BAe granted contract for Future Combat Air System.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BAe granted contract for Future Combat Air System.
BAE awarded contract for Future Combat Air System.
-July 4, 2018BAE Systems has been awarded contract by the Ministry of Defence to work on Future Combat Air System (FCAS) concepts and technologies.
According to a short description of the contract:
“The TIZARD single source contract, which will be awarded for a maximum of twelve months, will continue work on future Combat Air concepts, associated requirements and their key technologies that define next generation combat air capabilities.
These are TRL 0-3 activities that are crucial for UK National Sovereignty and are compliant with SDSR2015 direction.
The single-source award without competition is justified, say the Ministry of Defence:
“A key aspect of this procurement’s single source justification is MOD cumulative investment (over a number of decades) into BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd, as the UK’s lead Air systems integrator.
During this time BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd have built up a unique level of credible and capable technical expertise and Suitably Qualified Experienced Personnel (SQEP), and is necessary for the integrated delivery of concepts, associated requirements and the application of technology.”
Ah
BAE (sic) Systems (Operations) Ltd is necessary ? That's it then we're stuffed.
During this time BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd have built up a unique level of credible and capable technical expertise and Suitably Qualified Experienced Personnel (SQEP), and is necessary for the integrated delivery of concepts, associated requirements and the application of technology.”
Last edited by beardy; 5th Jul 2018 at 08:23.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,808
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
Narrow thinking, IMO, but we must support UK Industry in these uncertain times 
Self-licking lollipop?
Self-licking lollipop?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
LJ, I suppose the time scale is about right, similar to EFA 2000 and no European partners whose needs had to be reconciled.
I wonder why they proposed a two-seater. Has the MOD shown any interest in a Tornado type replacement rather a Typhoon.
I wonder why they proposed a two-seater. Has the MOD shown any interest in a Tornado type replacement rather a Typhoon.
The key is 'These are TRL 0-3 activities'. (Technology Readiness Levels, although I was taught they started at 1, not 0). Thus, the contract is confined to;
TRL1 - Scientific research begins to be evaluated for military applications.
TRL2 - Invention begins. Once basic principles are observed, practical applications can be postulated.
TRL3 - Analytical and laboratory study to validate predictions of separate (unintegrated) and/or unrepresentative components.
So, the implication is that none of this has been carried out, or that previous studies have been rejected. None of this is down to DE&S, and much of it not even MoD. The Secretary of State is advised separately; for example, by the Defence Scientific Advisory Council. DSAC reports are not readily available to anyone in DE&S, and are not released under FOI. However, QinetiQ are given copies, so BAeS will be wise to partner with them. Part of the self-licking lollipop MPN11 so rightly mentions. Thus, the DSAC may already have reported on the preferred solution, but DE&S will often have to proceed in ignorance and disappear off at a tangent.
I don't disagree with the decision to keep this within the UK at the moment, but I'd expect BAeS to quickly produce a Road Map showing where other nations are. This needs close oversight by MoD, because the inclination is to get MoD to let a huge and lengthy contract to develop something that is already available. There are many examples, one of the best known being the reason why the soldiers at Kajaki Dam didn't have proper comms.
TRL1 - Scientific research begins to be evaluated for military applications.
TRL2 - Invention begins. Once basic principles are observed, practical applications can be postulated.
TRL3 - Analytical and laboratory study to validate predictions of separate (unintegrated) and/or unrepresentative components.
So, the implication is that none of this has been carried out, or that previous studies have been rejected. None of this is down to DE&S, and much of it not even MoD. The Secretary of State is advised separately; for example, by the Defence Scientific Advisory Council. DSAC reports are not readily available to anyone in DE&S, and are not released under FOI. However, QinetiQ are given copies, so BAeS will be wise to partner with them. Part of the self-licking lollipop MPN11 so rightly mentions. Thus, the DSAC may already have reported on the preferred solution, but DE&S will often have to proceed in ignorance and disappear off at a tangent.
I don't disagree with the decision to keep this within the UK at the moment, but I'd expect BAeS to quickly produce a Road Map showing where other nations are. This needs close oversight by MoD, because the inclination is to get MoD to let a huge and lengthy contract to develop something that is already available. There are many examples, one of the best known being the reason why the soldiers at Kajaki Dam didn't have proper comms.
PDR
A very long time ago, WIWOL 1970, a delegation from ‘IWI Towers’ visited Warton to discuss the future of air defence fighters.
The ‘young’ BAe boffins were thinking far beyond what might be reasonably imagined, considering without constraint of what is, or technology, weapons, history, strategy, etc; the discussion was about what could be, what might be achieved by our side and the other one.
Some of those ideas emerged in Tornado ADV, but most as far as can be established relate to Typhoon, some 40 yrs later. I fear, but don’t know, that few if any of the military (I speak for myself) were able to think in this way, or had sufficient time in post to develop skills or evolutionary understanding.
The skills in this are unconstrained thought, ability to consider what could be, and the wider range of viewpoints, without constraint of time.
Thus the contract is more about funding these lines of thought for the future opposed to anything real.
The ‘young’ BAe boffins were thinking far beyond what might be reasonably imagined, considering without constraint of what is, or technology, weapons, history, strategy, etc; the discussion was about what could be, what might be achieved by our side and the other one.
Some of those ideas emerged in Tornado ADV, but most as far as can be established relate to Typhoon, some 40 yrs later. I fear, but don’t know, that few if any of the military (I speak for myself) were able to think in this way, or had sufficient time in post to develop skills or evolutionary understanding.
The skills in this are unconstrained thought, ability to consider what could be, and the wider range of viewpoints, without constraint of time.
Thus the contract is more about funding these lines of thought for the future opposed to anything real.
PDR1
As you clearly knew what the poster was alluding to, you come across as a complete **** who is playing the man, not the ball. It was an excellent post which explained an important point.
As you clearly knew what the poster was alluding to, you come across as a complete **** who is playing the man, not the ball. It was an excellent post which explained an important point.
I imagine that to be part of any future project the country must have something to offer and that means something advanced enough that it is not going to be >= TRL-4 at this point.
Seems to me that a 2040 timescale is highly ambitious and unlikely. Typhoon was developed from the EAP technology demonstrator and XG40 engine demo programme. The phased programme described above will probably swallow much of the available time.
I wonder if this is just posturing to allow a future move to align with the French/German programme.
I wonder if this is just posturing to allow a future move to align with the French/German programme.
t43562, #13, I agree, however there is no hard and fast line between TRLs, particularly wrt lead time and emergent technologies.
I would expected that BAe, or any manufacturer, to include higher TRLs as and when the content is available, particularly those with corporate benefit or ‘unpublished’ national benefit.
Such research contracts might also be one means of public disclosure of previously hidden work.
I interpret the announcement as referring to ‘future’ FCAS, and not necessarily the next one, where current development time scales are shortening, re #14,
I would expected that BAe, or any manufacturer, to include higher TRLs as and when the content is available, particularly those with corporate benefit or ‘unpublished’ national benefit.
Such research contracts might also be one means of public disclosure of previously hidden work.
I interpret the announcement as referring to ‘future’ FCAS, and not necessarily the next one, where current development time scales are shortening, re #14,
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Buster, I thought that initially too. Then, checking wiki, I saw the Eurofighter time scale was very similar and BAE would have an advantage not having to reconcile the requirements of 4 nations.
True. However, we cannot ignore the technical input from the other 3 partners. It is a long time since BAE was anywhere near producing a complete fighter aircraft on their own let alone one equivalent to a (so called) 6th generation machine even if the funding was available.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could