European Closed Helicopter Markets
Guest
Posts: n/a
Oh there will be many, many sub contractors and no doubt lots of British Industries will benefit and its pleasing to see that Rosyth may well benefit - Rather them than Hapag-Lloyd !!!!!
But at the end of the day Thales are the prime contractors and they are French. Why not let BAe build the ships...
Oh, Yeah. Sorry forgot. BWoS were too busy. Order books too full for that week !!!!
But at the end of the day Thales are the prime contractors and they are French. Why not let BAe build the ships...
Oh, Yeah. Sorry forgot. BWoS were too busy. Order books too full for that week !!!!
"........what about licence production of the right kit though? Do we have the clout to buy and build from abroad, or is it simply politics that keep us struggling with inadequate kit?"
The only significant licensing arrangement I've had dealings with is Sea King, from Sikorsky. (Insisted on long ago, and paid for, by MoD. Politics). God, we suffered. Nothing wrong with the aircraft itself, but we were tied to expensive, long lead, spares. We were a minor user, so bottom of the food chain every time. Could never predict when spares would arrive, and to what standard - regardless of what contracts said. Cost a fortune, and eventually we bought it out (cheaply, as luck would have it).
In my experience, the real problem with buying from abroad is the procurer (usually DPA in the first instance) seldom learns from experience to set up UK based support facilities in advance. Time and again that has been the solution to support problems. In avionics especially, by all means buy abroad but never, never, agree to anything being supported abroad. Your turn round times go out the window. Never mind the prime equipment, the first thing in the contract is a maintained set of secondary masters and an agreement that we appoint a UK Design Custodian. Works every time. (Ask your typical MoD PM to explain that one. Most wouldn't know what it means). That's why a little company in Gateshead called Joyce Loebl are so highly thought of. They specialise in supporting US-built kit for us, faster, better, more cheaply. (Heard that slogan somewhere before). Never once let me down in nearly 30 years. Neither have Westlands actually.
We used to have to submit a "Crown Eagle" to explain why we were not recommending French companies in the tender list. I once wrote "Because the only one who could possibly do it is crap, and WILL let us down". Produced historical evidence, and the contract went to the UK company I recommended, who delivered on time. As a result, RN SK6s actually flew for most of the 90s. (You'll never know how close you were to not!). The source of the problem? A single component bought from the US. The company (Westinghouse) pulled the plug with no warning. Low volume, didn't want to know. The UK company did the business - and gained much more because of their ingenuity.
Yes, I agree there are UK companies with poor track records, but MoD PMs used to have the authority to deal with them. That is, don't give them contracts if they let you down more than once. (That doesn't mean to say Joe Bloggs' with 20 factories is blacklisted because one factory didn't deliver - just that one factory, or perhaps that one product range. More often than not they'd ask what we thought they could do to improve, they'd implement change, and it's back on the list). Upset industry nowadays and it's disciplinary action. I'd say most companies deliver what is specified and what we are prepared to pay for. If you specify low, and don't have money - well that's not entirely their fault.
The only significant licensing arrangement I've had dealings with is Sea King, from Sikorsky. (Insisted on long ago, and paid for, by MoD. Politics). God, we suffered. Nothing wrong with the aircraft itself, but we were tied to expensive, long lead, spares. We were a minor user, so bottom of the food chain every time. Could never predict when spares would arrive, and to what standard - regardless of what contracts said. Cost a fortune, and eventually we bought it out (cheaply, as luck would have it).
In my experience, the real problem with buying from abroad is the procurer (usually DPA in the first instance) seldom learns from experience to set up UK based support facilities in advance. Time and again that has been the solution to support problems. In avionics especially, by all means buy abroad but never, never, agree to anything being supported abroad. Your turn round times go out the window. Never mind the prime equipment, the first thing in the contract is a maintained set of secondary masters and an agreement that we appoint a UK Design Custodian. Works every time. (Ask your typical MoD PM to explain that one. Most wouldn't know what it means). That's why a little company in Gateshead called Joyce Loebl are so highly thought of. They specialise in supporting US-built kit for us, faster, better, more cheaply. (Heard that slogan somewhere before). Never once let me down in nearly 30 years. Neither have Westlands actually.
We used to have to submit a "Crown Eagle" to explain why we were not recommending French companies in the tender list. I once wrote "Because the only one who could possibly do it is crap, and WILL let us down". Produced historical evidence, and the contract went to the UK company I recommended, who delivered on time. As a result, RN SK6s actually flew for most of the 90s. (You'll never know how close you were to not!). The source of the problem? A single component bought from the US. The company (Westinghouse) pulled the plug with no warning. Low volume, didn't want to know. The UK company did the business - and gained much more because of their ingenuity.
Yes, I agree there are UK companies with poor track records, but MoD PMs used to have the authority to deal with them. That is, don't give them contracts if they let you down more than once. (That doesn't mean to say Joe Bloggs' with 20 factories is blacklisted because one factory didn't deliver - just that one factory, or perhaps that one product range. More often than not they'd ask what we thought they could do to improve, they'd implement change, and it's back on the list). Upset industry nowadays and it's disciplinary action. I'd say most companies deliver what is specified and what we are prepared to pay for. If you specify low, and don't have money - well that's not entirely their fault.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ppheli,
Your silly anger is misplaced, the Defense News article that was excerpted had the full details of the suit, so they did their job.
The quote is from the Agusta position that feels that such protectionism is entirely OK, a position that the Italian government agrees with (you know who the italian government is, don't you? They are the owners of Agusta-Westland Helicopters).
Your point is also off base, because you would have us believe that:
1) the court case is the way to establish open markets (it is not)
2) that the court case will be lost by Italy (who fight to keep the market closed) - no such assurance!
3) That just because one purchase was open means that it ok to close others. Either the UK is competitive or it is not, you don't get to chose when to be fair.
Your silly anger is misplaced, the Defense News article that was excerpted had the full details of the suit, so they did their job.
The quote is from the Agusta position that feels that such protectionism is entirely OK, a position that the Italian government agrees with (you know who the italian government is, don't you? They are the owners of Agusta-Westland Helicopters).
Your point is also off base, because you would have us believe that:
1) the court case is the way to establish open markets (it is not)
2) that the court case will be lost by Italy (who fight to keep the market closed) - no such assurance!
3) That just because one purchase was open means that it ok to close others. Either the UK is competitive or it is not, you don't get to chose when to be fair.
Nick,
I was in agreement that the initial post was demonstrating protectionism, and was saying it was understandable for a number of reasons. The same is true for any country. The point I was trying to make was ; state it openly, not behind other excuses.
Here's a quote that led to my mis-understanding of your company's position. I have no axe to grind or desire to drag out the subject, but you did ask (I agree you use the word security, but also safety. Obviously I confused the two.)
Sikorsky Program Director Nick Lappos said, “The VH-92 is not just to fly the president, but it represents the first of a new generation of medium-lift helicopters for the U.S. military.” He added that the VH-92 meets the highest standards for safety and security, and reinforced Sikorsky’s “all-American” argument, pointing out that virtually all of the helicopter’s components—from the transmission and rotor blades to the sophisticated navigation and communications systems—will be made in the United States by American workers, most of whom have top-secret security clearance.
Noting that any helicopter serving a U.S. president must meet top security requirements and that “core vital components of the US101 will be made overseas,” Lappos asked, “How do you get top secret clearance for a guy making rotor blades overseas? Is the product manufactured and maintained in an environment that assures the safety and security of the president?”
I was in agreement that the initial post was demonstrating protectionism, and was saying it was understandable for a number of reasons. The same is true for any country. The point I was trying to make was ; state it openly, not behind other excuses.
Here's a quote that led to my mis-understanding of your company's position. I have no axe to grind or desire to drag out the subject, but you did ask (I agree you use the word security, but also safety. Obviously I confused the two.)
Sikorsky Program Director Nick Lappos said, “The VH-92 is not just to fly the president, but it represents the first of a new generation of medium-lift helicopters for the U.S. military.” He added that the VH-92 meets the highest standards for safety and security, and reinforced Sikorsky’s “all-American” argument, pointing out that virtually all of the helicopter’s components—from the transmission and rotor blades to the sophisticated navigation and communications systems—will be made in the United States by American workers, most of whom have top-secret security clearance.
Noting that any helicopter serving a U.S. president must meet top security requirements and that “core vital components of the US101 will be made overseas,” Lappos asked, “How do you get top secret clearance for a guy making rotor blades overseas? Is the product manufactured and maintained in an environment that assures the safety and security of the president?”
212man,
The salient point for the VH competition is security...as it has been since the inception of the Presidential helicopter. Take a visit to the HM-1 Squadron area in the DC area. You will note big signs telling of the "Use of Deadly Force Authorized". That is the level of importance placed upon maintaining security of the President and his conveyances.
The "all American" concept does not necessarily suggest safety concerns per se are the issue....the safety aspect as to un-cleared persons working on sensitive items for the aircraft has always been an issue. Those folks have to have a security vetting by our government before they lay hands on the items.
Per our security requirements....it requires American hands. That was the issue that got obscured in the argument.
The salient point for the VH competition is security...as it has been since the inception of the Presidential helicopter. Take a visit to the HM-1 Squadron area in the DC area. You will note big signs telling of the "Use of Deadly Force Authorized". That is the level of importance placed upon maintaining security of the President and his conveyances.
The "all American" concept does not necessarily suggest safety concerns per se are the issue....the safety aspect as to un-cleared persons working on sensitive items for the aircraft has always been an issue. Those folks have to have a security vetting by our government before they lay hands on the items.
Per our security requirements....it requires American hands. That was the issue that got obscured in the argument.
Hyd3failure,
It is a Thales (UK) design that has been chosen as CVF, designed in the UK. It will now be engineered and developed by a BAES/Thales consortium with integration of the entire project by KBR, who are a US firm.
I think that makes it about as British as you can get!
Jobzaguddun,
What about licence production? Been done, in the sixties, when a whole raft of indigenous (and mainly impractical and ill-conceived) aircraft projects were cancelled we had the Sea King licence built by Westland, well over 50% of the F-4K/M Phantom was built in the UK in addition to the RR engines.
Prior to that the Wessex was a licence built S-58, the Whirlwind was a licence built S-55, the Sioux was a licence built Bell 47, so Westland have quite a history here, as too do their new Italian owners who licence built Bell 47’s Sea Kings, Chinooks, Bell 204/205’s Bell 212’s et al.
Tucumseh,
“the first thing in the contract is a maintained set of secondary masters and an agreement that we appoint a UK Design Custodian.”
Sorry, but that may have worked in the era of the C-130K but in the age of the C-130J it is absolutely impossible. NO OEM will release software source codes, LMAS will not even give them to the US military so UK MOD can go whistle. This is what is a real worry over F-35 and is taking up so much time to try and negotiate at very senior political level, and that’s as a Tier 1 design partner!
If you buy from overseas you are stuck as any OEM will earn ten times the amount from through life support as they will from the original sale of the kit.
It is a Thales (UK) design that has been chosen as CVF, designed in the UK. It will now be engineered and developed by a BAES/Thales consortium with integration of the entire project by KBR, who are a US firm.
I think that makes it about as British as you can get!
Jobzaguddun,
What about licence production? Been done, in the sixties, when a whole raft of indigenous (and mainly impractical and ill-conceived) aircraft projects were cancelled we had the Sea King licence built by Westland, well over 50% of the F-4K/M Phantom was built in the UK in addition to the RR engines.
Prior to that the Wessex was a licence built S-58, the Whirlwind was a licence built S-55, the Sioux was a licence built Bell 47, so Westland have quite a history here, as too do their new Italian owners who licence built Bell 47’s Sea Kings, Chinooks, Bell 204/205’s Bell 212’s et al.
Tucumseh,
“the first thing in the contract is a maintained set of secondary masters and an agreement that we appoint a UK Design Custodian.”
Sorry, but that may have worked in the era of the C-130K but in the age of the C-130J it is absolutely impossible. NO OEM will release software source codes, LMAS will not even give them to the US military so UK MOD can go whistle. This is what is a real worry over F-35 and is taking up so much time to try and negotiate at very senior political level, and that’s as a Tier 1 design partner!
If you buy from overseas you are stuck as any OEM will earn ten times the amount from through life support as they will from the original sale of the kit.
Guest
Posts: n/a
OK,OK....maybe Thales is a UK company...but if it is then why is it called Talis and not Thales..?????
I have to disagree on your point ref "NO OEM will release software source codes". This happens all the time.
...i.e. lets say you want to build a simulator. you get a simulator company to build it BUT they need the source codes and they get them from the OEM. It's gonna cost ya.... in fact its gonna cost ya big time BUT it can happen. The OEM will quite easily and freely sell the source codes as long as they retain the IPR. There are plenty of other examples of source code being available.
I have to disagree on your point ref "NO OEM will release software source codes". This happens all the time.
...i.e. lets say you want to build a simulator. you get a simulator company to build it BUT they need the source codes and they get them from the OEM. It's gonna cost ya.... in fact its gonna cost ya big time BUT it can happen. The OEM will quite easily and freely sell the source codes as long as they retain the IPR. There are plenty of other examples of source code being available.
OK,OK....maybe Thales is a UK company...but if it is then why is it called Talis and not Thales..?????
Thales Group Press Release
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BUT they need the source codes
Go study the difference between source and executable code, stimulation vs. emulation, porting and platform re-hosting. Oh and while you're at it take a look at ARINC 610.
TOG
Hyd3failure,
Sorry, but IPR is what counts here, you try getting the source codes for the C-130J out of LMAS, or for that matter the many other avionic OEM's who supply black boxes to aircraft like the J, this is where DARA came unstuck when they tried to get Sealand set up as a centre of excellence for avionic overhaul.
As to simulation, in the case of the J LMAS subcontracted Reflectone to provide the simulation service, MOD didn't get a look in.
Sorry, but IPR is what counts here, you try getting the source codes for the C-130J out of LMAS, or for that matter the many other avionic OEM's who supply black boxes to aircraft like the J, this is where DARA came unstuck when they tried to get Sealand set up as a centre of excellence for avionic overhaul.
As to simulation, in the case of the J LMAS subcontracted Reflectone to provide the simulation service, MOD didn't get a look in.
Guest
Posts: n/a
well I'm sorry to disappoint you all but I have experience of retrieving source codes from OEM and it is possible. I know for a fact that both Thales and Wastelands will release source codes..... at a price. (at a big price)
Of course they will. All defence companies (nay all companies) are out to make money and if they have a product that someone wants to purchase they will sell it.
Of course they will. All defence companies (nay all companies) are out to make money and if they have a product that someone wants to purchase they will sell it.
prOOne
In saying secondary masters, I was really referring to hardware. Wouldn't use the term wrt software. However, I have experience managing, for example, Litton 211 Omega, for which Ferranti (Edinburgh) wrote the software updates every 2 years for changes in the geomagnetic field. (On BBC Bs!). In time, Litton became agitated at their lack of foresight, and asked for the (big) total support contract back. Demanded, actually. Refused, on the grounds they had no UK facility at the time and had shown no committment to supporting our (RAF's) software configuration, which many years past had, by necessity, gone off at a tangent to the US's. The benefit of having a design custodian. But your point is well made as more and more companies are getting wise to the money they can make from UK MoD.
In saying secondary masters, I was really referring to hardware. Wouldn't use the term wrt software. However, I have experience managing, for example, Litton 211 Omega, for which Ferranti (Edinburgh) wrote the software updates every 2 years for changes in the geomagnetic field. (On BBC Bs!). In time, Litton became agitated at their lack of foresight, and asked for the (big) total support contract back. Demanded, actually. Refused, on the grounds they had no UK facility at the time and had shown no committment to supporting our (RAF's) software configuration, which many years past had, by necessity, gone off at a tangent to the US's. The benefit of having a design custodian. But your point is well made as more and more companies are getting wise to the money they can make from UK MoD.
HYd3Failure,
Of course all defence companies are out to make money, and that is precisely WHY they will not release source codes for new equipment. It is worth far far more to them to support in service kit than it is to sell it in the first place!
Of course there will be exceptions, as there are to all rules, but as a general point they are locked in stone with the OEM's.
Of course all defence companies are out to make money, and that is precisely WHY they will not release source codes for new equipment. It is worth far far more to them to support in service kit than it is to sell it in the first place!
Of course there will be exceptions, as there are to all rules, but as a general point they are locked in stone with the OEM's.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well, maybe we are going to have to differ here but I have been heavily involved in 2 major contracts with the MOD and industry. One with WHL and the other with Thales and with both contracts the company SOLD the source code to another company (AMS).
