More money down the toilet to Waste O'Space
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All this bashing of BAES leaves me wondering why the responsibility for failure has not been more fairly divided between the company and the MOD. Don't misunderstand my defence of the company because I claim credit for originating the 'British Waste O'Space' title.
However, there have been and still are some very able people working at the various parts of this British company (albeit with shareholders in many foreign countries just like the rest of so-called UK companies) and they deserve better than the outcome of several of the failing projects highlighted in the previous posts.
Major defence expenditure almost invariably places the delivering company at the mercy of the inefficiencies of Whitehall and project management within the company is greatly influenced by decisions outside of their control. The company cannot be held entirely responsible for the failures so let's just be fair to our fellow Brit workers please.
If there is government money available for R & D or investment in technology let it be channelled to a British company for goodness sake because then even if nothing useful emerges at least 25% will be recovered in tax.
However, there have been and still are some very able people working at the various parts of this British company (albeit with shareholders in many foreign countries just like the rest of so-called UK companies) and they deserve better than the outcome of several of the failing projects highlighted in the previous posts.
Major defence expenditure almost invariably places the delivering company at the mercy of the inefficiencies of Whitehall and project management within the company is greatly influenced by decisions outside of their control. The company cannot be held entirely responsible for the failures so let's just be fair to our fellow Brit workers please.
If there is government money available for R & D or investment in technology let it be channelled to a British company for goodness sake because then even if nothing useful emerges at least 25% will be recovered in tax.
Extracts from Defence Industrial Strategy 2005. The policy regarding UAVs is pretty clear, as is the intention to retain BAeS.
xxiv. We and industry share a close alignment of interest in UAV
and UCAV technology. Although at present we have no funded UCAV
programme, targeted investment in UCAV technology demonstrator
programmes would help sustain the very aerospace engineering and design
capabilities we will need to operate and support our future aircraft fleet.
Such investment would also ensure that we can make better informed
decisions which will need to be taken around 2010-2015 on the future
mix of manned and unmanned aircraft. Additionally, UK industry will have
the opportunity to develop a competitive edge in a potentially lucrative
military and civil market. We intend to move forward with a substantial
joint Technology Demonstrator Programme in this area. We hope that
appropriate arrangements will be in place to allow this to proceed in 2006.
xxv. Our plans to retain onshore the industrial capabilities required
to ensure effective through-life support to the existing and planned
fast jet fleet – and to invest in developing UCAV technology – will
also provide us with the core industrial skills required to contribute
to any future international manned fast jet programme, should the
requirement for one emerge. This recognises both the uncertainty of
our ver y long term requirements – with the possibility that we shall
want to replace elements of the Typhoon and Joint Strike Fight fleets
with manned aircraft – and that we should avoid continuing to fund
industrial capabilities for which we have no identified requirement.
xxvi. Critical mission systems, including electro-optical (EO)
sensors, radar, Electronic Support Measures (ESM) and Defensive
Aids Systems (DAS) are also significant areas where we wish to retain
onshore capability and where suppliers must be able to work with the
prime contractor and be rewarded for developing new solutions.
B4.46 In the context of the wider discussions with the industry around
consolidation and transformation, we are considering ways in which we can
take such an aspiration forward. BAE Systems is leading a UK industry team
working on UAV technologies, following some recent very successful company
and MOD-funded technology demonstration programmes. This work has
pioneered a range of agile project management techniques; an absolute
focus on key objectives, a fast decision making process, and rapid prototyping
and engineering. This approach, which we are keen to use more widely,
has significantly cut the time in which new ideas and technologies can be
realised and demonstrated. For example, BAE Systems’ own Raven UAV went
from concept to first flight in ten months. Building on the success of these
programmes, we intend to move forward subject to a value for money business
case being demonstrated and appropriate commercial arrangements being in
place with a more substantial TDP ( Technology Demonstrator Programmes)
designed to give us and industry a better understanding of key technologies
of relevance to UAVs and UCAVs more broadly. This would be a joint effort
with MOD and industry contributing to the costs. We hope that appropriate
arrangements will be in place to allow this activity to proceed in 2006.
xxiv. We and industry share a close alignment of interest in UAV
and UCAV technology. Although at present we have no funded UCAV
programme, targeted investment in UCAV technology demonstrator
programmes would help sustain the very aerospace engineering and design
capabilities we will need to operate and support our future aircraft fleet.
Such investment would also ensure that we can make better informed
decisions which will need to be taken around 2010-2015 on the future
mix of manned and unmanned aircraft. Additionally, UK industry will have
the opportunity to develop a competitive edge in a potentially lucrative
military and civil market. We intend to move forward with a substantial
joint Technology Demonstrator Programme in this area. We hope that
appropriate arrangements will be in place to allow this to proceed in 2006.
xxv. Our plans to retain onshore the industrial capabilities required
to ensure effective through-life support to the existing and planned
fast jet fleet – and to invest in developing UCAV technology – will
also provide us with the core industrial skills required to contribute
to any future international manned fast jet programme, should the
requirement for one emerge. This recognises both the uncertainty of
our ver y long term requirements – with the possibility that we shall
want to replace elements of the Typhoon and Joint Strike Fight fleets
with manned aircraft – and that we should avoid continuing to fund
industrial capabilities for which we have no identified requirement.
xxvi. Critical mission systems, including electro-optical (EO)
sensors, radar, Electronic Support Measures (ESM) and Defensive
Aids Systems (DAS) are also significant areas where we wish to retain
onshore capability and where suppliers must be able to work with the
prime contractor and be rewarded for developing new solutions.
B4.46 In the context of the wider discussions with the industry around
consolidation and transformation, we are considering ways in which we can
take such an aspiration forward. BAE Systems is leading a UK industry team
working on UAV technologies, following some recent very successful company
and MOD-funded technology demonstration programmes. This work has
pioneered a range of agile project management techniques; an absolute
focus on key objectives, a fast decision making process, and rapid prototyping
and engineering. This approach, which we are keen to use more widely,
has significantly cut the time in which new ideas and technologies can be
realised and demonstrated. For example, BAE Systems’ own Raven UAV went
from concept to first flight in ten months. Building on the success of these
programmes, we intend to move forward subject to a value for money business
case being demonstrated and appropriate commercial arrangements being in
place with a more substantial TDP ( Technology Demonstrator Programmes)
designed to give us and industry a better understanding of key technologies
of relevance to UAVs and UCAVs more broadly. This would be a joint effort
with MOD and industry contributing to the costs. We hope that appropriate
arrangements will be in place to allow this activity to proceed in 2006.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Bucks
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The other company I would be throwing money at instead of BAES is DO Systems. They have already proven capable of deploying a reliable and relatively cheap (manned) ISTAR system on Ops. Diamond aircraft of Austria are their partner and have with the Israeli's already developed a UAV version of the DA-42.
Surveillance
Surveillance
Cobham? Cobham?? COBHAM???
It's far too early for April fools.
You wouldn't suggest their input if you looked at their performance to date in helping to maintain the Sentry E-3D fleet.
Laughable isn't the word...
It's far too early for April fools.
You wouldn't suggest their input if you looked at their performance to date in helping to maintain the Sentry E-3D fleet.
Laughable isn't the word...
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,763
Received 2,748 Likes
on
1,171 Posts
Quote:
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.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
We have a knack in this country for being innovative and bringing to almost service some excellent designs or concepts to simply bin them to the advantage of everyone else at the last moment, or we simply hand it over such as the Harrier an excellent aircraft, but one that never realised it's original full potential due to Government meddling. Our Airline industry was all but destroyed by handing all our research over to the USA.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You guys are not the only ones:
"WARPLANES: U-2 Holds Out Against The Robots
December 24, 2011: The U.S. Air Force has again delayed the retirement of its U-2S reconnaissance aircraft. Now the U-2 may remain in service until 2016 or later. The reason is the continued failure of the Global Hawk UAV to prove it can replace the manned U-2. Congress wants the Global Hawk to pass tests proving it can do everything the U-2 can before the U-2, which entered service 56 years ago, is retired.
For the last five years, the U.S. Air Force has been trying to replace its manned U-2 reconnaissance aircraft with the RQ-4 Global Hawk. This has not worked out well. In addition to the problems with Global Hawk reliability and dependability, another issue has been in the superiority of the sensors carried by the U-2. So why not just install the U-2 sensors in the Global Hawk? The problem here is weight and space. The U-2 is a larger and heavier aircraft, and even with a pilot, has more carrying capacity. Air force suppliers keep promising that they have the problem solved, but after several generations of Global Hawk sensor redesigns and improvements, it will still be a few years before the Global Hawk will be competitive, and the U-2 will be out of a job.
Then there's the UAV software, which has still not matched the capabilities of pilots. The humans still have an edge over robotic systems, especially when it comes to emergencies. But another advantage that the U-2 has is that it has been around for half a century. Its quirks and foibles are well known. The Global Hawk is not only new, but is also the first of a new kind of robotic aircraft.
Global Hawk has crossed the Pacific, from North America to Australia, using onboard computers to run everything. While impressive, Global Hawk still has a tendency to get into trouble unexpectedly, and not know how to recover. More work needs to be done on the software and, to a lesser extent, the hardware used by Global Hawk. Since no one can (or at least will) swear when Global hawk reliability will be up to acceptable standards, plans are being made to keep the U-2s around for a while longer. Just in case.
This popularity is running the U-2s ragged. Two years ago, for example, two 41 year old U-2s achieved a record 25,000 hours in the air. One of these aircraft had made three belly (landing gear up) landings, requiring extensive rebuilding after each incident.
With a range of over 11,000 kilometers, the 18 ton U-2s typically fly missions 12 hours long. All U-2s have been upgraded to the Block 20 standard, so they can be kept in service until the end of this decade. Or at least until the 13 ton Global Hawk is completely debugged, and available in sufficient quantity to replace it. The U-2 has been in service since 1955, and only 86 were built, of which 26 remain in service. Less than 900 pilots have qualified to fly the U-2 in that time.
The heavy use of the U-2 has been hard on the pilots. Missions can be as long as 12 hours, and pilots operate in a cockpit pressurized to conditions found at 30,000 feet. This puts more strain on the pilot's body. That, and the fact that they breathe pure oxygen while up there, means they tend to be completely exhausted after returning from a long mission. U-2s fly missions daily over the Middle East, Afghanistan and Korea.
This wasn't supposed to happen. Five years ago, the U.S. Air Force wanted to retire its U-2s, and replace them with UAVs like Global Hawk. But Congress refused to allow it, partly for political reasons (jobs would be lost, which is always a live political issue), and because some in Congress (and the air force) did not believe that Global Hawk was ready to completely replace the U-2. This turned out to be correct. New Global Hawks continue to appear, but there is so much demand for the kind of recon work the two aircraft can do, that both pilots and robots will coexist for a while. But eventually the old reliable U-2 will be retired".
"WARPLANES: U-2 Holds Out Against The Robots
December 24, 2011: The U.S. Air Force has again delayed the retirement of its U-2S reconnaissance aircraft. Now the U-2 may remain in service until 2016 or later. The reason is the continued failure of the Global Hawk UAV to prove it can replace the manned U-2. Congress wants the Global Hawk to pass tests proving it can do everything the U-2 can before the U-2, which entered service 56 years ago, is retired.
For the last five years, the U.S. Air Force has been trying to replace its manned U-2 reconnaissance aircraft with the RQ-4 Global Hawk. This has not worked out well. In addition to the problems with Global Hawk reliability and dependability, another issue has been in the superiority of the sensors carried by the U-2. So why not just install the U-2 sensors in the Global Hawk? The problem here is weight and space. The U-2 is a larger and heavier aircraft, and even with a pilot, has more carrying capacity. Air force suppliers keep promising that they have the problem solved, but after several generations of Global Hawk sensor redesigns and improvements, it will still be a few years before the Global Hawk will be competitive, and the U-2 will be out of a job.
Then there's the UAV software, which has still not matched the capabilities of pilots. The humans still have an edge over robotic systems, especially when it comes to emergencies. But another advantage that the U-2 has is that it has been around for half a century. Its quirks and foibles are well known. The Global Hawk is not only new, but is also the first of a new kind of robotic aircraft.
Global Hawk has crossed the Pacific, from North America to Australia, using onboard computers to run everything. While impressive, Global Hawk still has a tendency to get into trouble unexpectedly, and not know how to recover. More work needs to be done on the software and, to a lesser extent, the hardware used by Global Hawk. Since no one can (or at least will) swear when Global hawk reliability will be up to acceptable standards, plans are being made to keep the U-2s around for a while longer. Just in case.
This popularity is running the U-2s ragged. Two years ago, for example, two 41 year old U-2s achieved a record 25,000 hours in the air. One of these aircraft had made three belly (landing gear up) landings, requiring extensive rebuilding after each incident.
With a range of over 11,000 kilometers, the 18 ton U-2s typically fly missions 12 hours long. All U-2s have been upgraded to the Block 20 standard, so they can be kept in service until the end of this decade. Or at least until the 13 ton Global Hawk is completely debugged, and available in sufficient quantity to replace it. The U-2 has been in service since 1955, and only 86 were built, of which 26 remain in service. Less than 900 pilots have qualified to fly the U-2 in that time.
The heavy use of the U-2 has been hard on the pilots. Missions can be as long as 12 hours, and pilots operate in a cockpit pressurized to conditions found at 30,000 feet. This puts more strain on the pilot's body. That, and the fact that they breathe pure oxygen while up there, means they tend to be completely exhausted after returning from a long mission. U-2s fly missions daily over the Middle East, Afghanistan and Korea.
This wasn't supposed to happen. Five years ago, the U.S. Air Force wanted to retire its U-2s, and replace them with UAVs like Global Hawk. But Congress refused to allow it, partly for political reasons (jobs would be lost, which is always a live political issue), and because some in Congress (and the air force) did not believe that Global Hawk was ready to completely replace the U-2. This turned out to be correct. New Global Hawks continue to appear, but there is so much demand for the kind of recon work the two aircraft can do, that both pilots and robots will coexist for a while. But eventually the old reliable U-2 will be retired".
