Britain moves to protect its defence industry
Cat Techie. I very rarely post anything on here. However you mention Jim Radcliffe as being different from Dyson in some way. He isn’t. He is worse! Do a little research in to his Ineos Grenadier for instance.Supposedly to be built in South Wales, now to be built in France, due to French Gov. incentives.Radcliffe is a staunch Brexiteer yet he does not support the UK.
Look in to his dealings and you will see, he is in no way a patriot!
Rant over.
.
Look in to his dealings and you will see, he is in no way a patriot!
Rant over.
.
Last edited by microlighttp; 25th Nov 2020 at 22:25.
Cat Techie. I very rarely post anything on here. However you mention Jim Radcliffe as being different from Dyson in some way. He isn’t. He is worse! Do a little research in to his Ineos Grenadier for instance.Supposedly to be built in South Wales, now to be built in France, due to French Gov. incentives.Radcliffe is a staunch Brexiteer yet he does not support the UK.
Look in to his dealings and you will see, he is in no way a patriot!
Rant over.
.
Look in to his dealings and you will see, he is in no way a patriot!
Rant over.
.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Sunny Side
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No idea why you mentioned Dyson? He took the manufacturing away to the far east. My Grandfather was an example of the 50s. Company of his making tooling for the recovery of the UK. Old machines and little investment. Father forced hands into using the tools to press manufacture the items wishing to be made. NCN machinery coming in, Grandfather was more bothered about the golf course. No investment in new machines or practices. Good staff sodded off. Death was the deconstruction of engineering industries in the early 80s. I saw it. Reason the RAF was a bright star. The businesses my grandfather supported sodded off from the UK. They never came back. North Sea Oil? Answer is what the Norwiegens did compared to the UK. They didn't sell out their assets for a pitance. BTW I do not argue with your general points. Radcliffe stands alone in his support of the flag. Needs to pay for Bloodhound now mind.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Sunny Side
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But is it wise to buy F35s when the US refuses to allow access to the source code on the software? Plus a fair number of the integrated circuits come from Taiwan, so if the PRC got cobby with Taiwan, spares could suddenly be a problem unless the tapes for the layouts and test programmes were available. Plus there are very few semiconductor plants outside Taiwan and the PRC with capability of handling 12 inch wafers and sub 0.18 micron technology - and none in the UK, although the US still has a few.
Do you have any idea what else is required to maintain this sort of complex software and everything else that is needed beyond the source code to be able to do it?
It is what is often referred to as ‘non-trivial’. The effing understatement to understate all understatements!
There’s always someone who bangs on about access to source code in these sort of discussions. Oooh, we’ve secured access to the source code. Great, now what?
Do you have any idea what else is required to maintain this sort of complex software and everything else that is needed beyond the source code to be able to do it?
It is what is often referred to as ‘non-trivial’. The effing understatement to understate all understatements!
Do you have any idea what else is required to maintain this sort of complex software and everything else that is needed beyond the source code to be able to do it?
It is what is often referred to as ‘non-trivial’. The effing understatement to understate all understatements!
Most importantly though, if you feel that is all paranoia, you get to fix the bugs that matter to you - that your allies look like they aren't getting around to yet.
As said in a previous post, there's policy, and there's reality. The Huawais of the world can amortise the cost of a 'software support facility' for want of a better term over millions of sales. It's a small sum under 'miscellaneous' in the investment appraisal. If you have a fleet of a dozen aircraft, not enough crews, maintainers, and all the other resources you need, a honking great % of your budget on an SSF, where you can't guarantee retention, or expertise in the first place, is madness. The rules are that you must continue to have the Design Authority under contract anyway, so you're paying double. There are exceptions of course, but as S-D says the subject needs careful thought and assessment.
The last time I managed a programme where the Service wanted a SSF, the decision was easy as they hadn't bothered costing it or including it in the endorsed requirement. On another occasion I inherited one where 3rd Line had set up a SSF. The first time a Fault Investigation was sought, the company fell about laughing. You've been faffing around with the design, the fault is in a build standard we dont recognise, and aren't contracted to support.
The last time I managed a programme where the Service wanted a SSF, the decision was easy as they hadn't bothered costing it or including it in the endorsed requirement. On another occasion I inherited one where 3rd Line had set up a SSF. The first time a Fault Investigation was sought, the company fell about laughing. You've been faffing around with the design, the fault is in a build standard we dont recognise, and aren't contracted to support.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Sunny Side
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taking on the software is no joke but Huawei bought the source code of my former company some years ago and ..... surprise...... it looks like it was a smart move for them. Maintaining it is similar to any other effort - you have to train people and they have to practice doing it. It's not free of course but it can be done. At the very least you can work out what's going on when you have some problem by reading the code and should you need to reverse engineer it you start from a position where its potentially better than designing a new aircraft.
Most importantly though, if you feel that is all paranoia, you get to fix the bugs that matter to you - that your allies look like they aren't getting around to yet.
Most importantly though, if you feel that is all paranoia, you get to fix the bugs that matter to you - that your allies look like they aren't getting around to yet.
Now think about maintaining F35 software. And by maintaining I mean fixing, adapting, modifying etc. So, the source code, requirements and design documentation are needed. Then we need to understand it all. Then we need the development and test environment, including all the test harnesses and systems to simulate or emulate all of the interfaces, in genuine real time. Then we will need some sort of test rig to test the software in as close to its intended environment as possible. Finally, it will be tested on the real thing, the F35.
Then we will need to ensure that all of our documentation is kept up to date. We will need to do all of this every time we make a change. We will need to do it for everything our software interfaces with, eg weapons, kit we have no knowledge of – eg genuine black boxes – we may get the interface spec. Also everything external to the aircraft that we interface with to remain interoperable.
We have a long history of being able to do this. We did it to an extent for F3, GR1/4, Jag, MR2, R1, GR/3/5/7/9. We also have a long history of ******* it up.
Oh yes, and would we really do this for our fleet of 48 or so aircraft, whatever we end up with, and render our fleet non-interoperable and divergent from everyone else’s development?
There’s always someone who bangs on about access to source code in these sort of discussions. Oooh, we’ve secured access to the source code. Great, now what?
Do you have any idea what else is required to maintain this sort of complex software and everything else that is needed beyond the source code to be able to do it?
It is what is often referred to as ‘non-trivial’. The effing understatement to understate all understatements!
Do you have any idea what else is required to maintain this sort of complex software and everything else that is needed beyond the source code to be able to do it?
It is what is often referred to as ‘non-trivial’. The effing understatement to understate all understatements!
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Sunny Side
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Bournemouth
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shares of Eaton Corp. ETN, +2.21% edged up 0.3% in premarket trading Monday, after the power management company announced an agreement to buy air-to-air refueling systems company Cobham Mission Systems in a deal valued at $2.83 billion. The deal is expected to close in the second half of 2021. Eaton said the deal's value includes a tax benefit of $130 million. "Cobham Mission Systems' highly complementary products and strong position on growing defense platforms will enhance our fuel systems business and position our Aerospace business for future growth," said Heath Monesmith, president of industrial sector at Eaton. The stock rose 13.4% over the past three months through Friday, while the S&P 500 SPX, +1.43% advanced 13.6%.
What happened to the cast iron guarantee that Advent gave to the UK Trade and Industry Minister just under a year ago that it was not buying the Cobham Group to break up and sell off?? Cobham Aviation has already gone, now the jewel in the crown of Cobham's core division. I think quite a few others have been sold too.
Or was it our UK government cosying up to Trump back then to try and secure a post-Brexit trade deal that allowed the original sale to Advent to be waived through despite many legitimate concerns?
What happened to the cast iron guarantee that Advent gave to the UK Trade and Industry Minister just under a year ago that it was not buying the Cobham Group to break up and sell off?? Cobham Aviation has already gone, now the jewel in the crown of Cobham's core division. I think quite a few others have been sold too.
Or was it our UK government cosying up to Trump back then to try and secure a post-Brexit trade deal that allowed the original sale to Advent to be waived through despite many legitimate concerns?
Shares of Eaton Corp. ETN, +2.21% edged up 0.3% in premarket trading Monday, after the power management company announced an agreement to buy air-to-air refueling systems company Cobham Mission Systems in a deal valued at $2.83 billion. The deal is expected to close in the second half of 2021. Eaton said the deal's value includes a tax benefit of $130 million. "Cobham Mission Systems' highly complementary products and strong position on growing defense platforms will enhance our fuel systems business and position our Aerospace business for future growth," said Heath Monesmith, president of industrial sector at Eaton. The stock rose 13.4% over the past three months through Friday, while the S&P 500 SPX, +1.43% advanced 13.6%.
What happened to the cast iron guarantee that Advent gave to the UK Trade and Industry Minister just under a year ago that it was not buying the Cobham Group to break up and sell off?? Cobham Aviation has already gone, now the jewel in the crown of Cobham's core division. I think quite a few others have been sold too.
Or was it our UK government cosying up to Trump back then to try and secure a post-Brexit trade deal that allowed the original sale to Advent to be waived through despite many legitimate concerns?
What happened to the cast iron guarantee that Advent gave to the UK Trade and Industry Minister just under a year ago that it was not buying the Cobham Group to break up and sell off?? Cobham Aviation has already gone, now the jewel in the crown of Cobham's core division. I think quite a few others have been sold too.
Or was it our UK government cosying up to Trump back then to try and secure a post-Brexit trade deal that allowed the original sale to Advent to be waived through despite many legitimate concerns?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
With systems being built by US, Russian, Chinese, Israeli and other companies, what are the unique classified aspects which mean the government should step in? Are they afraid they won’t sell them to the RAF, sorry AirTanker, any more?
What would be the justification for intervention?
What would be the justification for intervention?
I can't say that I am really surprised at this. After all, Advent are 'Private Equity Investors'. They are there to break up companies and extract as much value from them as they can. They don't give a damn about the companies they buy as long as they turn a profit.
I say again, a division of Cobham has been sold by one US company to another US company. What is the issue here?
Air refuelling equipment is hardly an area where a domestic industrial capacity is needed to protect a national technological ‘edge’, as might be considered the case for radars or weapons or stealth technologies. It is just about the most straightforwardly functional, internationally-standardised bit of kit I can think of. As such I have no idea why anyone is remotely concerned about Cobham’s sale.
having a National Capability in one part of the Weapon System isn't worth a lot TBH e.g RR engines - fine - but if you can't afford the airframe what do really gain in "control"?
Probably SSN's are the only system the UK has that is more or less all built at home
Probably SSN's are the only system the UK has that is more or less all built at home
I expect so Easy - but the fact remains that everyone in UK industry will be banging the patriotic drum and have their hands out - it has to be doable, meaningful and affordable..............
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Norwich
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone on here tecnincally qualifed to design and build a 5th generation weapons platform? A simple and answerable question. An intergated system than does not fall flat? All aspects?