Buy British! ...or not??
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
O/T...
I just bought a Land Rover. But three days after ordering, the nice Mr LR told me they won't build my vehicle because they've stopped making the Freelander. Fortunately, a very nice French LR dealer found me one in the system. Great dealer, but why would LR kill their best line?
Moral, buy your British goods from France.
Moral, buy your British goods from France.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The writing on the wall for a totally buy British Aerospace policy was really the TSR-2 - the cost of developing it and building it was eating more and more of the defence budget
You have to be able to pay the costs of the industrial base, the research base and actually have enough money to buy and operate the damn things on a continuous cycle - you can't "take a break" between programmes
If the Yanks are running into problems there is no hope for the UK
Joint development works up to a point but all I can see is more and more old airframe programmes being stretched to infinity - it's not pretty to be maybe having to consider stick new wings and new engines on a 50 year old B-52 but who can afford the zillions and decades required to replace it?
You have to be able to pay the costs of the industrial base, the research base and actually have enough money to buy and operate the damn things on a continuous cycle - you can't "take a break" between programmes
If the Yanks are running into problems there is no hope for the UK
Joint development works up to a point but all I can see is more and more old airframe programmes being stretched to infinity - it's not pretty to be maybe having to consider stick new wings and new engines on a 50 year old B-52 but who can afford the zillions and decades required to replace it?
The writing on the wall for a totally buy British Aerospace policy was really the TSR-2 - the cost of developing it and building it was eating more and more of the defence budget
You have to be able to pay the costs of the industrial base, the research base and actually have enough money to buy and operate the damn things on a continuous cycle - you can't "take a break" between programmes
You have to be able to pay the costs of the industrial base, the research base and actually have enough money to buy and operate the damn things on a continuous cycle - you can't "take a break" between programmes
Without a British defence industry, where do all the apprentices learn the skills to keep us a country capable of building to aerospace standards?
Also if we import all our defence equipment, a greater burden is placed upon the British taxpayer as none of the taxes which pay for it are paid by people working within those defence manufacturers.
The hidden cost of joint ventures must also be borne on mind. Translation, travel, cultural differences (e.g. bank holidays on different days), delays waiting for decisions and placing contracts to placate the partners rather than because they are the best supplier, all mean that the cost saving over going it alone, is a lot less than anticipated. One advantage that the UK has is that we are a geograpically compact country. You can go to a meeting at a supplier and be back in a day.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 74
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A tricky question. The answer you get starts with the objectives you are trying to meet. For example:
1. Provide the best possible equipment for your forces?
2. Acquire them at the most cost-effective price?
3. Preserve your industrial skills and knowledge base for strategic reasons?
4. Provide employment and recycle government expenditure within your economy for political reasons?
Depending on which of these you choose, either exclusively or, severally by priority, very different outcomes can result. Governments are by and large consensus driven, and so most likely will hedge their bets by attempting a combination of objectives, which I believe is one reason why complex military procurements often fall between several stools, and few have the good fortune to hit on a happy medium that actually keeps all interests reasonably content.
For a large defence budget (relative to most countries) the UK actually has small forces and forces thinly resourced with top-class equipment at that. We should literally be getting a bigger bang for our buck. Home-grown complex projects are now so costly in development and production that a 'UK-only' solution is a practical non-starter. If R&D costs are spread over a tiny production run, the resulting unit cost is unsupportable unless you have guaranteed export prospects. The US is big enough to order huge numbers for its home market, so driving cost and price down through economies of scale. They can afford to suit themselves, and at the same time invest in and produce lots of stuff that can then be attractively priced for export markets too. We can't. If it can only be sold to us it is going to be too expensive by definition. Protecting our industry from competition can result in complacency, poor quality, over-pricing and unsuitable systems over the longer term.
Facing the fact that the UK cannot by itself produce a go it alone major military aircraft programme, how do we maximise the skills that still undoubtedly exist within our now shrunken industry? Positive discrimination might produce short term benefits on objectives 3 & 4 above, but longer term prove detrimental to 1 & 2. The answer probably best lies with the commercial organisations that produce high-tech military equipment. BAE has long since morphed into an international company. It has to seek the best markets for its expertise wherever they might be and often in conjunction with other major players.
The reality will, however, always be that major military acquisition programmes are, by definition, driven by governments, so the political imperatives will always be colliding with rational demands. Collaborative programmes are the UK's best chance of retaining a worthwhile share of this high-tech business and so are a necessary evil, loaded as they are with all the frustrations of trying to comply with multiple masters with a variety of often conflicting objectives.
My personal view from all these conflicting factors is that the UK military objective should be to procure the best equipment at the best price.The UK defence industry's challenge is to be one of the foremost providers that meet those objectives, even if they are in a collaboration with others. Over the long term this would produce the optimum capability most often, at the most affordable price, while retaining first class skills.
And the best way to get the best out of whatever equipment you have is to invest in the best trained, best led, best motivated boys and girls so we can get more than we have a right to expect from the tools they may be given.
LF
1. Provide the best possible equipment for your forces?
2. Acquire them at the most cost-effective price?
3. Preserve your industrial skills and knowledge base for strategic reasons?
4. Provide employment and recycle government expenditure within your economy for political reasons?
Depending on which of these you choose, either exclusively or, severally by priority, very different outcomes can result. Governments are by and large consensus driven, and so most likely will hedge their bets by attempting a combination of objectives, which I believe is one reason why complex military procurements often fall between several stools, and few have the good fortune to hit on a happy medium that actually keeps all interests reasonably content.
For a large defence budget (relative to most countries) the UK actually has small forces and forces thinly resourced with top-class equipment at that. We should literally be getting a bigger bang for our buck. Home-grown complex projects are now so costly in development and production that a 'UK-only' solution is a practical non-starter. If R&D costs are spread over a tiny production run, the resulting unit cost is unsupportable unless you have guaranteed export prospects. The US is big enough to order huge numbers for its home market, so driving cost and price down through economies of scale. They can afford to suit themselves, and at the same time invest in and produce lots of stuff that can then be attractively priced for export markets too. We can't. If it can only be sold to us it is going to be too expensive by definition. Protecting our industry from competition can result in complacency, poor quality, over-pricing and unsuitable systems over the longer term.
Facing the fact that the UK cannot by itself produce a go it alone major military aircraft programme, how do we maximise the skills that still undoubtedly exist within our now shrunken industry? Positive discrimination might produce short term benefits on objectives 3 & 4 above, but longer term prove detrimental to 1 & 2. The answer probably best lies with the commercial organisations that produce high-tech military equipment. BAE has long since morphed into an international company. It has to seek the best markets for its expertise wherever they might be and often in conjunction with other major players.
The reality will, however, always be that major military acquisition programmes are, by definition, driven by governments, so the political imperatives will always be colliding with rational demands. Collaborative programmes are the UK's best chance of retaining a worthwhile share of this high-tech business and so are a necessary evil, loaded as they are with all the frustrations of trying to comply with multiple masters with a variety of often conflicting objectives.
My personal view from all these conflicting factors is that the UK military objective should be to procure the best equipment at the best price.The UK defence industry's challenge is to be one of the foremost providers that meet those objectives, even if they are in a collaboration with others. Over the long term this would produce the optimum capability most often, at the most affordable price, while retaining first class skills.
And the best way to get the best out of whatever equipment you have is to invest in the best trained, best led, best motivated boys and girls so we can get more than we have a right to expect from the tools they may be given.
LF
Mechta said:
Have we ever achieved that with any piece of defence equipment? Serious question. Swiss and Saudis, canberra and harrier to US, built there. Chiefy tanks in the ME, I seem to remember. What else?
CG
If the TSR-2 had been sold overseas in the numbers that the Phantom had, the development costs would have been repaid in spades.
CG
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,064
Received 2,934 Likes
on
1,250 Posts
Spitfires, Hunters and Hawks
was not the TSR2 the most niche of niche capabilities - a very fast, very low level strike bomber?
it couldn't have been turned into a fighter, it couldn't have done CAS, it doesn't appear to have been much of a stand-off ALCM deliverer - it was a one trick pony, and one trick ponies don't sell to people who can only afford one or two fleet types.
it couldn't have been turned into a fighter, it couldn't have done CAS, it doesn't appear to have been much of a stand-off ALCM deliverer - it was a one trick pony, and one trick ponies don't sell to people who can only afford one or two fleet types.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,064
Received 2,934 Likes
on
1,250 Posts
I thought the Aussies had expressed an interest in them.
As for a one trick pony, remember the time period, a Canberra wasn't designed as a fighter either, you had Lightnings and Hunters for that, it would probably have made an ideal reconnaissance or jammer aircraft, as it had a lot of avionics room in it.
As for a one trick pony, remember the time period, a Canberra wasn't designed as a fighter either, you had Lightnings and Hunters for that, it would probably have made an ideal reconnaissance or jammer aircraft, as it had a lot of avionics room in it.
Last edited by NutLoose; 24th May 2014 at 17:26.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I thought the Aussies had expressed an interest in them."
I thought so to, then bought the F-111 when it was cancelled to do it.
I thought so to, then bought the F-111 when it was cancelled to do it.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sussex By The Sea
Age: 79
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought the Aussies had expressed an interest in them.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The UK has long given up on even pretending to want a sovereign military aircraft industry.
The downside we've just seen is that buying off the shelf means we don't have aircraft that necessarily meet our needs.
Whatever we think about the Nimrod saga, we have nothing close to meeting the UK's maritime patrol needs. Our dear Defence Secretary was on Radio 4 yesterday pretending it didn't matter and we can rely on the support of our NATO colleagues.
Still, he does have a Treasury background and has the personality to match
The downside we've just seen is that buying off the shelf means we don't have aircraft that necessarily meet our needs.
Whatever we think about the Nimrod saga, we have nothing close to meeting the UK's maritime patrol needs. Our dear Defence Secretary was on Radio 4 yesterday pretending it didn't matter and we can rely on the support of our NATO colleagues.
Still, he does have a Treasury background and has the personality to match
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nimbev
But they were in the market for an aircraft, the aim being to be able to bomb Indonesia
- or as one Major General said, fly down the main street of Jakarta !
As it was it nearly happened !
But they were in the market for an aircraft, the aim being to be able to bomb Indonesia
- or as one Major General said, fly down the main street of Jakarta !
As it was it nearly happened !
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The Fletcher Memorial Home
Age: 59
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back in the day when TSR2 was built, you had one aircraft type to do one job and it was financially viable to do that. The requirement was just that, a fast low level aircraft capable to Tacticla Strike (buckets of sunshine) and Reconnaisance. That's what TSR stands for! Now we can't afford to have that luxury, so each airframe must be capable of doing multiple roles (which means you have to sacrifice some performance to get the best fit).
Perhaps one British success story no-one has mentioned is Hawk. We built that back in the 70's, exported two seat and single seat varients to numerous countries and still support them. Perhaps instead of bying one Typhoon we should buy X Hawks and tweak each one to be role specific? Go cheaper, buy bulk and take the hit on the whistles and bells. Saying that they would have to be manufactured in India because we probably don't have the capability at Brough to build them anymore....
500N, The rumour I heard was that the RAAF wanted to buy TSR2 but were talked out of it by Lord Mountbatten.
GR4Techie - the only reason there is a monopoly is because they are the only players left! Do you have enough salt and vinegar for that chip on your shoulder?
Perhaps one British success story no-one has mentioned is Hawk. We built that back in the 70's, exported two seat and single seat varients to numerous countries and still support them. Perhaps instead of bying one Typhoon we should buy X Hawks and tweak each one to be role specific? Go cheaper, buy bulk and take the hit on the whistles and bells. Saying that they would have to be manufactured in India because we probably don't have the capability at Brough to build them anymore....
500N, The rumour I heard was that the RAAF wanted to buy TSR2 but were talked out of it by Lord Mountbatten.
GR4Techie - the only reason there is a monopoly is because they are the only players left! Do you have enough salt and vinegar for that chip on your shoulder?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by NutLoose
I thought the Aussies had expressed an interest in them.
Originally Posted by 500N
I thought so to, then bought the F-111 when it was cancelled to do it.
The RAAF flat-out rejected Mirage IV & F-4C, and said that F-111 showed the most promise, with the largest and best-funded development/support/long-term modification/upgrade support.
They then said "In the long run we prefer F-111, but since the A-5 Vigilante is in production, in service, and available right now (instead of 5+ years down the road for either TSR2 or F-11), then that's what we want you to buy, and we can look at F-111/TSR2 after 1970".
The Aussie government said "Sorry, but you only get one - and if we buy F-111 then the US will love us and protect us and call us their best friends forever" - and, in October 1963 (before TSR2 was canceled on 1 April 1965) officially ordered F-111.
This link allows you to read the entire 101-page RAAF evaluation document set for all 5 aircraft:
http://naa12.naa.gov.au/scripts/Imag...33518&I=1&SE=1
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Planet Claire
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cracking post, Green Knight.
Now they're all buried in holes in the ground, and maybe it could have been Aussie TSR-2s in them self same holes.
So really, in the long term......
Now they're all buried in holes in the ground, and maybe it could have been Aussie TSR-2s in them self same holes.
So really, in the long term......
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Planet Claire
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
500.
Yes, I stand corrected thanks.
Actually, I hear the Aussie Gov't has done quite well and saved a few for various museums.
I looked around AMARC a few years ago, and there were hundreds of the things.
Sadly, after the fiasco with the F-14 spares, they were mostly shredded.
Some went for range targets, but mostly, gone, gone, gone......
Yes, I stand corrected thanks.
Actually, I hear the Aussie Gov't has done quite well and saved a few for various museums.
I looked around AMARC a few years ago, and there were hundreds of the things.
Sadly, after the fiasco with the F-14 spares, they were mostly shredded.
Some went for range targets, but mostly, gone, gone, gone......
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Atom
Yes, sadly, the F-14 spares fiasco !
I have one just down the road from me at the RAAF Museum at Pt Cook
I think it was 7 in total got saved.
Hey, we have an F-35 mock up
Yes, sadly, the F-14 spares fiasco !
I have one just down the road from me at the RAAF Museum at Pt Cook
I think it was 7 in total got saved.
Hey, we have an F-35 mock up
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Planet Claire
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
500.
Since we're yakking, I did a 'self guided' tour of AMARC one Sunday afternoon- figured it would be quietest then- and had a good look around some of the Swingers stored on the RIT side.
They were great looking things, particularly those old EF- models.
Only way I'll ever see the Aussie ones is with a pick and shovel.
There's something about old aeroplanes......
There used to be an ex Navy F-111B in a scrappy outside the airport at Mojave.
It's not there anymore, but I hope someone's looking after her.
Since we're yakking, I did a 'self guided' tour of AMARC one Sunday afternoon- figured it would be quietest then- and had a good look around some of the Swingers stored on the RIT side.
They were great looking things, particularly those old EF- models.
Only way I'll ever see the Aussie ones is with a pick and shovel.
There's something about old aeroplanes......
There used to be an ex Navy F-111B in a scrappy outside the airport at Mojave.
It's not there anymore, but I hope someone's looking after her.