UK - More defence cuts
A fantastic company making fantastic products by fantastic people.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,952
Received 2,856 Likes
on
1,223 Posts
You work in RR PR dept?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,952
Received 2,856 Likes
on
1,223 Posts
True, and they have been at the forefront of some very innovative designs in both manufacture and development. Concordes intake system alone is a remarkable piece of engineering designed to slow the airflow to the subsonic speeds needed.
The comment was made in jest BTW
The comment was made in jest BTW
Harry,
SECOND largest was what I meant. Of course it was a typo, thanks for pointing that out, as it totally undermined my entire point!
Of COURSE BAE are not the largest or the scond largest anything! I was commenting on a comment by someone who called the UK aerospace industry a bit part player. My original point was that it is a palpable nonsense to call the second largest industry on the planet a bit part player. The second largest is a well published fact provided by BiS and the sucessor organisation to SBAC, whose name I forget.
And the UK aerospace industry is FAR more than just BAE Systems! It is Rolls-Royce, Martin-Baker, GKN, Houchin, GQ, GE Aviation, Leonardo, MBDA, Airbus, Shorts, Dowty Propellors, Safran and scores more major Tier 1 supliers with an aerospace turn over of £31.8 billion last year and another £23 billion from the defence sector. The UK is the third largest supplier in the world to Boeing.
SECOND largest was what I meant. Of course it was a typo, thanks for pointing that out, as it totally undermined my entire point!
Of COURSE BAE are not the largest or the scond largest anything! I was commenting on a comment by someone who called the UK aerospace industry a bit part player. My original point was that it is a palpable nonsense to call the second largest industry on the planet a bit part player. The second largest is a well published fact provided by BiS and the sucessor organisation to SBAC, whose name I forget.
And the UK aerospace industry is FAR more than just BAE Systems! It is Rolls-Royce, Martin-Baker, GKN, Houchin, GQ, GE Aviation, Leonardo, MBDA, Airbus, Shorts, Dowty Propellors, Safran and scores more major Tier 1 supliers with an aerospace turn over of £31.8 billion last year and another £23 billion from the defence sector. The UK is the third largest supplier in the world to Boeing.
As an observation, the UK defence sector is both good and bad for the MOD.
From experience, the MOD's MoR with regard to procurement means that the innovative SME's usually have to sub-contract through a prime such as BAe et al who add an additional layer of margin; then QinetiQ appear to add cost, sorry, add value, through often nugatory testing procedures. There is risk in dealing direct with the SME's, but the costs would often be so much lower.
While all this is going on, everyone is flying from meeting to meeting business class, which is going to end up wrapped in some defence project spend at some point.
That said, despite the inefficiency, the UK does have a high degree of innovation when it comes to defence.
From experience, the MOD's MoR with regard to procurement means that the innovative SME's usually have to sub-contract through a prime such as BAe et al who add an additional layer of margin; then QinetiQ appear to add cost, sorry, add value, through often nugatory testing procedures. There is risk in dealing direct with the SME's, but the costs would often be so much lower.
While all this is going on, everyone is flying from meeting to meeting business class, which is going to end up wrapped in some defence project spend at some point.
That said, despite the inefficiency, the UK does have a high degree of innovation when it comes to defence.
The irony of the Nimrod 4 program is that it would never have existed if the US hadn't cancelled the P-7, due to cost overruns and design problems...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By the early 70's it was clear we couldn't or wouldn't afford to build modern combat aircraft from scratch on our own - we couldn't afford the R&D nor order enough to make it economic.
We effectively decided that for airframes we'd collaborate but would basically keep our engine expertise in country - RR products could be sold abroad much easier than BAe airframes.
As Dave says we're 40 years behind the curve - I think we could probably knock out quite a decent aircraft equivalent to the F-15 or the Gripen but the F-22?? I doubt it....
We effectively decided that for airframes we'd collaborate but would basically keep our engine expertise in country - RR products could be sold abroad much easier than BAe airframes.
As Dave says we're 40 years behind the curve - I think we could probably knock out quite a decent aircraft equivalent to the F-15 or the Gripen but the F-22?? I doubt it....
Pragmatically it makes a certain amount of sense. Take F35 for example. We clearly don't have the resources to go it alone on something 5th gen like that, but as a Tier 1 partner we make on average 15% by value of every F35 made. So if the production run is anything like that currently envisaged (and OK I know people will have views on that score) the UK will make the value equivalent of around 400 examples - which in terms of value to the UK economy, and historical precedent, is a pretty good production run, keeps us in the high tech game and for good measure will go a good way way to recouping the cost of the examples we buy.
Watching some of the old Pathe videos of Farnborough in the 1950s is a bit poignant - eg Bob Danvers-Walker announcing proudly that the likes of Brabazon, Britannia, Beverley, DH110, Swift, Sycamore and Hastings will ensure the dominance of UK aerospace for decades to come, and there's no shortage of discussion points as to how things ended up the way they did.
Watching some of the old Pathe videos of Farnborough in the 1950s is a bit poignant - eg Bob Danvers-Walker announcing proudly that the likes of Brabazon, Britannia, Beverley, DH110, Swift, Sycamore and Hastings will ensure the dominance of UK aerospace for decades to come, and there's no shortage of discussion points as to how things ended up the way they did.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good point - the suppliers seem to make much higher rates of return on capital than the final assemblers who put their name on the 'plane..........
less risk I guess as they don't have to go out and tout around 200 airlines for a sale......
less risk I guess as they don't have to go out and tout around 200 airlines for a sale......
And no, I don't work for BAES!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,952
Received 2,856 Likes
on
1,223 Posts
I still cannot fathom why they sold off their membership and wing assembly plant to Airbus for a short term profit.
Oh yes, and the way Airbus screwed BAe over the MRA4 wing design would have been a factor as well...
PDR
So how did Airbus screw them on the MRA4 wing?
When they bid for the business they promised a modern wing structure design done by their best design team. But when they started the job their primary design team got moved over to a new airbus design (perhaps the A350 - can't remember) so they had to build a team of subbies to to the MRA4 job.
The subbies were mostly former BAe/BAC/Hawker designers wgho'd been laid off for years, so they designed a wing structure that was 20-30 years out of date. The design approach was archaic, and used standard parts (fasteners, cleats, clips etc) which may still have been in the catalogues but hadn't actually be manufactured for years. The suppliers begged them to design-in more modern parts which were lighter, cheaper and currently in series production, but the Airbus team stuck to their guns and got these prehistoric parts put back into production (at vast cost). The resulting wing was heavier than it needed to be, and far more expensive than it needed to be, but it also cost a fortune to qualify it because the qual evidence for them was all time-expired.
PDR
The subbies were mostly former BAe/BAC/Hawker designers wgho'd been laid off for years, so they designed a wing structure that was 20-30 years out of date. The design approach was archaic, and used standard parts (fasteners, cleats, clips etc) which may still have been in the catalogues but hadn't actually be manufactured for years. The suppliers begged them to design-in more modern parts which were lighter, cheaper and currently in series production, but the Airbus team stuck to their guns and got these prehistoric parts put back into production (at vast cost). The resulting wing was heavier than it needed to be, and far more expensive than it needed to be, but it also cost a fortune to qualify it because the qual evidence for them was all time-expired.
PDR
When they bid for the business they promised a modern wing structure design done by their best design team. But when they started the job their primary design team got moved over to a new airbus design (perhaps the A350 - can't remember) so they had to build a team of subbies to to the MRA4 job.
The subbies were mostly former BAe/BAC/Hawker designers wgho'd been laid off for years, so they designed a wing structure that was 20-30 years out of date. The design approach was archaic, and used standard parts (fasteners, cleats, clips etc) which may still have been in the catalogues but hadn't actually be manufactured for years. The suppliers begged them to design-in more modern parts which were lighter, cheaper and currently in series production, but the Airbus team stuck to their guns and got these prehistoric parts put back into production (at vast cost). The resulting wing was heavier than it needed to be, and far more expensive than it needed to be, but it also cost a fortune to qualify it because the qual evidence for them was all time-expired.
PDR
The subbies were mostly former BAe/BAC/Hawker designers wgho'd been laid off for years, so they designed a wing structure that was 20-30 years out of date. The design approach was archaic, and used standard parts (fasteners, cleats, clips etc) which may still have been in the catalogues but hadn't actually be manufactured for years. The suppliers begged them to design-in more modern parts which were lighter, cheaper and currently in series production, but the Airbus team stuck to their guns and got these prehistoric parts put back into production (at vast cost). The resulting wing was heavier than it needed to be, and far more expensive than it needed to be, but it also cost a fortune to qualify it because the qual evidence for them was all time-expired.
PDR
Back to the subject of this post. I see in Flight global that France is going to increase the number of Rafale to a total of 224 over the next decade or so. In addition it is procuring additional A330 refueling aircraft and will maintain a number of Mirage 2000 multi role jets.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"France is going to increase the number of Rafale to a total of 224 over the next decade"
Keeping the line open for future sales - and announce it so people feel comfortable about talking to their salesmen
Keeping the line open for future sales - and announce it so people feel comfortable about talking to their salesmen