Buy British! ...or not??
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
The US seems to have a completely different view to keeping things,
maybe because it just has so many more.
But it also retires aircraft that are historic for keeping.
ie - the aircraft that Bush was in when it landed on the aircraft carrier.
The two F-14's that shot down the Libyan jets in the Bay of Sidra incident,
both were retired and put on display.
What was really pleasing for me was the F-111 raid on Libya as it really
did show it's true colours - and I think made people sit up and think wow,
an old aircraft like that can still do it.
But that is my POV !
maybe because it just has so many more.
But it also retires aircraft that are historic for keeping.
ie - the aircraft that Bush was in when it landed on the aircraft carrier.
The two F-14's that shot down the Libyan jets in the Bay of Sidra incident,
both were retired and put on display.
What was really pleasing for me was the F-111 raid on Libya as it really
did show it's true colours - and I think made people sit up and think wow,
an old aircraft like that can still do it.
But that is my POV !
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the problems of the UK defence industry has been that we continually aim for top line products and this is encouraged by the various services
We don't sell much overseas because we can only afford small production runs and the equipment is very expensive & hi-spec anyway
If we were willing to (say) produce a destroyer that cost 70% of a 45 we might sell some more - but then would the RN be happy??
The real classic here is the Mirage III - not as effective as a Lightning but cheap and flashy - sold by the cart load
The last planes we built that were cheap enough to sell worldwide in numbers were the Hunter (which was already out performed by the American and Russians when it was built) and the Hawk - a fairly straightforward, reasonably priced trainer
We don't sell much overseas because we can only afford small production runs and the equipment is very expensive & hi-spec anyway
If we were willing to (say) produce a destroyer that cost 70% of a 45 we might sell some more - but then would the RN be happy??
The real classic here is the Mirage III - not as effective as a Lightning but cheap and flashy - sold by the cart load
The last planes we built that were cheap enough to sell worldwide in numbers were the Hunter (which was already out performed by the American and Russians when it was built) and the Hawk - a fairly straightforward, reasonably priced trainer
This argument has been going on for 50+ years. The correct answer is "it depends" as it usually is.
Importing equipment saves you R&D (ooray!) but is bad for balance of payments and local employment (boo!). License build and offsets bring local employment (ooray!) but adds time and cost (boo!).
Building indigenously keeps all the jobs at home (ooray!) but is very expensive and risky (boo!). But then you've got a shot at exports (ooray!) but sometimes the export market doesn't like your product (boo!).
So it's situation-dependent, and you consider facts, such as the following:
How many systems do I need and what's the R&D bill? The UK has bought all its SLBMs from the U.S. and the French have made their own, a huge burden on their budget. Hundreds of fighters may be different.
What are the export prospects? See SLBMs... However, be wary of the promises of marketing vps, for the truth is not in them.
Is what's available to import relevant to my needs? US warships, for instance, are big and expensive.
Is the right way to go an international joint venture? Like other JVs, the goals must be to access a combination of capital, market and industrial capability - so if you go into a JV trying to protect a complete supply chain, it most likely won't work. (Note the sacrifices made to create Airbus, which for almost a decade was the redheaded stepchild when it came to government funding because the UK "only" built the wings.)
Speaking of supply chains, everything is global these days and autarky will carry a heavy bill. This means you can look at every piece of your system and decide whether to invent and make it yourself; pay someone else to make it to your spec with their mature technology; or buy it off-the-shelf - all while keeping some very high-value-added integration and support at home.
This is how Sweden, with the population of Michigan and GDP of Pennsylvania, manages to build fighters, AEW aircraft and submarines.
Conversely, if you look at some UK programs, you can see issues of autarky, indigenous systems bought in small numbers and national issues over-weighed in JVs. Not to mention the "reverse Swede" maneuver of "Anglicising" imported or license-built systems, which (from a cost-effectiveness standpoint) worked as well as you might expect.
Importing equipment saves you R&D (ooray!) but is bad for balance of payments and local employment (boo!). License build and offsets bring local employment (ooray!) but adds time and cost (boo!).
Building indigenously keeps all the jobs at home (ooray!) but is very expensive and risky (boo!). But then you've got a shot at exports (ooray!) but sometimes the export market doesn't like your product (boo!).
So it's situation-dependent, and you consider facts, such as the following:
How many systems do I need and what's the R&D bill? The UK has bought all its SLBMs from the U.S. and the French have made their own, a huge burden on their budget. Hundreds of fighters may be different.
What are the export prospects? See SLBMs... However, be wary of the promises of marketing vps, for the truth is not in them.
Is what's available to import relevant to my needs? US warships, for instance, are big and expensive.
Is the right way to go an international joint venture? Like other JVs, the goals must be to access a combination of capital, market and industrial capability - so if you go into a JV trying to protect a complete supply chain, it most likely won't work. (Note the sacrifices made to create Airbus, which for almost a decade was the redheaded stepchild when it came to government funding because the UK "only" built the wings.)
Speaking of supply chains, everything is global these days and autarky will carry a heavy bill. This means you can look at every piece of your system and decide whether to invent and make it yourself; pay someone else to make it to your spec with their mature technology; or buy it off-the-shelf - all while keeping some very high-value-added integration and support at home.
This is how Sweden, with the population of Michigan and GDP of Pennsylvania, manages to build fighters, AEW aircraft and submarines.
Conversely, if you look at some UK programs, you can see issues of autarky, indigenous systems bought in small numbers and national issues over-weighed in JVs. Not to mention the "reverse Swede" maneuver of "Anglicising" imported or license-built systems, which (from a cost-effectiveness standpoint) worked as well as you might expect.
GreenKnight121,
Thanks for posting the doc regarding the Australian TFX decision. It was interesting to see that the US offered B-47s as a stopgap for the F-111A and the UK might have offered V-bombers (presumably surplus Vulcan B1/B1A) as a stopgap for the TSR2.
Thanks for posting the doc regarding the Australian TFX decision. It was interesting to see that the US offered B-47s as a stopgap for the F-111A and the UK might have offered V-bombers (presumably surplus Vulcan B1/B1A) as a stopgap for the TSR2.
My modification to this question: since the cost of having soldiers, sailors and pilots is completely wasted if they are not used for anything, why could one not purchase military protection from overseas too - just as one might purchase hardware? This way the lowest cost provider with the biggest advantage of scale could provide the most cost effective protection.
This is not something I want, but if one is prepared to totally disregard the importance of national capability in R&D and production then why not do the same with training and people?
This is not something I want, but if one is prepared to totally disregard the importance of national capability in R&D and production then why not do the same with training and people?
t - National capability is not irrelevant.
However...
As weapons technology has become more diverse and sophisticated (think about nukes and space, for example) it became very difficult for smaller nations to keep up with larger economies. This started to be a big trend with steam warships (British yards were fairly churning out export battleships and cruisers in the early c20) and reached a point where only the Sovs and the US could maintain a full indigenous capability across all weapons in the Cold War.
So economics may drive you to the point where importing some weapons is the only alternative to giving up some capabilities. Again, see the French situation: they can afford to build Rafale only slowly - but that is to a great extent because they also have their Franco-French nuclear deterrent, spy satellites &c, that the UK does not.
However...
As weapons technology has become more diverse and sophisticated (think about nukes and space, for example) it became very difficult for smaller nations to keep up with larger economies. This started to be a big trend with steam warships (British yards were fairly churning out export battleships and cruisers in the early c20) and reached a point where only the Sovs and the US could maintain a full indigenous capability across all weapons in the Cold War.
So economics may drive you to the point where importing some weapons is the only alternative to giving up some capabilities. Again, see the French situation: they can afford to build Rafale only slowly - but that is to a great extent because they also have their Franco-French nuclear deterrent, spy satellites &c, that the UK does not.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting question, t. I guess the counter-argument is such forces are felt to be less likely to fight in the last ditch for someone else's country.
It does raise the question, and I declare an interest here, of our dependence on foreign-flagged airlines for transport and trooping. The RAF, for decades, has only had aircraft to carry a small % of our forces on deployment. Originally UK airlines did this but now the contracts are often, indeed usually placed overseas, sometimes with airlines controlled by foreign governments. So our ability to deploy or recover our forces hinges on the whim of those governments who may or may not approve of what we're doing.
Surely this should ring alarm bells both in terms of our ability to respond to a national emergency AND our wider national interest; and it doesnt do GB Plc any good when the prime minister goes on a "Buy British" tour in an Angolan airliner!
It does raise the question, and I declare an interest here, of our dependence on foreign-flagged airlines for transport and trooping. The RAF, for decades, has only had aircraft to carry a small % of our forces on deployment. Originally UK airlines did this but now the contracts are often, indeed usually placed overseas, sometimes with airlines controlled by foreign governments. So our ability to deploy or recover our forces hinges on the whim of those governments who may or may not approve of what we're doing.
Surely this should ring alarm bells both in terms of our ability to respond to a national emergency AND our wider national interest; and it doesnt do GB Plc any good when the prime minister goes on a "Buy British" tour in an Angolan airliner!
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
Shotone
Some discussion was had on the Aussie thread about this same subject
with all the troops flying to the mid east. Third party contractors.
However, when it comes down to it, I am sure BA could come to the party if it wanted to.
When in a dire emergency, Qantas is who our Gov't calls on and they always seem to be able to come up with the goods to evacuate Australian citizens - Bali being one example.
Some discussion was had on the Aussie thread about this same subject
with all the troops flying to the mid east. Third party contractors.
However, when it comes down to it, I am sure BA could come to the party if it wanted to.
When in a dire emergency, Qantas is who our Gov't calls on and they always seem to be able to come up with the goods to evacuate Australian citizens - Bali being one example.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Prestwick, Scotland
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If push came to shove the entire fleets of British Airways and every other British airline would be available. Foreign aircraft currently chartered are used because they are available and, no doubt, cheap.
Continued support can be difficult if your supplier wishes to remain neutral (e.g. Suez), or as in Argentina's case in the Falklands War, the Type 42 Destroyers, Canberras, Aircraft Carrier and Blowpipe missiles were all supplied by the opposition.
Nothing new. Mercenaries have been fighting wars for other people for centuries. North Korean soldiers would no doubt work for a fraction of the cost of our current armed forces...
Once you are dependent on others, you are also dependent on what they are prepared to sell you. Look up 'Monkey model' Russian equipment.
My modification to this question: since the cost of having soldiers, sailors and pilots is completely wasted if they are not used for anything, why could one not purchase military protection from overseas too - just as one might purchase hardware? This way the lowest cost provider with the biggest advantage of scale could provide the most cost effective protection.
This is not something I want, but if one is prepared to totally disregard the importance of national capability in R&D and production then why not do the same with training and people?
This is not something I want, but if one is prepared to totally disregard the importance of national capability in R&D and production then why not do the same with training and people?
Once you are dependent on others, you are also dependent on what they are prepared to sell you. Look up 'Monkey model' Russian equipment.
ShotOne,
No military, least of all the Americans, has ever considered that it needed to have enough airlift capacity to move its entire deployable force. That would be an extraordinary waste of money. Air logistics planning for massed forces always assumes the use of contracted or requisitioned assets to provide surge capacity. It's one reason why flag carrier airlines used to get favourable treatment from governments, long since forgotten (unless you're Air France). The answer is to encourage the national aviation industry, not to spend a fortune on airframes to sit idle.
No military, least of all the Americans, has ever considered that it needed to have enough airlift capacity to move its entire deployable force. That would be an extraordinary waste of money. Air logistics planning for massed forces always assumes the use of contracted or requisitioned assets to provide surge capacity. It's one reason why flag carrier airlines used to get favourable treatment from governments, long since forgotten (unless you're Air France). The answer is to encourage the national aviation industry, not to spend a fortune on airframes to sit idle.
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Grimsby
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why don't we buy up a 100 or so A-10 Thunderbolts currently languishing in the Desert Boneyard together with a big spares package. Presto, the Raff would have the best close-support aircraft ever built, in service for the next 20 years.
Perhaps then, collaborate with the French and/or Germans to build a state of the art strike-attack aircraft.
This way, we get something tangible NOW, and something promising for the future AND keep a good R&D base intact.
Perhaps then, collaborate with the French and/or Germans to build a state of the art strike-attack aircraft.
This way, we get something tangible NOW, and something promising for the future AND keep a good R&D base intact.
PIK3141:-
If push came to shove the government might well requisition the UK Civil Airfleets, but it might have trouble securing the crews! I remember when, having recently left the RAF (ex transporter) and joined a charter airline, things got rather fraught in the Cold War. Mrs Thatcher's government was supposed to be considering that very course of action in order to speedily reinforce NATO in Europe in the event of a possibility of an increased Warpac threat. The reaction of my fellow aviators was scarcely enthusiastic, with much talk of contracts and terms of service, which was hardly helped by my cheery talk of Martial Law!
If push came to shove the entire fleets of British Airways and every other British airline would be available.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with all of that, easy; my issue isn't with airlift being outsourced. The Americans DON'T flag out their airlift overseas. Indeed all govt or military air transport must, by law, travel with a US carrier.
PIK, is it either reasonable or sustainable to expect to rely on availability of UK aircraft "when push comes to shove" having handed the business overseas for years?
PIK, is it either reasonable or sustainable to expect to rely on availability of UK aircraft "when push comes to shove" having handed the business overseas for years?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,064
Received 2,934 Likes
on
1,250 Posts
I could just imagine Ryanair or Easy Jet arguing the toss over excess baggage as you board carrying your muskets.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..just beat me to the post, chug! If we were in a situation where Brit crews were reluctant to respond to a national emergency, what chance would there be of finding foreigners to do so, martial law or not? In fact the evidence of two world wars is that civilian crews of our merchant fleet stepped up to the plate in the face of extreme hazard; without it we would have been utterly stuffed!
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 Heathrow Harry
The real classic here is the Mirage III - not as effective as a Lightning but cheap and flashy - sold by the cart load
Everything else a fighter is expected to do - actually hang around for a while in the combat area, go more than a hundred miles from base (and make it back), dogfight more than one opponent per mission, carry a half-decent air-ground load - all of that the Mirage III was much more effective at, which is why it sold all over the world.
And again, here we have the classic UK model - produce a world-beating but highly specialized item that meets a specific and narrow UK need - but which few other nations find buyable. Even the UK needed a general-purpose fighter (Phantom) to fill all the roles Lightning couldn't do.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
exactly - I think currently the RN's type 45's are a classic example - they can do everything (actually not true - we had to leave off surface-to surface missiles because of the £££) but the cost!!
Even we can't afford enough of them and no-one else has expressed the slightest interest
Even we can't afford enough of them and no-one else has expressed the slightest interest
My God. The way you guys are talking, anyone might think the UK might just be in danger of becoming a country that, due to lack of funding, is trying to punch way above its weight. But what do I know?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GreenKnight, standby for the Lightning Brigade storming in to defend the aluminium rocket.
While I was employed by HMG to work underground in Northumberland, I was able to listen to the best that Binbrook had to offer, as they did their bit in war games.
Nobody could deny the aircraft could get to where it was needed, as quick as a flash, (subject of course to a K2 following at a distance) but when they called splash five or six times in a trip, well.... oh how we laughed.
Two missiles and that's yer lot.
If only a tanker could replenish weapons.
I'm not denying the value of continued close combat practice, once you are turning in to the enemy, for the seventh time, instead of bolting for home after two squeezes of the trigger, but really......
You need to bear in mind that training is training.
If it comes to war, real proper scary shooty ****en dead war, might has right of it's own.
When all twentyfive serviceable Typhoons are shot down and the enemy (whomever it may be) are swarming all over us, we may wish that we had a hundred Hawks still to launch.
As to the OP's point, well I recall many years ago that Fife Constabulary bought BMW traffic cars for patrol and pursuit work, as they were considered to be the finest, high performance, four door cars available.
There was a bit of aggro on the basis that they were "foreign" cars.
The local authority and the Police pointed out that Fife has no car manufacturing plants. Therefore every car is foreign.
Given the impending breakup of the UK, and indeed Europe if they don't get their **** in one sock, we may see this attitude coming into the aviation industry.
Scotland's next First Minister might not care who builds aircraft for the Viet Jock Air Force, if they are not built at Prestwick they might as well be built St. Louis.
While I was employed by HMG to work underground in Northumberland, I was able to listen to the best that Binbrook had to offer, as they did their bit in war games.
Nobody could deny the aircraft could get to where it was needed, as quick as a flash, (subject of course to a K2 following at a distance) but when they called splash five or six times in a trip, well.... oh how we laughed.
Two missiles and that's yer lot.
If only a tanker could replenish weapons.
I'm not denying the value of continued close combat practice, once you are turning in to the enemy, for the seventh time, instead of bolting for home after two squeezes of the trigger, but really......
You need to bear in mind that training is training.
If it comes to war, real proper scary shooty ****en dead war, might has right of it's own.
When all twentyfive serviceable Typhoons are shot down and the enemy (whomever it may be) are swarming all over us, we may wish that we had a hundred Hawks still to launch.
As to the OP's point, well I recall many years ago that Fife Constabulary bought BMW traffic cars for patrol and pursuit work, as they were considered to be the finest, high performance, four door cars available.
There was a bit of aggro on the basis that they were "foreign" cars.
The local authority and the Police pointed out that Fife has no car manufacturing plants. Therefore every car is foreign.
Given the impending breakup of the UK, and indeed Europe if they don't get their **** in one sock, we may see this attitude coming into the aviation industry.
Scotland's next First Minister might not care who builds aircraft for the Viet Jock Air Force, if they are not built at Prestwick they might as well be built St. Louis.