BWoS
Guest
Posts: n/a
BWoS
Re: RAF Training Thread
Why do people continue to rubbish BAE S (oft referred to as BWoS). The company has provided many fine aircraft for the RAF and others over several decades - and has always cut the mustard when it mattered. Profits and bums on seats are important to all companies (shareholders too): less so to customers. Customers are also less inclined to worry over such things as stretching production and retention of key staff during fallow times. They are also unconcerned at the knock-on effect of getting the spec right/wrong, and altering the goalposts during development.
All of this points to delays in production schedules and in-service deadlines, with (eg Typhoon) devastating consequencies for export.
BAE S is not squeeky-clean in the efficency department, but neither is it the rogue supplier that so many in UK like to make out.
Whinge over - back to my whine -------------
Why do people continue to rubbish BAE S (oft referred to as BWoS). The company has provided many fine aircraft for the RAF and others over several decades - and has always cut the mustard when it mattered. Profits and bums on seats are important to all companies (shareholders too): less so to customers. Customers are also less inclined to worry over such things as stretching production and retention of key staff during fallow times. They are also unconcerned at the knock-on effect of getting the spec right/wrong, and altering the goalposts during development.
All of this points to delays in production schedules and in-service deadlines, with (eg Typhoon) devastating consequencies for export.
BAE S is not squeeky-clean in the efficency department, but neither is it the rogue supplier that so many in UK like to make out.
Whinge over - back to my whine -------------
Well now, smartman, are you sure thou bain't 'Seth' as werrks for 't Bungling Baron Waste o' Space oop at 't werrks.....?
't Baron's products have been consistently delivered late, have been over budget and under performance. Apart from those small and inconsequential details, they've been fine....
Now sit thee sen down, Seth, an' have a nice piece o' pig pancreas pie... Tha's doon thee stuff right proper grand on 't PPRRRuNe website, tha' knows!!
't Baron's products have been consistently delivered late, have been over budget and under performance. Apart from those small and inconsequential details, they've been fine....
Now sit thee sen down, Seth, an' have a nice piece o' pig pancreas pie... Tha's doon thee stuff right proper grand on 't PPRRRuNe website, tha' knows!!
The real problem (IMHO) is that the interests of BAE (now it is a privately owned monopoly supplier) are diametrically opposed to those of the customer.
The company has, in fairness, provided some great aircraft in the past, but most of these were conceived when the company was state-owned, and where the needs of the customer outweighed the maximisation of shareholder value.
As aircraft service lives have extended BAE can no longer guarantee being able to dovetail from one production programme to the next, and has turned its guns to 'taking up the slack' by expanding into customer services and support activities. It has done so at the expense of excellent in-house services, and these in-house capabilities have been destroyed or jettisoned, leaving no way back.
BAE's servicing, upgrade and service provision contracts have inevitably been more expensive than the in-house solutions which they replaced in the long term (and sometimes in the short) and have been characterised by greed and lack of care. Risk averse senior officers and civil servants running the IPTs have seldom wanted to do anything other than place all work with BAE as the OEM or DA (original equipment manufacturer and/or design authority) and this has tended to reinforce the company's monopolistic position.
Tired comparisons between the cost, success and effectiveness of the Tornado GR4 upgrade by BAE vice the RAF/DERA/DARO Jaguar upgrade have been aired many times on this board, but do provide a stark illustration of what is possible, versus what happens when BAE are allowed to function monopolistically, and help to explain the level of cynicism and hostility to BAE among aircrew and journos.
The company has, in fairness, provided some great aircraft in the past, but most of these were conceived when the company was state-owned, and where the needs of the customer outweighed the maximisation of shareholder value.
As aircraft service lives have extended BAE can no longer guarantee being able to dovetail from one production programme to the next, and has turned its guns to 'taking up the slack' by expanding into customer services and support activities. It has done so at the expense of excellent in-house services, and these in-house capabilities have been destroyed or jettisoned, leaving no way back.
BAE's servicing, upgrade and service provision contracts have inevitably been more expensive than the in-house solutions which they replaced in the long term (and sometimes in the short) and have been characterised by greed and lack of care. Risk averse senior officers and civil servants running the IPTs have seldom wanted to do anything other than place all work with BAE as the OEM or DA (original equipment manufacturer and/or design authority) and this has tended to reinforce the company's monopolistic position.
Tired comparisons between the cost, success and effectiveness of the Tornado GR4 upgrade by BAE vice the RAF/DERA/DARO Jaguar upgrade have been aired many times on this board, but do provide a stark illustration of what is possible, versus what happens when BAE are allowed to function monopolistically, and help to explain the level of cynicism and hostility to BAE among aircrew and journos.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: City of Culture
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having worked with BAes on a contract all I can say is that what ppl say about the company is all completely true. However I don't think the problem is BAes senior management its was the MOD chiefs in charge of the project.
There was no oversight by the customer.
Never a single suggestion as to what they actually wanted.
They even let us write down the acceptance critiea for the project. Thats an open suggestion to fleece a customer.
If you do things like this expect to be taken for a ride.
PS:: thx for paying for my new Ford Mondeo
There was no oversight by the customer.
Never a single suggestion as to what they actually wanted.
They even let us write down the acceptance critiea for the project. Thats an open suggestion to fleece a customer.
If you do things like this expect to be taken for a ride.
PS:: thx for paying for my new Ford Mondeo
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
when will we learn and just buy american. it works, the price is set at the start and stays at that price, the backup is always going to be there. i happily accept that bae has come up with some brilliant kit, it just takes forever to come into service and when it does its never at the level that it should have been. jsf will arrive ready to do everything it says it will. the new herc is a bit slow but will still be carrying out all bar sf roles within a year, only about 4 years after coming into service. whats the plan for eurofighter, 10 years for full capability? look at the other programs on the line at the moment, all are late and getting later. lets just admit we cant do what the yanks can and just use what they have.
Well, as I commented on the Nimrod thread, I think the problem is down to bad management, which is unforgivable. ANY Engineering student could see the failings in the MRA4 project.
Jacko, unusually I agree with you. It was a sad day when BAe and (most of) GEC Marconi merged. Apart from meaning most UK defence work is dominatted by a single monolith, what was left of Marconi has withered.
The really worrying thing is that they nor MANAGE entire programmes, instead of the relevant service. We've heard how they wrote daft specs for the cockpit electronics for the MRA4. Although it is not aircraft related, it might interest you to know that the Combat Management System for the Astute class SSN was selected by the BAES Astute project office, and not the Navy or the MOD.
Producing fuctional specifications and choosing sub-systems should be the role of the Service(s) and the DPA, NOT anyone else. At least thats what I think.
And I agree with AC that the MOD must accept its part of the blame. I don't mean the front line guys doing procurement jobs here, but some of the faceless DPA civil servants with dubious backgrounds (example, found on the net, a Social "Science" graduate now at the DPA trying to be an Engineer but still looking at things from an arty farty "there are no wrong answers" viewpoint).
Apolegies for my bitterness.
Jacko, unusually I agree with you. It was a sad day when BAe and (most of) GEC Marconi merged. Apart from meaning most UK defence work is dominatted by a single monolith, what was left of Marconi has withered.
The really worrying thing is that they nor MANAGE entire programmes, instead of the relevant service. We've heard how they wrote daft specs for the cockpit electronics for the MRA4. Although it is not aircraft related, it might interest you to know that the Combat Management System for the Astute class SSN was selected by the BAES Astute project office, and not the Navy or the MOD.
Producing fuctional specifications and choosing sub-systems should be the role of the Service(s) and the DPA, NOT anyone else. At least thats what I think.
And I agree with AC that the MOD must accept its part of the blame. I don't mean the front line guys doing procurement jobs here, but some of the faceless DPA civil servants with dubious backgrounds (example, found on the net, a Social "Science" graduate now at the DPA trying to be an Engineer but still looking at things from an arty farty "there are no wrong answers" viewpoint).
Apolegies for my bitterness.
American kit is no better, unless you buy it when it's mature, and sometimes not even then.
You talk about Eurofighter, just take a look at the huge problems with F-22.
If we'd bought C-17 when it was new we'd have suffered huge problems.
C-130J? Longbow Apache? Chinook HC3? Hardly examples of trouble-free procurement programmes.
If there's a lesson, it's to 'buy mature'. Buy C-17 NOW. Buy F-15E NOW. Buy Gripen NOW.
You talk about Eurofighter, just take a look at the huge problems with F-22.
If we'd bought C-17 when it was new we'd have suffered huge problems.
C-130J? Longbow Apache? Chinook HC3? Hardly examples of trouble-free procurement programmes.
If there's a lesson, it's to 'buy mature'. Buy C-17 NOW. Buy F-15E NOW. Buy Gripen NOW.
Before we go overboard in praise of American equipment, fine though much of it is, I noticed last weeks announcement that F22 is 695Million dollars over budget. Maybe thats the cost of developing weapon systems, rather than the unrealistic bids made in the first place in order to secure projects. If the true costs were bid, half our defence projects would be dead before the start.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Juliet --
'stays at that price - it works - back-up always there'
A little naivety in your remarks ?? Try asking some current F18 customers (for example) about price hikes and access to in-service operating codes (radar, weapons etc).
And if anyone perceives that 'participating nations' will have full access to the more 'sensitive' aspects of JSF development, and that the aircraft will arrive on time and as advertised --- dream on.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a knocker of US kit - but I don't wear rose-tinted specs either
'stays at that price - it works - back-up always there'
A little naivety in your remarks ?? Try asking some current F18 customers (for example) about price hikes and access to in-service operating codes (radar, weapons etc).
And if anyone perceives that 'participating nations' will have full access to the more 'sensitive' aspects of JSF development, and that the aircraft will arrive on time and as advertised --- dream on.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a knocker of US kit - but I don't wear rose-tinted specs either
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
point taken, fair enough. maybe i should have said, like what was brought up, that we should be buying mature kit instead. either way i think that we would be much better off either buying into US programs or just waiting until their stuff is ready and working. the amount of money that is poured into the industry over here and the end result just dont seem to match up. put that money into systems that we know work. if we are desperate to keep defence contractors over here, and i guess that we should, then let them licence build or handle upgrades, even develop their own stuff to go into the kit. there has got to be some sort of control on expenditure though because as it stands the people we have now know they can provide any old thing at any price above what was quoted and the govt will pay.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All Hail to the Great and Wonderful BWoS
Dear forum, sorry about the delay in rising to my own defence. This is just as bad as leaving the bar to go for a leak... no sooner out the door than everyone is talking about you.
Juliet
Other massively successful programmes from the US that you might like to research are: F111, Valkyrie, B2, B1, DIVAD. Not all that glitters is gold!!
Smartman
How can you defend BWoS after Nimwacs, MRA4, Typhoid, Tornado F3, Astute, Type 45....and on and on and on
Why is there a problem with such a fine cadre of engineers one might ask? Dunno, but there definitely is. By the way, what is this "fantastic BWoS Kit" that keeps getting mentioned?
As some famous soldier once said:
"Put your faith in God... and keep your Tornado dry!"
BEagle.. Say 2 Hail marys, and drop the awful accent...!
The Reverend R.E.D. Caption
Juliet
Other massively successful programmes from the US that you might like to research are: F111, Valkyrie, B2, B1, DIVAD. Not all that glitters is gold!!
Smartman
How can you defend BWoS after Nimwacs, MRA4, Typhoid, Tornado F3, Astute, Type 45....and on and on and on
Why is there a problem with such a fine cadre of engineers one might ask? Dunno, but there definitely is. By the way, what is this "fantastic BWoS Kit" that keeps getting mentioned?
As some famous soldier once said:
"Put your faith in God... and keep your Tornado dry!"
BEagle.. Say 2 Hail marys, and drop the awful accent...!
The Reverend R.E.D. Caption
"what is this "fantastic BWoS Kit" that keeps getting mentioned?"
Hawk (still the best advanced trainer money can buy). That alone is an impressive achievement, to which you can add some fantastic firsts - Jaguar ACT, and EAP to name but two. And a long history of good solid production programmes involving some fine or at least respectable aircraft. Canberra, Lightning, JP/Strikemaster, Jaguar, Tornado GR1, One Eleven, Harrier GR, Sea Harrier.
And Typhoon looks like being a great airframe/engine combination, and is still cheaper than an F-15, let alone an F-22.
Hawk (still the best advanced trainer money can buy). That alone is an impressive achievement, to which you can add some fantastic firsts - Jaguar ACT, and EAP to name but two. And a long history of good solid production programmes involving some fine or at least respectable aircraft. Canberra, Lightning, JP/Strikemaster, Jaguar, Tornado GR1, One Eleven, Harrier GR, Sea Harrier.
And Typhoon looks like being a great airframe/engine combination, and is still cheaper than an F-15, let alone an F-22.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackonicko
My dear boy...
I would hate to argue, but I think your list rather proved my point. Let us examine it a little closer:
Lightning - English Electric
Canberra - EE (?)
Jaguar - (fantastic? .... maybe now, after goodness knows how many upgrades)
Harrier / SHAR - Hawker
As for the Active Control Jag and the EAP.... OK, its a fair cop, but where are the operational platforms that they should have spawned?
The Hawk is OK, and I will concede the point there... no wait.. wasn't it designed by Hawker as well? So it was...... Looks like my comment still stands, Soz.
God looks after the wicked.
The Reverend
I would hate to argue, but I think your list rather proved my point. Let us examine it a little closer:
Lightning - English Electric
Canberra - EE (?)
Jaguar - (fantastic? .... maybe now, after goodness knows how many upgrades)
Harrier / SHAR - Hawker
As for the Active Control Jag and the EAP.... OK, its a fair cop, but where are the operational platforms that they should have spawned?
The Hawk is OK, and I will concede the point there... no wait.. wasn't it designed by Hawker as well? So it was......
Looks like my comment still stands, Soz.God looks after the wicked.
The Reverend
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Uk
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Adverts!
As I read the torygraph on a regular basis I've noticed adverts from BWOS claiming credit for amongst other things the Harrier and the Spitfire!
Now then lads! I hate to question this but when were you formed as a company again!
Now then lads! I hate to question this but when were you formed as a company again!
I believe that the Spit is what is known as a 'legacy system'... The legacy being that it's possibly the only piece of kit associated with BWoS that entered service on time and worked pretty much as advertised straight away (apart from the gun freezing problem at altitude)
After all, the RAF still uses them - I wonder why BWoS don't claim the Lancaster and the Hurricane as 'theirs' too??
After all, the RAF still uses them - I wonder why BWoS don't claim the Lancaster and the Hurricane as 'theirs' too??
Rev,
You could say that BWoS have never designed a bad aircraft. Since they've never designed an aircraft from scratch on their own, with the exception of the EAP.....
Or you could say that apart from EAP they've never designed a good one!
On a serious note, however, no reasonable person would dispute that the Hawk is a fantastic aircraft (not just OK) and that the Jaguar was similarly special, in its day. Even the Tornado was a remarkable achievement when it entered service.
You could say that BWoS have never designed a bad aircraft. Since they've never designed an aircraft from scratch on their own, with the exception of the EAP.....
Or you could say that apart from EAP they've never designed a good one!
On a serious note, however, no reasonable person would dispute that the Hawk is a fantastic aircraft (not just OK) and that the Jaguar was similarly special, in its day. Even the Tornado was a remarkable achievement when it entered service.
Was at a meeting once which involved equipment proposal presentations from both BWoS and Marshalls. Marshalls presentation was delivered by a smartly dressed chap who put up slides which looked as though they'd come straight from an existing manual - '3D' images, nice and clear...
Then BWoS did theirs. Some scruffy bloke (who looked a bit like 'Q') stood up and droned through his presentation. The slides were ancient drawings which had the new bits pencilled in (literally) and were dark and out of focus....
Which one would I have bought a used car from? Not BWoS, for sure!!
Question for our God-bothering chum: If God is so bleeding marvellous, why the heck did she decide to invent the wasp?
Then BWoS did theirs. Some scruffy bloke (who looked a bit like 'Q') stood up and droned through his presentation. The slides were ancient drawings which had the new bits pencilled in (literally) and were dark and out of focus....
Which one would I have bought a used car from? Not BWoS, for sure!!
Question for our God-bothering chum: If God is so bleeding marvellous, why the heck did she decide to invent the wasp?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Rev Caption
BAE S evolved from mergers of British aircraft manufacturers which were responsible for everything from SE2 (?) onwards. So is your criticism aimed at the Uk aircraft industry per se, or simply the Warton empire?
Rev --- agree with the accent bit
BAE S evolved from mergers of British aircraft manufacturers which were responsible for everything from SE2 (?) onwards. So is your criticism aimed at the Uk aircraft industry per se, or simply the Warton empire?
Rev --- agree with the accent bit
Join Date: May 2001
Location: South Lincs
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle -
Methinks the Baron has indeed asked Seth to try and straight out that awful PPRuNe crowd on how great the Warton crowd are - i mean someone important might actually read this stuff!!!
Jacko -
"still the best advanced trainer money can buy" what absolute sh**te" are you trying to get Seths job ??? I think Aer Macchi and Lockheed / KAI might have something to say about that!!!
---BWoS suck - fact not conjecture and that they demand to be given sole source on projects when NOT A SINGLE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM LESS THAN 2 YEARS LATE....
Methinks the Baron has indeed asked Seth to try and straight out that awful PPRuNe crowd on how great the Warton crowd are - i mean someone important might actually read this stuff!!!
Jacko -
"still the best advanced trainer money can buy" what absolute sh**te" are you trying to get Seths job ??? I think Aer Macchi and Lockheed / KAI might have something to say about that!!!
---BWoS suck - fact not conjecture and that they demand to be given sole source on projects when NOT A SINGLE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM LESS THAN 2 YEARS LATE....