More money down the toilet to Waste O'Space

[cazatou]

I have twice picked up new Aircraft Types from BAe and in both cases the Aircraft performed as advertised.

In contrast when picking up the first modified Jet Provost aircraft from Shorts of Belfast it took 2 hours to find someone who had the faintest idea of how to turn the Radio on.!!!

[randyrippley]

Companies - and their business philosophies - can change dramatically over a 40 (30?) year period

[Mechta]

How to succeed n the UAV business:

1. Employ people who have; used UAVs operationally, know what they are talking about, know the pitfalls, know why UAV operations are different to manned ones
2. Own or have a major shareholding in your propulsion and payload providers
3. Supply UAVs (particularly the larger ones) on a 'surveillance by the hour' basis
4. Have a Desert Hawk/ScanEagle/Orbiter sized 'bread & butter' system to sell and bring the revenue in
5. Use proven technology in your production equipment, and prove up and coming technology over and over again before letting the customer get excited and want it.
6. Be able to shift the focus of your UAV product range to your primary customer's current or near term need. i.e. from High Altitude Long Endurance to short range
7. Have an off-the-shelf, reliable product ready to go. It may not be perfect but if its available and works the customer will have it (How General Atomics did so well with the original Predator).
8. Have the contacts in place to move rapidly from concept to operational equipment
9. Pay well enough that you stop your employees leaving and becoming your competitiors
10. Don't rest on your laurels

[pr00ne]

Oh come on Cpl Clott! A carbuncle? What have they produced? BAE Systems earned £22.3 billon of revenue last year in products sold to armed forces all over the globe. They operate as a global entity to a global customer base and are the 2nd largest defence contractor on the face of the planet.

They seem to have a whole host of satisfied customers who re order from them time and time again. Their problem contracts seem to have one thing in common with the likes of Lockheed-Martin, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, Agusta-Westland and Thales to name but a few, that thing in common? The UK Ministry of Defence as a customer!

As for that book, just exactly WHEN did the British aircraft industry EVER lead or rule the world?
When was the UK industry EVER more prominent or significant than it is today, being the 2nd largest industry of its kind in the world with the likes of BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce, GKN, Meggit, Cobham, Martin-Baker etc etc etc.

[Corporal Clott]

Proone

Maybe I should have been more specific, here's a break down of their revenue:

Electronics, Intelligence & Support (23%): Includes majority of US business (BAE Systems Inc.).
Land & Armaments (34%): Produces armoured combat vehicles, tactical wheeled vehicles, naval guns, missile launchers, artillery systems and munitions. Main business in the US, UK, Sweden and South Africa.
Programmes (24%): Majority of UK businesses; BAE Systems Military Air Solutions, 55% of BVT Surface Fleet, BAE Systems Submarine Solutions, BAE Systems Insyte and Detica.
International Businesses (18%): Includes BAE Systems Customer Solutions & Support International (Saudi Arabian business), BAE Systems Australia, SAAB (20.5%), and MBDA (37.5%).
HQ and other businesses (1%): Includes BAE Systems Regional Aircraft and support activities as well as costs of administration, "UK shared services activity", including research centres, property management and corporate air travel.

It's the bit in red that's the carbuncle in my opinion. Why? Well look what's on their books recently:

Eurofighter Typhoon - BAE Systems has a 33% share in Eurofighter GmbH along with Alenia and EADS's Spanish and German divisions. MAI is responsible for the production of all RAF and Saudi aircraft as well as designing and producing all front fuselages for the programme.
Nimrod MRA4 - MAI is rebuilding the Nimrod aircraft to the upgraded MRA4 service for the Royal Air Force. (MRA4 cancelled in 2010.)
Panavia Tornado - MAI predessor British Aerospace manufactured all RAF and Saudi aircraft and MAI continues to offer support to these air forces.
Panavia Tornado ADV - MAI predessor British Aerospace manufactured all RAF and Saudi aircraft and MAI continues to offer support to these air forces.
BAE Harrier II - Originally developed and manufactured at Dunsfold and Kingston the business unit today provides support and upgrades to the aircraft.
BAE Hawk - The Hawk trainer is manufactured at Brough and has been produced for numerous armed forces around the globe including the RAF, RAAF, RCAF and South African Air Force.
T-45 Goshawk - A naval development of the Hawk aircraft manufactured with Boeing for the US Navy

Then there's their farting about unsuccessfully to get a sale in the unmanned game for the past 10 years...

Advanced Systems and Future Capability (AS&FC)
BAE Ampersand
BAE Corax
BAE GA22
BAE HERTI
BAE Mantis
BAE Systems Phoenix
BAE Skylynx II
BAE Taranis

Hardly good news is it? Late or scrapped, overpriced and full of dissappointment...

CPL Clott

[Corporal Clott]

Also, having seen Raven at their so called Skunk Works (yup, about right as the contents stink!) some may not realise that the clever picture below makes a "model" aircraft look very big - Raven has about a 1 metre wingspan and uses a model jet engine! All spin and bluster to dupe the Govt into getting the MoD to part with more money. Also, I still note that Taranis hasn't flown - only 2 years late in a 3-4 year contract!



Garbage!

[jindabyne]

For once, I'm with you prOOne.

As with all of the big defence players, there is no perfection, and on face value (ie, without any current detailed knowledge) I tend to agree over the unmanned issue. But it seems to me that, as ever when BAES is talked of, there are many on here with, variously, chips/shoulders, a blinkered view of reality, and/or a ready propensity to tar the Company with a very broad brush. Your last post, CC, is a very good example.

Merry Xmas All

PS: the spelling of prOOne above is not of my doing!

[Rakshasa]

There is nothing new under the sun.

50 years ago they were moaning about Hawker-Siddley. 100 years ago they were moaning about Vickers.

Heck, even Supermarine delivered the first Spitfires 12 months late and 10% over budget....

[Sun Who]

12 months late and 10% over budget would be a massive success in modern defence procurement terms.

Sun.

[Mechta]

Cpl Clott wrote:

Then there's their farting about unsuccessfully to get a sale in the unmanned game for the past 10 years...

Quote:
Advanced Systems and Future Capability (AS&FC)
BAE Ampersand
BAE Corax
BAE GA22
BAE HERTI
BAE Mantis
BAE Systems Phoenix
BAE Skylynx II
BAE Taranis
Hardly good news is it? Late or scrapped, overpriced and full of dissappointment...

With the exception of Phoenix, which is only BAe as a result of takeovers, how many of the above were ever intended to lead to production aircraft? Having looked up the names I didn't recognise, it appears that Skylynx II was sold to Elbit to become the Hermes 90. Definitely a case of selling fridges to eskimos. I'm impressed!

I'm no apologist for BAe, but if they have been building and flying UAVs as opposed to just doing paper studies, then I take my hat off to them. Having been involved with UAVs since the late 1980s, the main things that have been lacking in the UAV field in the UK are a clear customer need/requirement and hands-on practical experience.

Any UK service requirement has tended to be tailored to an anticipated need to fly in UK airspace and UK weather. The fact that the environment Iraq and Afghanistan lend themselves to simpler systems (no see and avoid requirement, able to operate without 'through cloud' sensors) has given the producers of these simpler systems a big sales advantage.

[tucumseh]

12 months late and 10% over budget would be a massive success in modern defence procurement terms.

Sun.

Whereas 12 months early and 10% under would lead to adverse annual reports and enforced move as it would set the bar too high and lead to even more criticism. (Chief of Defence Procurement ruling, 1997). Easier to deal with a few moans about a small sample of projects under PAC scrutiny.

Given this, nobody in MoD has any right to complain about (most) companies. Put your own house in order first.

[Sun Who]

Mechta said:

the main things that have been lacking in the UAV field in the UK are a clear customer need/requirement and hands-on practical experience.

Absolutely correct and bl@@dy shameful. In part, I believe, this is because we've been too busy fighting wars to sit down and develop a strategy for UAS enabled capability. I anticipate that will change over the next 12 months or so though. Watch this space.

Tucumseh said:

...nobody in MoD has any right to complain about (most) companies. Put your own house in order first.

Also absolutely correct and intrinsically linked to Mechta's point above. Similarly bl@@dy shameful.


Sun.

[The B Word]

able to operate without 'through cloud' sensors

Can I take that you have never been to Afghanistan from the end of November to about March?

The B Word

[Pontius Navigator]

A 6.55% dividend yield is quite attractive but the shares have not shown a scintillating growth. Still quite happy to hold them.

[The B Word]

As for Spitfire being late...

Specification F.5/34 High-performance fighter with air-cooled engine for overseas (hot climate) use - Bristol Type 146, Gloster G.38, Martin-Baker M.B.2, Vickers Type 279 Venom

Specification F.36/34 (modified by F.5/34) Eight-gun fighter with Rolls-Royce PV-12 engine - Supermarine Spitfire, Hawker Hurricane

So there were 6 aircraft from British manufacturers and the Hurricane and Spitfire won and met the specification. Now wouldn't it be nice if we saw a genuine competition rather than the single source cr@p that we keep on seeing these days? No wonder those jokers in Lancashire are so bleeding arrogant about winning contracts and promising things they know they can't deliver - keeping the MPs in their back pocket at the same time.

Interesting figures about the £40m. With the money that we wasted on this company for MRA4 we woukd not be making our RAF people redundant over the next 3 years - thanks a bunch!

The B Word

[tucumseh]

Now wouldn't it be nice if we saw a genuine competition rather than the single source cr@p that we keep on seeing these days?

Many in MoD and Industry won't thank you for wanting genuine (or even fair) competition!

Next Tuesday Radio 4 are broadcasting a programme about MoD's profligacy. I doubt if they'll scrape the surface. But here's one typical case;

A few years ago MoD issued a 3 stage spec for a Critical Enabling Technology. (i.e. If you don't have it, or it doesn't work, you die. Any many were). Each stage was to improve on the one before. The first R&D phase was to last 3 years and deliver a prototype of this CET (Stage 1). Then, if successful, they would build on it for Stages 2 and 3.

One highly respected supplier sought my advice. (I didn't work in the IPT concerned but knew the company). To deliver the 1st stage, they'd have to resurrect a production line they had closed 8 years previously. They currently supplied the Stage 2 "aspiration" to the world and his dog, including other parts of MoD. Stage 3 would take a few months. Remember, the Tender was giving 3 years to deliver Stage 1. I advised them to seek a meeting with MoD's Commercial Director (read the Tornado/Patriot thread about a 2 Star rejecting the call for IFF integration / functional safety to be checked). They were shown the door in no uncertain fashion, told to wind their necks in and shut up about the CET being available NOW. They knew the score - play the game or be blacklisted. They spent a small fortune on a bid in the pretence they would conduct a 3 year R&D programme. Actually, they'd sit on their a*** for a couple of years raking it in and then deliver a few samples off the existing production line. They didn't want to do this, but that's what it took to stay in MoD's good books. They didn't get the contract. 2 years later the Stage 1 contract was allowed to quietly die as the winner couldn't hack it.

It's not just the waste and incompetence; people died. I could give a similar example from 3 years ago on Nimrod. They issued an ITT to develop a technology that had entered service in 1996, been removed and updated in 2000. What is the mechanism for preventing this in MoD? Management Oversight (or Governance) by the 2 Star. Trouble is, it was he who gave them the boot. Can't have favoured MoD staff being embarrassed, can we? Exactly the same reason why functional safety was ignored. Solution? Get rid. And I'm not off subject - 2 Star, IFF, UAVs - not entirely unrelated if you know your way round DE&S.

[downsizer]

So what was or is this CET then?

[hval]

Downsizer,

CET is an acronym for Combat Engineering Tractor. Used by the Corps of Royal Engineers. Been in use since 1976/ 77. Being replaced by Terrier, a BAE project.

[Corporal Clott]

Mechta

They tried to sell Herti to the RAF and a middle-eastern nation - answer, no thanks

They tried to sell GA22 to the RN and Army - answer, no thanks

Mantis was stopped in its tracks as it is little more than an underdeveloped, more expensive and higher risk MQ-9 - don't know where the answer is on this, but there aren't exactly customers queing up for it (the MALE RPAS is flooded with proven products right now).

Taranis has yet to perform as a demonstrator.

Finally, to me the concept for &mpersand is flawed.

Now why does there have to be a clear UK requirement for this technology? Why can't their sales people get off their fat arses and sell these supposed "world leading" technologies to the ROTW? I suspect the answer will come down to us asking why the hell we're investing £40m in this area of industry. As said before, invest it in satellites, cars (JLR, Aston Martin, Morgan, Mini are all doing well), motorcycles (Triumph do very well for the country and have factories in the UK and Thailand), boats (things like Sunseekers rather than Astutes!), Airbus are doing very well so we'd be better off buying more stakes in this industry (that BAe sold off recently), medical technology (MRI scanners), etc, etc... All are British Engineering success stories (yes I know there is foreign investment, but BAe are no longer British apart from in name).

CPL Clott

[Lima Juliet]

Just in case anyone thinks I am anti British-manufactured vehicles, I would like to add:

1. My wife's car was made in the UK.
2. My car was made in the UK.
3. My aeroplane was made in the UK.
4. My motor-bike was made in the UK.
5. My sailing dinghy was made in the UK.

In fact the aeroplane used to bear the slogan "This aircraft is British Made - Private Enterprise and No Taxpayer's Money"; and I believe all of the above are the same as well - and so they should be.

But this current taxpayer's gravy train for MoD procurement with this manufacturer should be stopped...IMHO

LJ