UK - More defence cuts
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BAe is dead in the water.
They just don't know it yet.
BTW from another thread
Think the Zumwalt is a bit different, it uses fancy hybrid shell/missile technology which is why the rounds cost $800k each, and since they're not building many more ships the supply of said rounds has dried up.
The 155mm is a guided munition but because the class buy went from 32 down to 3 hulls munitions have become extremely expensive. It is not widely known, but BAE is responsible for the 155mm.
Last edited by glad rag; 7th Feb 2018 at 23:20.
BAE, who by the way are far from dead in the water, is no where near the whole of the UK aerospace industry, which by however you try and count it, IS the largest aerospace industry on the planet, so hardly “a bit player!”
In terms of revenue, which is what counts - building stuff people actually want, BAe is 9th in ranking according to Flight Global - slightly ahead of Leonardo !
1. Boeing $94,571M
2. Airbus $70,631M
3. Lockheed Martin $47,248M
4. United Technologies $28,988M
5. General Electric $26,261M
6. Northrop Grumman $24,508M
7. Raytheon $24,069
8. Safran $16,788M
9. BAe Systems $13,339
10. Leonardo $12,768M
11. Rolls-Royce $12,047M
https://www.artillerymarketing.com/f...companies-2017
1. Boeing $94,571M
2. Airbus $70,631M
3. Lockheed Martin $47,248M
4. United Technologies $28,988M
5. General Electric $26,261M
6. Northrop Grumman $24,508M
7. Raytheon $24,069
8. Safran $16,788M
9. BAe Systems $13,339
10. Leonardo $12,768M
11. Rolls-Royce $12,047M
https://www.artillerymarketing.com/f...companies-2017
Regardless of size, the fact remains that the UK aerospace industry seems to be in no position to build military capability in a single end to end process - design, through production to wheels up. That would be one my metrics to consider when judging where we are placed. As it is, we have a lot of very high tech capabilities, but they are bit part in the sense that they produce parts for, but not entire capabilities.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Aylesbury
Age: 58
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thinking out loud...We (the UK) need to figure out our role in the world post-Brexit, and make HM Forces fit for that role!
Do we batten down the hatches, scrap the Royal Marines and consign amphibiosity to the same dustbin as (proper) MPA, SAR, fleets of tanks and frigates; and just keep a Brigade on high-readiness as the armed-wing of Oxfam and a few Typhoons on H24 to meet the odd Bear H?
...or do we continue to be America's partner in the War on Terror (copyright 2001) once outside Europe and sail into victory on our new CVFs with a glorious fleet of 40 Lightnings (no risk of attrition then!), air-assaulting the next 'sh!t-h0le' country into the 2020s with lashings of Chinooks and Paras, kicking down doors around the world?
..or will we continue to salami-slice everything and do ALL of the above with a reduced real-terms budget while the great god 'SkoolsnOspitals' gets all the public's attention/money/noise?
I know which option I would bet on...
Do we batten down the hatches, scrap the Royal Marines and consign amphibiosity to the same dustbin as (proper) MPA, SAR, fleets of tanks and frigates; and just keep a Brigade on high-readiness as the armed-wing of Oxfam and a few Typhoons on H24 to meet the odd Bear H?
...or do we continue to be America's partner in the War on Terror (copyright 2001) once outside Europe and sail into victory on our new CVFs with a glorious fleet of 40 Lightnings (no risk of attrition then!), air-assaulting the next 'sh!t-h0le' country into the 2020s with lashings of Chinooks and Paras, kicking down doors around the world?
..or will we continue to salami-slice everything and do ALL of the above with a reduced real-terms budget while the great god 'SkoolsnOspitals' gets all the public's attention/money/noise?
I know which option I would bet on...
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Aylesbury
Age: 58
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regardless of size, the fact remains that the UK aerospace industry seems to be in no position to build military capability in a single end to end process - design, through production to wheels up. That would be one my metrics to consider when judging where we are placed. As it is, we have a lot of very high tech capabilities, but they are bit part in the sense that they produce parts for, but not entire capabilities.
Different things, are they not?
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Aylesbury
Age: 58
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What might be described as The Three E's - the Microsoft School of business development... Embrace, Envelope and Eliminate. Look at all the other defence contractors that have been swallowed up by BAE since privatisation. Has it been good for the industry as a whole to have one monolothic player? Arguably not.
BAE's interest shows itself to be milking dry whatever contracts are dead certs until delivery is complete and once it is, the facility and its personnel are disposed of. It did so with Hatfield, it did so with Woodford and it will do with Warton once the Typhoon deal is up and Brough when Hawk 200 is done. And those are just the ones that come immediately to mind.
Problem is with BAE is that even though it only forms about 20% of its turnover, if that, HMG has been in thrall to placing far too many of its eggs into this particular basket and they've pretty much had HMG over a barrel for a number of reasons for far too long.
Are they dead in the water? Not sure. Depends on how much The Donald decides to buy BAE, compared to other US contractors. They might not be dead in the water yet, but they're certainly treading water and the immersion suit isnt going to keep them going for ever.
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BAE's interest shows itself to be milking dry whatever contracts are dead certs until delivery is complete and once it is, the facility and its personnel are disposed of. It did so with Hatfield, it did so with Woodford and it will do with Warton once the Typhoon deal is up and Brough when Hawk 200 is done. And those are just the ones that come immediately to mind.
I was in Sweden yesterday and as an earlier poster stated, this country still produces their own complete combat aircraft. But their population is only around the size of London....
But, and its a big but - in terms of planning and considering enemy threat we consider both capability and intent. Without one of these factors then we may judge the threat not to be there or at least one to watch rather than worry about. Do you not raise a similar point? Regardless of technical ability, if we have neither the desire nor will to do it, then effectively we don't have an end-to-end aerospace capability.
As I mentioned previously, we could do worse than have a look at France and Sweden who seem to be more capable of building an end-to-end capability than we do with either similar or lower capacity.
Last edited by Melchett01; 8th Feb 2018 at 11:07.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,855
Received 2,809 Likes
on
1,196 Posts
The problem you have is Continuity, the likes of English Electric, Hawker etc built up over many years design teams who built upon their past experiences in fighter design to produce some stunning fighters and bombers. The merging of these great companies often forced upon them by Governmental decisions was a nail in that coffin, one was the merger of English Electric and Vickers on the TSR2 project and handing the lead on design to Vickers who had not the experience EE had in supersonic aircraft and had never built one.. That alone probaly resulted in some of the cost over runs.
Excellent read
https://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediaf...4682EDACAB.pdf
You then get a cutting edge project cancelled and design teams scattered to the wind, your lead and continuity is gone, facilities are closed and we move on to more mergers.
The Rot has set in, Farnborough that bastian of British Aerospace excellence starts to let foreign aircraft in to show their wares
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societ...pace_Companies
Government interferes again and more mergers are forced upon companies, facilities are rationalised between the merged companies and close, with the closure also goes the skilled work forces and design teams.
Uk Plc looks abroad and buys the likes of the F4, a whole generation of aircraft design is skipped over as the British aircraft industry has no design input or requirement to build, so more facilities sitting idle go, we then start to buy more and more foreign types, to the detriment of our own industry that closes facilities and loses the ability we once had.
So we get to the likes of the Chinook and F-35 which we do not have access to the computer software I believe, so cannot alter it ourselves, we are now dependant on others and haven't the facilities anymore to reverse that trend.. could we build and design another home grown fighter, possibly, but the question is could we, and if we could, where?
Its ok relying on foreign built aircraft, but that then makes you subservient to those countries and their whims, and if a home grown war ever did come again, your ability to ramp up aircraft production has gone.
Its all a bit like the RAF, close this base we save X, close that one we save XX..... its all great from a UK Plc finance side, but one big bomb on Brize's runway and the whole of the RAF's transport fleet is out of the equation, similar with the F-35 fleet and projecting our global presence on our super duper new carriers... one torpedo and they are gone, it's all ready been shown what a bunch of rag heads with a boat can do to something like the USS Cole.
I often think that we are overthinking ourselves, a £1,000,000 truck verses a $1000 RPG .. a $78,000 missile against a taliban and his $500 AK 47
.
Excellent read
https://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediaf...4682EDACAB.pdf
You then get a cutting edge project cancelled and design teams scattered to the wind, your lead and continuity is gone, facilities are closed and we move on to more mergers.
The Rot has set in, Farnborough that bastian of British Aerospace excellence starts to let foreign aircraft in to show their wares
In 1962 the British-only rule was slightly relaxed by allowing the participation of foreign aircraft with British engines. 1962 was also the last of the annual shows, the next being held in 1964 and thenceforth biennially; in 1968 European manufacturers were invited. In 1974 the show accepted international participation and from 1978 it became known as the Farnborough International. Since 1964 the Farnborough has alternated with the Paris Air Show.
Government interferes again and more mergers are forced upon companies, facilities are rationalised between the merged companies and close, with the closure also goes the skilled work forces and design teams.
Uk Plc looks abroad and buys the likes of the F4, a whole generation of aircraft design is skipped over as the British aircraft industry has no design input or requirement to build, so more facilities sitting idle go, we then start to buy more and more foreign types, to the detriment of our own industry that closes facilities and loses the ability we once had.
So we get to the likes of the Chinook and F-35 which we do not have access to the computer software I believe, so cannot alter it ourselves, we are now dependant on others and haven't the facilities anymore to reverse that trend.. could we build and design another home grown fighter, possibly, but the question is could we, and if we could, where?
Its ok relying on foreign built aircraft, but that then makes you subservient to those countries and their whims, and if a home grown war ever did come again, your ability to ramp up aircraft production has gone.
Its all a bit like the RAF, close this base we save X, close that one we save XX..... its all great from a UK Plc finance side, but one big bomb on Brize's runway and the whole of the RAF's transport fleet is out of the equation, similar with the F-35 fleet and projecting our global presence on our super duper new carriers... one torpedo and they are gone, it's all ready been shown what a bunch of rag heads with a boat can do to something like the USS Cole.
I often think that we are overthinking ourselves, a £1,000,000 truck verses a $1000 RPG .. a $78,000 missile against a taliban and his $500 AK 47
.
Last edited by NutLoose; 8th Feb 2018 at 11:43.
Surely a lot of the MRA4's problems arose because, while most of it was designed by BAE, some bits of it had been designed by DH 50 years previously?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
If we accept that BAe is the biggest on the planet and 9th in revenue terms then there appears to be a problem. Even if we combine with RR they would still only be 6th.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,855
Received 2,809 Likes
on
1,196 Posts
Surely a lot of the MRA4's problems arose because, while most of it was designed by BAE, some bits of it had been designed by DH 50 years previously?
You then install an engine that was never envisaged nor designed to work down a long intake ducting and you are exasperating your problems.
Nimrod had served the RAF well for many a year, to blame it on items designed 50 years ago is not a problem with the DH design, but a problem with BAe not understanding the foibles of the design and contruction and then not addressing them in the contract, nor in the build.
http://www.spyflight.co.uk/mr4a.htm
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Aylesbury
Age: 58
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But what you're saying about "if you dont have the desire and the technological ability together, you dont have an end to end industry" - yep, I agree, logically that is very hard to disagree with.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Aylesbury
Age: 58
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I stand corrected. They did have a share in Gripen but not total control of the company.
"During the 1995 Paris Air Show, Saab Military Aircraft and British Aerospace (BAe, now BAE Systems) announced the formation the joint-venture company Saab-BAe Gripen AB with the goal of adapting, manufacturing, marketing and supporting Gripen worldwide.[34][38] The deal involved the conversion of the A and B series aircraft to the "export" C and D series, which developed the Gripen for compatibility with NATO standards.[39] This cooperation was extended in 2001 with the formation of Gripen International to promote export sales.[40] In December 2004, Saab and BAE Systems announced that BAE was to sell a large portion of its stake in Saab, and that Saab would take full responsibility for marketing and export orders of the Gripen.[41] In June 2011, Saab announced that an internal investigation revealed evidence of acts of corruption by BAE Systems, including money laundering, in South Africa, one of the Gripen's customers.[42]"
BAE corruption? Perish the thought....
"During the 1995 Paris Air Show, Saab Military Aircraft and British Aerospace (BAe, now BAE Systems) announced the formation the joint-venture company Saab-BAe Gripen AB with the goal of adapting, manufacturing, marketing and supporting Gripen worldwide.[34][38] The deal involved the conversion of the A and B series aircraft to the "export" C and D series, which developed the Gripen for compatibility with NATO standards.[39] This cooperation was extended in 2001 with the formation of Gripen International to promote export sales.[40] In December 2004, Saab and BAE Systems announced that BAE was to sell a large portion of its stake in Saab, and that Saab would take full responsibility for marketing and export orders of the Gripen.[41] In June 2011, Saab announced that an internal investigation revealed evidence of acts of corruption by BAE Systems, including money laundering, in South Africa, one of the Gripen's customers.[42]"
BAE corruption? Perish the thought....
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,855
Received 2,809 Likes
on
1,196 Posts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_Group
In March 2010, BAE Systems sold half of its 20% stake in the company to Investor AB, which then became the major shareholder.[17] In June 2011, the British company eventually sold its remaining stake bringing its 16-year involvement in Saab to an end.[18]
In March 2010, BAE Systems sold half of its 20% stake in the company to Investor AB, which then became the major shareholder.[17] In June 2011, the British company eventually sold its remaining stake bringing its 16-year involvement in Saab to an end.[18]
but a problem with BAe not understanding the foibles of the design and contruction and then not addressing them in the contract, nor in the build.
One could argue the company should have rejected the offer of contract that included a spec that they could not meet. MoD should not have made the offer.
Two separate issues as far as BAe and MoD employees are concerned. One is engineering, one is Board level. The former did their best on both sides, but were doomed from the start. The latter, in MoD at the time, were responsible for some appalling decisions, such as Chinook Mk3. No surprise that the same names crop up. It is that link which makes matters infinitely worse, and MoD sought to conceal.