormously rotten with the thick layers of bureaucracy and management that exist between designer and end user.
I only know any of this secondhand, but the thing is that the engineer's end of this has apparently been the same since the 1950s when things were, according to old people, not so bad. Has something more subtle changed?
Spot on
The number of reworks, re-costings, re-everything imposed by PTs are staggering, and its down to all the Human Factor dirty dozen elements like complacency, lack of knowledge, norms etc.
Not saying that companies should not take their share of the blame, but look a bit closer to home first, there is a common factor with many of the projects undertaken by defence companies, and that is the defence procurement / PTs
The engineer's perspective of it is that the MoD is notorious for presenting poorly-written, ever-changing specifications, designing things already exist, ordering off the shelf then making so many mods that they may as well have made new, complaining when this behaviour extends deadlines and inflates costs, and generally behaving in a capricious, difficult and inefficient manner. This commonly has engineers (not necessarily management) bouncing their heads off the wall at the obviousness and the stupidity of it all.
From what I read on this forum this is a familiar situation (right down to the architectural/cranial percussion) to actual military users of this equipment too, which suggests to me that there is something hideously, enormously rotten with the thick layers of bureaucracy and management that exist between designer and end user.
I only know any of this secondhand, but the thing is that the engineer's end of this has apparently been the same since the 1950s when things were, according to old people, not so bad. Has something more subtle changed?
Spot on
The number of reworks, re-costings, re-everything imposed by PTs are staggering, and its down to all the Human Factor dirty dozen elements like complacency, lack of knowledge, norms etc.Not saying that companies should not take their share of the blame, but look a bit closer to home first, there is a common factor with many of the projects undertaken by defence companies, and that is the defence procurement / PTs
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biggus said: "2. In my personal experience, Stingray was a reliable and aggressive little ASW torpedo. As a "lightweight" ASW weapon it is not carried by submarines, and therefore does not attack the launching sub. Whether or not it attacks a ship it is launched from I cannot comment on, certain weapon settings should prevent this. To the best of my knowledge it never tried to attack any airborne platform that launched it...!"
I have to hang my head in shame here and say memory played me false.
The piece of junk I was thinking of was the Tigerfish
Apologies for the error
I have to hang my head in shame here and say memory played me false.
The piece of junk I was thinking of was the Tigerfish
Apologies for the error
Hatfield, Weybridge and Wisley
But they were all successful and prime real-estate and ripe for asset stripping.
Cazatou - Jet Provost designed and built by Huntings in Luton, 125 and 146 designed and built by Hawker-Siddley at Hatfield. Common geographical link, huh?
Pious - biggest mistake was letting you Norvern Monkeys run our once great aircraft industry - FACT!!
iRaven
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phil R
At the risk of upsetting your dad . . . nothing's changed.
OP
Don't forget (although it may be convenient to do so), that BAE too have had deep cuts too, personnel, projects, skilled personnel - all gone. A lot of them put a lifetime's work in too.
It's NOT as one-sided as you paint it. I can understand it's a bit raw, but life truly goes on.
I applied and thankfully got redundancy in the 93 tranche. Happiest day of my life when I left. There IS a life after the services and often a happy one (and before anyone gets excited, I'm not talking about casualties here).
Get over it, people in industry/business/manufacturing live in a climate where their job is unsafe all the time - most of them won't get a pension either (of any description). Nobody gives a **** if they're made redundant.
I presume you were paid during your time in?
At the risk of upsetting your dad . . . nothing's changed.
OP
Don't forget (although it may be convenient to do so), that BAE too have had deep cuts too, personnel, projects, skilled personnel - all gone. A lot of them put a lifetime's work in too.
It's NOT as one-sided as you paint it. I can understand it's a bit raw, but life truly goes on.
I applied and thankfully got redundancy in the 93 tranche. Happiest day of my life when I left. There IS a life after the services and often a happy one (and before anyone gets excited, I'm not talking about casualties here).
Get over it, people in industry/business/manufacturing live in a climate where their job is unsafe all the time - most of them won't get a pension either (of any description). Nobody gives a **** if they're made redundant.
I presume you were paid during your time in?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
interesting comment made to me a couple of weeks ago by a BAE Systems manager. I won't mention the site for obvious reasons
"Before they took us over we had lots of work, which was all brought in by the local management. After the takeover we were told that in future all work contracts would be found and negotiated at a 'higher level' and that we were not to be involved. As a result our factory is nearly empty, 70% of the staff have gone and we've had no new orders for nearly a year".
"Before they took us over we had lots of work, which was all brought in by the local management. After the takeover we were told that in future all work contracts would be found and negotiated at a 'higher level' and that we were not to be involved. As a result our factory is nearly empty, 70% of the staff have gone and we've had no new orders for nearly a year".
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The Fletcher Memorial Home
Age: 59
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biggus / Phil_R / Small Spinner
I welcomed your comments as reasoned and well argued. Personally I have spent time on both sides of the fence, both in a blue suit (where we used to refer to "British Wasteofspace") and in a shirt and tie under British Aerospace and BAE Systems. I have numerous colleagues who have been in similar situations, and I can't think of one of them who has not expressed their frustration at one time or another at the process we have to go through to create the products to support our armed forces.
One of the biggest problems I find on long term projects is that the customer changes at regular intervals, as project office officers get posted. As one gets near the end of their posting they will be very averse to agreeing or signing for anything, and when the new guy (or gal) takes over they want changes made to suit their interpretation of requirements. All this adds time and cost to projects.
Saying that, I still find managers who don't understand the customer and how they operate. One of my current tasks involves presenting training to staff on a specialist engineering field, and I often drop in war stories about how we should design products to withstand what we term as "reasonable misuse". The military customer does not operate in an office environment, and until that is understood then the products we build will continue to fall short of expectations.
In short, before you start blaming the other side for poor performance I suggest you FULLY understand what they have to go through, and then ask yourself if you are helping or hindering their performance by your actions!
I welcomed your comments as reasoned and well argued. Personally I have spent time on both sides of the fence, both in a blue suit (where we used to refer to "British Wasteofspace") and in a shirt and tie under British Aerospace and BAE Systems. I have numerous colleagues who have been in similar situations, and I can't think of one of them who has not expressed their frustration at one time or another at the process we have to go through to create the products to support our armed forces.
One of the biggest problems I find on long term projects is that the customer changes at regular intervals, as project office officers get posted. As one gets near the end of their posting they will be very averse to agreeing or signing for anything, and when the new guy (or gal) takes over they want changes made to suit their interpretation of requirements. All this adds time and cost to projects.
Saying that, I still find managers who don't understand the customer and how they operate. One of my current tasks involves presenting training to staff on a specialist engineering field, and I often drop in war stories about how we should design products to withstand what we term as "reasonable misuse". The military customer does not operate in an office environment, and until that is understood then the products we build will continue to fall short of expectations.
In short, before you start blaming the other side for poor performance I suggest you FULLY understand what they have to go through, and then ask yourself if you are helping or hindering their performance by your actions!
Ogre, agree with your post entirely and would concur with:
and in all fairness that also covers other companies working within the military environment, allthough some of the problems are also from ex-service personnel now working for these companies, a bit like how soon they forget, or more likely never knew.
Saying that, I still find managers who don't understand the customer and how they operate
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seldom et al
And 18 years on you are still posting in here offering tosh and snipes, good to see you have moved on...... cheers
I also did 24 years and the experience shaped me and my views. That coupled with 10 years commercial aviation followed by some years associated with aircraft manufacturers made me realise so much of what I believed in the RAF was 'tosh' and very one-sided at that.
This is a forum where we can express our beliefs, including 'tosh' and 'snipes' (?). Qualified, done the time, got the T-shirt.
Oh and I have moved way on . . . but obviously not in a direction YOU like. Get over it. My opinion is easily as valid as yours.
Last edited by Dengue_Dude; 3rd Sep 2011 at 10:52. Reason: Spelling . . . again
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: London
Age: 58
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry for the thread creep but...
So who should be allowed to post.
I suggest that it must be Serving Officers, no oiks obviously, only Aircrew, and pilots at that.
And as soon as you leave the Service you lose all rights to post in any military forum anywhere. Ever.
So who should be allowed to post.
I suggest that it must be Serving Officers, no oiks obviously, only Aircrew, and pilots at that.
And as soon as you leave the Service you lose all rights to post in any military forum anywhere. Ever.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I didn't write it but this looks pretty clear to me
This thread brings up an issue which I have heard raised in similar contexts before: that of people being posted every two years.
I've heard people say that it causes hiccups in the management of projects and facilities, it costs a fortune in terms of resettlement payments, it affects the kids' education, causes family upheaval, etc. One person - a reasonably young-looking female flight lieutenant involved at the time in recruiting - told me that spending six months of every 18 either moving out or moving into another home was absolutely the single worst thing about being in the RAF.
So why do it?
I've heard people say that it causes hiccups in the management of projects and facilities, it costs a fortune in terms of resettlement payments, it affects the kids' education, causes family upheaval, etc. One person - a reasonably young-looking female flight lieutenant involved at the time in recruiting - told me that spending six months of every 18 either moving out or moving into another home was absolutely the single worst thing about being in the RAF.
So why do it?