Buy British! ...or not??
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buy British! ...or not??
Does it matter where our defence equipment is made? Should we buy British -or award contracts wherever we felt offered best value? Would the country be worse off if the army drove Landcruisers rather than Land Rovers? Would our super new carriers be less capable if they were built somewhere other than the. Rt. Hon Gordon Brown's constituency?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,877
Received 2,823 Likes
on
1,203 Posts
Yes... yes...yes
Purely and simply, buy from abroad and jobs and technology advancements in the UK are lost, firms close and destroy the infrastructure, skilled staff leave and teams are dispersed..
But the worst is you then become reliant on another country, and that is ok until you have a falling out with them, you are then up sh*t creek without a paddle.
Purely and simply, buy from abroad and jobs and technology advancements in the UK are lost, firms close and destroy the infrastructure, skilled staff leave and teams are dispersed..
But the worst is you then become reliant on another country, and that is ok until you have a falling out with them, you are then up sh*t creek without a paddle.
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: Jun 2006
Location: LIRE
Age: 49
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The new Freelander is coming next year, with a different name
2014 SUV - New Age of Discovery - Land Rover All-New Discovery Sport | Land Rover Global | International (English)
2014 SUV - New Age of Discovery - Land Rover All-New Discovery Sport | Land Rover Global | International (English)
genuine question...
its an issue i've long thought about, but i'd be very interested in other peoples views: would the UK have been more secure (in both the strategic and tactical sense), if we had decided 'fcuk British' and bought F-15A and F-111in the late 70's, and then F-15C and F-15E, instead of going for Tornado and then Typhoon, or Arleigh Burke AAW Destroyers instead of T42 - for example?
in such cases it looks to be a toss up between getting military capabilities 10/15/20 years earlier, vs the loss of tens of thousands of high skill jobs and the sovereign capability to supply yourself.
Ppruners views?
its an issue i've long thought about, but i'd be very interested in other peoples views: would the UK have been more secure (in both the strategic and tactical sense), if we had decided 'fcuk British' and bought F-15A and F-111in the late 70's, and then F-15C and F-15E, instead of going for Tornado and then Typhoon, or Arleigh Burke AAW Destroyers instead of T42 - for example?
in such cases it looks to be a toss up between getting military capabilities 10/15/20 years earlier, vs the loss of tens of thousands of high skill jobs and the sovereign capability to supply yourself.
Ppruners views?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with the ideology of buy British for Defence, Civil Emergency vehicles and Local Council vehicles. The problem comes when monopolies such as Waste Ofspace and QinetiQ then take the Govt for every penny making overseas options financially very attractive. As it presently stands, my ideology is done: ... And for example, an off-the-shelf foreign MPA should be procured yesterday. In sum laudable ideology that is now unworkable.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
in such cases it looks to be a toss up between getting military capabilities 10/15/20 years earlier, vs the loss of tens of thousands of high skill jobs and the sovereign capability to supply yourself.
Coke, a very good question, Mate.
F-15 only realy became a serious option when we were already committed to (what was then called) Eurofighter. The F-111 tradgedy was a different story and I don't think we ever really had a gap for F-16 to fill.
But that doesn't answer your question. If you ignore all the banter and stuff (I'll call it "stuff" for now) we asked for a long range interceptor and got the F2/3. Apart from the ridiculous failure to make the aircraft totally automated and simple to operate, BAe did what they were supposed to do. And, our crews acquitted themselves superbly in wars and excercises - sometimes much to the surprise of our allies (you decide which ones).
I have to admit to being involved in various evaluations in some of the choices you refer to and, to me, the issues often came down to what we would have bought - apart from just ("just") buying the aircraft, what would have bought and what would we have to buy (and keep buying) to have a supportable operational platform?
Probably, buying US or French or Russian wouldn't have been as bad as many claim. The effect on the rump of British defence industry would have been disasterous.
I'm looking forward to this thread.
F-15 only realy became a serious option when we were already committed to (what was then called) Eurofighter. The F-111 tradgedy was a different story and I don't think we ever really had a gap for F-16 to fill.
But that doesn't answer your question. If you ignore all the banter and stuff (I'll call it "stuff" for now) we asked for a long range interceptor and got the F2/3. Apart from the ridiculous failure to make the aircraft totally automated and simple to operate, BAe did what they were supposed to do. And, our crews acquitted themselves superbly in wars and excercises - sometimes much to the surprise of our allies (you decide which ones).
I have to admit to being involved in various evaluations in some of the choices you refer to and, to me, the issues often came down to what we would have bought - apart from just ("just") buying the aircraft, what would have bought and what would we have to buy (and keep buying) to have a supportable operational platform?
Probably, buying US or French or Russian wouldn't have been as bad as many claim. The effect on the rump of British defence industry would have been disasterous.
I'm looking forward to this thread.
kharmael, the Disco Sport, Disco Junior od whatever it's going to be called, will not be a Freelander. It will be a slightly smaller Disco. The beauty of the Freelander has always been its smaller size. But no snags, the French have managed to source me the British car I wanteed - which was kind of my point.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,559
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
Back in the 1970s, having dropped out of the contract to share 24 E-3As with NATO, UK was to buy 6 x AWACS - however, in the meantime, a change of Government happened and Union power forced the Government to buy British and the Nimrod AEW was born.
Enough said, really.
Enough said, really.
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Grimsby
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What constitutes "British" these days? Just watched a wonderful video called
"RAF in the 1950s" (get it off Amazon) Watching this you can see a huge industry that could justly claim to be British in all/most ways, ie design, testing, building, production etc.
However a succession of (mainly) Tory/Labour governments have consistently hit the armed forces/defence industry such as our military/industrial capability has been so reduced that the equations simply don't add-up any more, especially in terms of economies of scale.
If (any) government decided to design/produce an all-British strike-attack aircraft for example, it would cost several billions to get it to pre-production standard. Given the penny-packet way in which the RAF order aircraft the project would be totally unviable unless major overseas sales could be gauranteed.
The only realistic way is a total change in strategic/military thinking such as
Britain becoming a major power once again thus justifying a major all-round increase in military spending OR seeking collaboration with sundry nations to share the costs of small/medium power status.
The important point I suppose is that tens of thousands of skilled jobs would be a stake if we shopped around. To lose such a skills base, even much reduced on what it once was, would be a disaster.
"RAF in the 1950s" (get it off Amazon) Watching this you can see a huge industry that could justly claim to be British in all/most ways, ie design, testing, building, production etc.
However a succession of (mainly) Tory/Labour governments have consistently hit the armed forces/defence industry such as our military/industrial capability has been so reduced that the equations simply don't add-up any more, especially in terms of economies of scale.
If (any) government decided to design/produce an all-British strike-attack aircraft for example, it would cost several billions to get it to pre-production standard. Given the penny-packet way in which the RAF order aircraft the project would be totally unviable unless major overseas sales could be gauranteed.
The only realistic way is a total change in strategic/military thinking such as
Britain becoming a major power once again thus justifying a major all-round increase in military spending OR seeking collaboration with sundry nations to share the costs of small/medium power status.
The important point I suppose is that tens of thousands of skilled jobs would be a stake if we shopped around. To lose such a skills base, even much reduced on what it once was, would be a disaster.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,877
Received 2,823 Likes
on
1,203 Posts
Profits
......
......
Sideshow,
I take your point and understand exactly where you're coming from. I worked there (before it was QQ) and was equally sceptical. But they do produce a lot of data, knowledge, research and evaluation. They do not manufacture much, but they are one of the last bits of "commercial" defence research we have left.
Not disagreeing with your point of view, though.
I take your point and understand exactly where you're coming from. I worked there (before it was QQ) and was equally sceptical. But they do produce a lot of data, knowledge, research and evaluation. They do not manufacture much, but they are one of the last bits of "commercial" defence research we have left.
Not disagreeing with your point of view, though.
Courtney,
wasn't the F-14/15 considered as part of the 'shall we try and build a fighter out of the GR1?' process - i'm convinced i've read that many times..?
part of the strategic issue is whether US client states - proper allies rather than tin-pot ****holes - have ever been stiffed by the US when it came to buying spares, MLU's etc..?
it purely military equipment terms it looks to me to be a no brainer - i rather doubt anyone is going to seriously argue that the UK was militarily more secure with F3's than F-15A/C's, or more potent with GR1/GR4's than F-111/F-15E, or that the fleet in 1982 was better off with Type 42 than Spruance class - or would they?
wasn't the F-14/15 considered as part of the 'shall we try and build a fighter out of the GR1?' process - i'm convinced i've read that many times..?
part of the strategic issue is whether US client states - proper allies rather than tin-pot ****holes - have ever been stiffed by the US when it came to buying spares, MLU's etc..?
it purely military equipment terms it looks to me to be a no brainer - i rather doubt anyone is going to seriously argue that the UK was militarily more secure with F3's than F-15A/C's, or more potent with GR1/GR4's than F-111/F-15E, or that the fleet in 1982 was better off with Type 42 than Spruance class - or would they?
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: london
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S5: 1950s' RAF was not Brit-mounted. Avionics was intertwined, UK/US; ADEN gun was German; aerodynamics was German/NACA as much as RAE; fabrication was muchly off Cincinatti tools, and production of Hunter, Canberra, Valiant, Javelin, Gannet....was heavily subsidised by Uncle Sam.
UK has never been wholly techno-sovereign in Aero. Many UK piston aero engines began as French licences. Aerofoil sections might be NACA or they might be Gottingen. All, bar none, material which we turn into kit is imported.
A to OP's Q is that, no, it matters not who invented the kit we use. See Israeli Air Force, fighting on US and French craft, never on indigenous designs. What matters is whether we have access to spares, tools, (now code) to sustain readiness. Starting with 1941 Lend/Lease, UK appointed Sister Firms as Design Authority, competent to keep kit flying even if Supply was disrupted by hostile action. Now,to ensure operational sovereignty v. commercial or political action, Ministers have stressed, on (US) F-35, access to source code, and on (Israeli) Watchkeeper, Design Authority into a UK entity (which happens to be French owned).
UK has never been wholly techno-sovereign in Aero. Many UK piston aero engines began as French licences. Aerofoil sections might be NACA or they might be Gottingen. All, bar none, material which we turn into kit is imported.
A to OP's Q is that, no, it matters not who invented the kit we use. See Israeli Air Force, fighting on US and French craft, never on indigenous designs. What matters is whether we have access to spares, tools, (now code) to sustain readiness. Starting with 1941 Lend/Lease, UK appointed Sister Firms as Design Authority, competent to keep kit flying even if Supply was disrupted by hostile action. Now,to ensure operational sovereignty v. commercial or political action, Ministers have stressed, on (US) F-35, access to source code, and on (Israeli) Watchkeeper, Design Authority into a UK entity (which happens to be French owned).
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kharmael, the Disco Sport, Disco Junior od whatever it's going to be called, will not be a Freelander. It will be a slightly smaller Disco. The beauty of the Freelander has always been its smaller size.
Original ('70) Range Rover:
Wheelbase 100 in (2,540 mm)
Length 176 in (4,470 mm)
Width 70 in (1,778 mm)
Height 70 in (1,778 mm)
Original (2001) Freelander:
Wheelbase 101.0 in (2,565 mm)
Length 175.0 in (4,445 mm)
Width 71.1 in (1,806 mm)
Height 68.9 in (1,750 mm)
The current FL is bigger still...
Obviously cars get bigger generation on generation for various reasons, (some good, some bad), but jeez.
Last edited by Willard Whyte; 24th May 2014 at 10:25.
Sometimes it works the other way around - in my view we should have developed the Buccaneer Mk 3 instead of trying to buy US F-111s or joint compromise in the Tornado GR1. We could at least have sold them to the Germans, Italians and Saudis.
We could easily have built the Viggen under license (perhaps with UK equipment) it would have transformed the RAF in the 70s. Replacing the Lightning as an interceptor and also filling the role of the Jags and Harriers.It would have been quite a frontline with the F4 and new Buccaneers.
In the 80s we should have gone F-15C - (or even better for the UK F-15D with the radar in the back) probably with the conformal tanks that were later fitted to the Es
We could easily have built the Viggen under license (perhaps with UK equipment) it would have transformed the RAF in the 70s. Replacing the Lightning as an interceptor and also filling the role of the Jags and Harriers.It would have been quite a frontline with the F4 and new Buccaneers.
In the 80s we should have gone F-15C - (or even better for the UK F-15D with the radar in the back) probably with the conformal tanks that were later fitted to the Es