UAE bins BAE
 

I see that, against expectations, the UAE has just eliminated BAE and the Hawk from its new training jet procurement competition.
Could this be because BAE now feel unable to play according to middle eastern rules, ie offering sweeteners, after the liberal chattering classes backlash over the Tornado deal with the Saudis? Bet the Koreans and Italians have no such scruples.

Hardly surprising really. On practically every count, Hawk stands little chance in any competition for a modern advanced jet trainer, which of course is why the UK MoD elected not to hold a competition for its UKMFTS AJT.

What absolute and utter tosh.

The modern Hawk (LIFT/127/128 etc.) is an excellent trainer for any modern fast jet pilot, if expensive.

Despite a high price tag, Hawk has won trainer competitions again and again, and deservedly so, and the RAF's selection of 128 to meet the AJT requirement is a rare example of common sense over narrow bean-counting.

The relevance of the T-50's supersonic speed capability can be guaged by the amount of supersonic sorties in the current USAF T-38 training syllabus.

Apart from the issues referred to by Clockwork Mouse, above, one might wonder whether the UAE has calculated that one of the other candidates represents a better dedicated trainer for its 80-strong fleet of F-16E/Fs, or perhaps whether the decision reflects the muddled thinking that saw them cling to the dual-role trainer/light attack Mako for quite so long.

Ahhhh Jacko!

Long time no speak. I see your still banging the 'It provides jobs in SW England, it must be the best solution' drum.
Havent heard that since you berated the tried, tested, and often demanded Chinook in favour of the 3 engined Merlin.
Don't know much about jets, so you may well be right this time, but personally, I wouldn't have anything to do with BAe/Westlands if my life depended on it.

My opinion, not saying its right

WM

Ah, Mr WokkaMeister,

We meet again.

Your characterisation of my position on Merlin is wrong, however.

I'm a huge fan of the Chinook. If you want a heavylift helo with triple hooks and massive capability, then I'd say "Buy Chinook and accept no substitute."

And I'd be the first to say that the RAF would be the poorer without its Chinook force, make no mistake.

But do we need more Chinooks?

Is the Chinook a more suitable aircraft where you need availability, speed and a much smaller noise signature?

I don't think so, and I can see a useful role for more Merlins, especially if they're fully folding and marinised, like the last Eyetie cabs.

The Chinook and the Merlin are complementary, which is why the US Army is absolutely right to be buying CH-47Fs while the Marines get VH-71s for the Presidential mission (and the USAF should be Merlinning for CSAR-X).

As to the Hawk, the jobs it provides are in 'Black Pudding and Whippet' land, not in the SouthWest, and the long line of satisfied customers ought to reassure you as to the aircraft's qualities. And I'd sooner trust a BAE Hawk than a South Korean T-50 or an Italo-Russian M346.

I'm not one of those 'British is always best' merchants, and will happily beat a range of rhythms on my drum.

But I worry that your simplistic 'British-built is always inferior' beat will be too monotonous to stand for long...... :p

The Chinook and the Merlin are complementary, which is why the US Army is absolutely right to be buying CH-47Fs while the Marines get VH-71s for the Presidential mission (and the USAF should be Merlinning for CSAR-X).

The only reason why those VH-71's exist is because Chimpy Jr. wanted to do Tony B. a political favor.

The Merlin has a crummy payload fraction, a high center of gravity, and the fuel tanks are in the wrong place.

And please tell us why or how a Merlin could be a lot quieter than an H-47.

If you can ask that, you clearly haven't heard either helicopter, mate.

As far as I'm concerned, BAe can go scratch for scorpions. Buffoons think that the MoD is there to provide for their fecking pensions. About time someone, UAE or otherwise, told them to go swivel.

And there was me thinking that BAES are like Boeing, Airbus, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Westlands and all those car manufacturers making and selling all their wares for the love of the job and are non profit making and all pay for their own pensions out of their own pockets, god am I embarrassed now :O.

BAE have, on occasion f*cked up.

BAE have, on occasion, delivered aircraft with less than stellar capability, or aircraft that have been flawed by major problems.

But they have done so no more than Boeing, Lockmart, or any other manufacturer.

And yes, since they ceased to be a nationalised company they have existed to make profits and to maximise shareholder value, and not to serve the RAF (which was once a major driver). Since then, they've filled gaps between programmes by moving into support, which they provide on a basis that is driven by profit and short term interests (investors today aren't in it for the long haul).

It's been many years since BAE was the de facto industrial arm of the MoD, and in my view a degree of 'arm's length' distance and a slightly adversarial attitude is useful.

But BAE is not the great satan, and if you took the chance to visit the Typhoon line at Warton, and the design offices, you'd find that there are good, dedicated people who are dedicated to providing you blokes with the kit you need, who are enthusiasts for aviation and the UK military, and who go the extra mile if there's work to do on a UOR.

All this Bungling Baron Boris stuff is jolly amusing, but the blokes who work for BAE are among your more steadfast and loyal supporters among the tax-paying public (just as we specialist journos are), and include large numbers of ex-servicemen.

Unlike many Conservative Politicians, who talk the talk on defence, but who are not committed to the Forces, or defence spending, except as a political thing. But who seem to be able to do no wrong in many people's eyes here on PPRuNe.

Tosh? You talk to me about Tosh?

Well trousered Jacko! I fail to understand (not difficult these days) the reasoning for remarks such as those made by Mr Bernoulli - especially as his profile and other posts suggest a greater level of intelligence and awareness. But then we are in a virtual crewroom I suppose.

Chewing this one over in a bar, I was told by senior QFI colleague that Hawk 128 is a bit of a millstone around the neck of MFTS. It is a very expensive beast and was forced on the partner companies as a pre-condition. The operator's preference would be for the Aermacchi M311/M346 combination to provide the total FJ training solution. However, Sir Sydney Camm once said that aircraft have 4 dimensions - length, height, span and politics.

Brain potter, I'm inclined to agree. I agree with Jacko that the hawk (especially the modern variety) is a fantastic bit of kit, and a good training platform. However..... it's not part of the training system that the bidders want to provide, so they're having to design around having the hawk, rather than starting from the ground up which is surely the preferable solution...

My money too would have been on the M311/346 combo; but then again I might have been swayed if a better case were put forward by a competitor in a fair and balanced competition, and with the benefit of the wider Requirements picture. It is common knowledge that BAe made it clear that they would not have participated in a competition had the MoD elected to have one. Now there's confidence for you. There's also a mega corporate bully.
.
The MoD's well reasoned recommendation - to hold a fair and balanced competition - went in to the Cabinet, and the decision to ignore best practice and select H128 was the Cabinet's decision, completely against that advice. And it took the Dec(TA), IPT, Customer 2 and the whole FJ community by complete surprise. Thereafter UKMFTS were compelled to write the URD/SRD in conjunction with BAe in order to ensure that we didn't ask for more than the H128 could achieve. Barking, or what.
.
I'm not saying H128 isn't going to be a fine training platform; I'm saying we'll never know just how much better a competitor might have been over the period of UKMFTS (25 years). Well actually we will know, when other nations (like UAE perhaps) make their choices without the baggage of British politics.
.
Tosh? Maybe. But if you want to read some real tosh? Go back 5 posts and read #10 by someone who clearly writes with an agenda.

……..”But BAE is not the great satan, and if you took the chance to visit the Typhoon line at Warton, and the design offices, you'd find that there are good, dedicated people who are dedicated to providing you blokes with the kit you need, who are enthusiasts for aviation and the UK military, and who go the extra mile if there's work to do on a UOR.

All this Bungling Baron Boris stuff is jolly amusing, but the blokes who work for BAE are among your more steadfast and loyal supporters among the tax-paying public (just as we specialist journos are), and include large numbers of ex-servicemen.”……..

If one was to poll ‘T’Bungling Baron’ (to quote one learned colleague on here....) one would be surprised by the number of ex-servicemen employed by said employer. Is it the intention of persons ‘unknown’ to deny the employment of ‘ex servicemen’? Who fore would all you self confessed ‘experts’ suggest provides the ‘UK’ solution to UK military issues? Who awards the contracts?

It wasn’t a happy time oop at ‘t werrks.....

“Seth”, bellowed ‘t Bungling Baron Waste o’ Space “what do ‘t little brown boogers in Derrbeye think they’re oop to? Buyin’ soom Eytie jet? Well, ah’ll go to ‘t foot o’ owerr sterrs”

This was, in fact, something of a rhetorical question. For, as Seth knew only too well, ‘t Baron’s offer of a ‘a nice little sweetenerr’ had fallen on deaf ears in the Gulf. Despite ‘t Baron’s protestations that his nice new Rolls was “Nowt to do wi ‘t Saudi TypHoons, tha’ knows”, it seemed that others were beginning to worry that ‘t Baron’s wealth was beginning to exceed that of his company.

Seth wisely declined to comment, lest his master’s foul temper worsened. Even Boogeroff, ‘t Baron’s ageing and flatulent whippet merely whimpered plaintively at the outburst, before loosing off an alphabet of vitamins concealed in a noxious cloud of barely digested ram’s testicle tart which he’d quietly stolen from ‘t Baron’s breakfast tray.

The Baron mused further about his recent trip to ‘t land o’sand an’ brass’, as he put it – and his meeting with the local Emir...

“Now Abdul, lad, have another pig pancreas pie an’ a nice drop of dandelion an’ burrdock an’ we’ll have another look at ‘t price”, he announced to the Emir.

“But, Baron, we wish to buy a modern aeroplane at a sensible price”, came the reply.

“Nay, nay, lad. Tha’ needs a well proven British design, tha’ knows. Didn’t old Mad Maggie tell thee as such?”

“Indeed, over a quarter of a century ago we bought such things as you say. What, pray, have you designed since then which is new?”

“Well, ‘t lads have coome oop wi’ a new nose ferr ‘t ‘awk. An’ soom nice new TVs in ‘t cockpit”

“But Baron, an old camel with a new saddle is still an old camel”, said the Emir.............

As indeed it truly is.

About the Merlin’s alleged lower noise and suitability for Search And Rescue missions: Here’s a comparison of disk loadings for SAR rotorcraft candidates:

http://www.aerospace-technology.com/...s92/specs.html

S-92

max. Gross Weight ( internal load ) – 11,862 kg
Rotor radius – 8.6 m



CH-47D-47E

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/chinook/specs.html


max. Gross Weight - 24,494 kg
rotor radius - 9.15 m ( each rotor )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merlin_helicopter

Merlin HM1

Max. takeoff weight (?) – 15,600 kg
Rotor radius – 9.3 m

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-22_Osprey#Specifications_.28MV-22B.29

MV-22B

Max. takeoff weight – 27,400 kg
Rotor radius – 5.8 m ( each rotor )

Let’s compare disk loadings:

S-92 – 51.1
Chinook - 46.4
Magical Mystery Merlin – 57.4
V-22 – 129.7

I suppose Merlin was designed with a smaller diameter rotor to facilitate shipbard operation. However, higher disk loading has its drawbacks:

Quoting from the sometimes reliable Wikipedia:

“Disk loading

Disk Loading is the pressure (weight force divided by disk area) maintained over the swept area of a helicopter's rotor. A heavy helicopter with short rotors will have more disk loading than a light helicopter with long rotors.”

Higher disk loading also implies more noise and higher velocity and pressure downwash in hover, 'cuz highly loaded rotors is probably turning at higher angular velocity to induce/transmit equivalent (air mass*velocity^2)/2 to a smaller diameter virtual column of air, compared to a helo. with lower disk loading – Elmo

P.S. What is Merlin’s disk r.p.m. when three engines are operating? Does anyone know?

Nice.
Don't really care what the Merlins RRPM is, but the Wokka's is 225RPM.

WM

‘Twas never a happy time where those from t’land of all things south were concerned, too busy bothering themselves wi’ Poofter Frogs & house prices to bother wi’ real isues methinks…

T’was surely not as was stated by noble squire Beagle…‘…a nice little sweetenerr’….???

T’was but destined fert first world market methinks……. Not ‘ter worry…. ‘Southern knobs who know nowt ‘bout werks ’’ll put us right cos they’ll know better, havin’ more knowledge & experience than us northerners.. After all the centre of aircraft design is in the Sou… Oops… erm I mean North … right?

Good’t see Mr Bernouli has a rational take on things….. Sooner you realise what t’real world is ’bout instead of what’s in your little imagination, sooner you’ll know what makes world go round lad….

As for ‘Seth’….One thing Northerners (Yorkies & Lancies) are renowned for… Is a realistic take on things…not the deluded ramblings of Southerner has-beens…