Discussion
CrutyRammers said:
stevesingo said:
BAE have been allowed to become too powerful in British defence. The politicians in their desire to keep British jobs have allowed BAE to buy up all British defence firms.
As I understood it, the politicians encouraged, nay forced this? Pressurising all of the individual companies like EE, Vickers, Hawker, Avro etc to merge, until only Bae is left.Mave said:
Not sure what the answer is; there isn't enough UK specific work (or £££) to keep 3 competing companies in business. The UK is traditionally very reluctant to relax its specifications to make the product more exportable, and when it buys from the US it finds itself unable to have the freedom to use the produce in the way it wants (aka UK owned F35s stuck in USA...)
True, but that has not always been the case. We had successful exports of Hunter, Harrier, Jaguar, Leander Class Frigates, Oberon Class submarines but I admit these are the exception. We do like to golf plate things. The Aussies and NZ turned down the Type 23 for example as they were far more expensive than the Meko.
The U.S. seem very capable of developing a "simple" ish plane like the F16 (originally) and having different packages of sensors and weanons for export or domestic use.
wildcat45 said:
I know the WRs are great engines (now the intercooler thing has been sorted) but the point I was making was flexibility. The T45 is the only user. There are only about 14 engines in existence and swapping them out is not like a swap out in older generation warships. It's fine for now but what about when the ships get older?
LM2500s drawbacks are plenty but ease of supply outweighs that.
Re guns, I'm surprised BAe are not pushing that Swedish gun they now own for OPVs and perhaps as a secondary armament on T26. It's the 57mm jobbie MK10? Visby Class ships have them. It's a clever little gun. No good for NGFS but a cracking bit of kit to take in an Iranian swarm with.
It's odd how the UK stuck with 4.5 guns. A decision made in the 1930s I think. Think of the economies and compatibility had we gone 5 inch with the Darings (the old ones) then the Counties etc.....
Given the efficiency there's a reasonable chance WR21 will end up in other warships, an outside chance of cruise liners and almost certainly containerised power supplies.LM2500s drawbacks are plenty but ease of supply outweighs that.
Re guns, I'm surprised BAe are not pushing that Swedish gun they now own for OPVs and perhaps as a secondary armament on T26. It's the 57mm jobbie MK10? Visby Class ships have them. It's a clever little gun. No good for NGFS but a cracking bit of kit to take in an Iranian swarm with.
It's odd how the UK stuck with 4.5 guns. A decision made in the 1930s I think. Think of the economies and compatibility had we gone 5 inch with the Darings (the old ones) then the Counties etc.....
The Mk8 4.5" was developed in the 1960s to automate and remove most of the traditional guncrew roles, leaving just the wallahs in the magazine; the calibre probably was down to the preponderance of existing vessels with 4.5" guns, but given the likely size of the RN's future ships it wasn't a bad choice and certainly an expedient one. The other choices at the time appear to have been the expensive 3" only found on the Tiger class, and a paper study of navalising the army's scary Green Mace 5" AA gun; the latter choice disappeared when the army binned it. The main criticism of the 4.5" is the size limits the amount of explosive that can be fitted in a round so NGS is less effective than it might be, although the sustained fire rate is still equal to 3-4 artillery pieces.
Ships haven't had secondary armament of ~57mm size for decades, the weight allowance has been better spent on radars, missiles, pretty much everything else. It would make more sense to develop guided submunitions for a larger calibre(if there's a capability gap between missiles and the main gun to be filled) and not have 2 different calibres, even assuming there's room on the vessel for it.
hidetheelephants said:
The Mk8 4.5" was developed in the 1960s to automate and remove most of the traditional guncrew roles, leaving just the wallahs in the magazine; the calibre probably was down to the preponderance of existing vessels with 4.5" guns, but given the likely size of the RN's future ships it wasn't a bad choice and certainly an expedient one.
Wasn't it developed from the hardware used in the Army's Abbot 105mm artillery?stevesingo said:
wildcat45 said:
So true. And that means we are f
ked then!
I really would live defence to be a job creation scheme, if we had multiple defence firms. What makes me angry, and I am going OT is that BAe is getting stop gap orders (three OPVs) just to keep the lights on. Air enough but where we're those stop gap orders when for example Swan Hunter back in 1994 just needed a single frigate order to keep them busy? Frigates that were being ordered anyway.
Rover was allowed to go tits up. I know that was a slightly different situation.
The only bit of BAe that is a national "asset" is Barrrow. If a company like BAe need hand out orders to survive in the UK then there is something wrong with their business. Should that be the concern of a free market government?
Handing out prop up orders is a form of nationalisation without any potential profit going back to the government.
Just imagine if Swans and Camjel Laird still did shipbuilding. The MoD has a Type 26 frigate class to build. You get three prices, and firms bid for the work. Where is the sense in Bae as a private firm knowing it has the job come what may.
A ocombination of politics, MoD dithering inter service bickering politics and the absence of choice.
And that is the biggest problem in Barrow, a culture of entitlement that breeds mediocrity and complacency.ked then!I really would live defence to be a job creation scheme, if we had multiple defence firms. What makes me angry, and I am going OT is that BAe is getting stop gap orders (three OPVs) just to keep the lights on. Air enough but where we're those stop gap orders when for example Swan Hunter back in 1994 just needed a single frigate order to keep them busy? Frigates that were being ordered anyway.
Rover was allowed to go tits up. I know that was a slightly different situation.
The only bit of BAe that is a national "asset" is Barrrow. If a company like BAe need hand out orders to survive in the UK then there is something wrong with their business. Should that be the concern of a free market government?
Handing out prop up orders is a form of nationalisation without any potential profit going back to the government.
Just imagine if Swans and Camjel Laird still did shipbuilding. The MoD has a Type 26 frigate class to build. You get three prices, and firms bid for the work. Where is the sense in Bae as a private firm knowing it has the job come what may.
A ocombination of politics, MoD dithering inter service bickering politics and the absence of choice.
BAE have been allowed to become too powerful in British defence. The politicians in their desire to keep British jobs have allowed BAE to buy up all British defence firms. Having such a large global umbrella is seen as better for stability than small independents fighting for business in a limited market which for UK defence contractors for the most part does not include the US. Aside from M777 what of any value have the US bought from a UK defence contractor?
This BAE monopoly is beginning to bite on UK jobs though. The T26 will have a US Mk45 5” gun which was originally a United Defence product, latterly purchased by BAE. BAE in the UK have proof fired the Mk8 with a 155mm barrel and ammunition (imagine the cost savings for the UK MOD in using a common ammunition across land and sea). BAE did not offer the Mk8 155 as an option when tendering for the navel gun system for T26. Why? I suspect that the US market would be easier using an existing in service NGS and therefore the UK will have to just suck it up at the cost of UK jobs.
I was told WR21 was effectively out of production. Not sure if that's the case or not but RR seem to be devoting time and having success with the MT engine. It's in the LCS and will probably be the power for the Type 26.
When I referred earlier to swapping engines out, if was referring to maintenance programmes when the compressor unit is removed and replaced with a new or refurbed one, the same way Olys Tynes and Spey are/were.
Re:guns wasn't the 3inch Tiger Class gun one of those wonderful British classics where it really needed a lot of R and D and if it had got this it would have been a world beater like the ubiquitous OTO Melara.
I just think 4.5 is an odd size and not compatible with anyone else. Was there ever a NATO standard suggested? 75mm or 5 inch?
Mave said:
CrutyRammers said:
stevesingo said:
BAE have been allowed to become too powerful in British defence. The politicians in their desire to keep British jobs have allowed BAE to buy up all British defence firms.
As I understood it, the politicians encouraged, nay forced this? Pressurising all of the individual companies like EE, Vickers, Hawker, Avro etc to merge, until only Bae is left.wildcat45 said:
I was told WR21 was effectively out of production. Not sure if that's the case or not but RR seem to be devoting time and having success with the MT engine. It's in the LCS and will probably be the power for the Type 26.
When I referred earlier to swapping engines out, if was referring to maintenance programmes when the compressor unit is removed and replaced with a new or refurbed one, the same way Olys Tynes and Spey are/were.
The WR21 modules come from aero engines eg the HP compressor is an RB211-524, so probably more commonality with production engines than oly or Tyne. The main problems ie see are the ex-NGSS bits like the recuperator and intercoolers.When I referred earlier to swapping engines out, if was referring to maintenance programmes when the compressor unit is removed and replaced with a new or refurbed one, the same way Olys Tynes and Spey are/were.
wildcat45 said:
Re:guns wasn't the 3inch Tiger Class gun one of those wonderful British classics where it really needed a lot of R and D and if it had got this it would have been a world beater like the ubiquitous OTO Melara.
As far as I've read it was pretty impressive on paper, being fully automatic and water cooled with a ridiculous 120rpm rate of fire, but reading between the lines it must have been heavy and an unreliable pain with only 9 twin turrets ever built compared to hundreds in single and twin 4.5" turrets across the fleet the economics were not in its favour. With modern guidance/targetting systems and submunitions it would be a fearsome thing beyond the range of even Goalkeeper. The 6" was also automatic, water cooled and a silly rate of fire, but I suspect it was even more of a pain; certainly the US experience with fully automatic turrets in the war was not favourable.wildcat45 said:
I wonder if any survived the scrapman? I guess not.
The 3" /70 Vickers Mark 6 turrets (Tiger class cruiser types)? - http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_3-70_mk6.htmTwo possible, HMCS Terra Nova and HMCS Gatineau of the Royal Canadian Navy Restigouche class destroyers were also fitted with the same guns. One twin turrent on each at the front, with a mk33 3" /50 at the rear. They are both being scrapped at the moment. Terra Nova appeared in the Harrison Ford movie K-19 Widomaker. 4 others have been sunk as artificial reefs, guns possibly still there?
hidetheelephants said:
Apologies for the monster post, I'm feeling verbose
The original MR1 was quite numerous with ~50 built, it's surprising more effort wasn't made to sell some to either SA or Australia. The P3 has similar roots, a commercial flop airliner which threatened the wellbeing of the manufacturer, bailed out by a fairly fat contract for the same aircraft modified for LRMP.
T45 is powered by RR because WR21 is much more fuel efficient than the LM2500 'jet-in-a-box', indeed in some power settings it's better than some high speed diesel installations. Add in the value of keeping the work in Derby, or wherever the marine turbines are screwed together, over General Electric in Ohio, and it makes good sense to me.
I've been told by a current design team lead at BAES that the TSR2's trans and supersonic drag figures were not what they needed to be to maintain the intended cruising speeds over the specified range, so although the airframe flew and seemingly well, even that wasn't really good enough to carry the non-existant avionics to the target and back at the low level and high speeds intended.wildcat45 said:
You Only have to look at the Type 45 programme. If the UK had stayed in Horizon we would not have got as good a ship. We would have probably got more than 6 though. Silly decisions like using WR21 engines which no one uses instead of LM2500 engines which are cheaper and used by everyone.
The kipper fleet should have gone from Shacleton to Orion, back when Orion was new. Not as good as Nimrod, but had we done the same as many maritime nations from Norway to New Zealand we'd probably be running a fleet of P3s now.
Gold plated is great if you can afford it. If you can afford to mess designers around . We can't afford gold plated.
BAE share the blame; they appeared to promise that reusing manky old airframes for Nimrod 2000/MRA4 would save money and the MoD believed them, despite anyone with knowledge of the Nimrod fleet pointing out what the possible difficulties would be. Had any commonsense been applied, or any weight attributed to possible commercial sales(P7 had been cancelled and P3 production wasn't likely to be restarted, many P3s and the Atlantiques were coming to the end of their lives) jigs for new fuselages was a no-brainer, and would have eliminated the huge time and cost escalation due to fiddling with 40 year old airframes and made sales to 3rd parties a good bet given there were no competitors at all, with consequent lower costs all round. R1 replacements would also have permitted lower airframe costs through increased numbers.The kipper fleet should have gone from Shacleton to Orion, back when Orion was new. Not as good as Nimrod, but had we done the same as many maritime nations from Norway to New Zealand we'd probably be running a fleet of P3s now.
Gold plated is great if you can afford it. If you can afford to mess designers around . We can't afford gold plated.
The original MR1 was quite numerous with ~50 built, it's surprising more effort wasn't made to sell some to either SA or Australia. The P3 has similar roots, a commercial flop airliner which threatened the wellbeing of the manufacturer, bailed out by a fairly fat contract for the same aircraft modified for LRMP.
T45 is powered by RR because WR21 is much more fuel efficient than the LM2500 'jet-in-a-box', indeed in some power settings it's better than some high speed diesel installations. Add in the value of keeping the work in Derby, or wherever the marine turbines are screwed together, over General Electric in Ohio, and it makes good sense to me.
jamieduff1981 said:
TSR2 is an example of this in the past. An ambitious engineering project to build a cutting edge aeroplane developing the technology along the way. Is it really any surprise that it was much harder than anyone could predict?
It was and it wasn't; George Edwards told them at the beginning it would take twice as long as predicted because of a) the endless committees b) the design creep. The airframe as tested worked and probably could have been in limited service by 1968, but without some/all of the whizzbang electronics, which might not have been ready until ~1970. They might even have persuaded the Aussies to change their minds.wildcat45 said:
So true. And that means we are fked then!
I really would live defence to be a job creation scheme, if we had multiple defence firms. What makes me angry, and I am going OT is that BAe is getting stop gap orders (three OPVs) just to keep the lights on. Air enough but where we're those stop gap orders when for example Swan Hunter back in 1994 just needed a single frigate order to keep them busy? Frigates that were being ordered anyway.
Rover was allowed to go tits up. I know that was a slightly different situation.
The only bit of BAe that is a national "asset" is Barrrow. If a company like BAe need hand out orders to survive in the UK then there is something wrong with their business. Should that be the concern of a free market government?
Handing out prop up orders is a form of nationalisation without any potential profit going back to the government.
Just imagine if Swans and Camjel Laird still did shipbuilding. The MoD has a Type 26 frigate class to build. You get three prices, and firms bid for the work. Where is the sense in Bae as a private firm knowing it has the job come what may.
A ocombination of politics, MoD dithering inter service bickering politics and the absence of choice.
The RN isn't big enough to keep 1 builder afloat, how are 3 going to manage? As it is Barrow and to a lesser extent the Clyde yards get paid to stay open and keep a core of staff busy, the OPVs are a sop to keep the media(and the SNP) at bay.ked then!I really would live defence to be a job creation scheme, if we had multiple defence firms. What makes me angry, and I am going OT is that BAe is getting stop gap orders (three OPVs) just to keep the lights on. Air enough but where we're those stop gap orders when for example Swan Hunter back in 1994 just needed a single frigate order to keep them busy? Frigates that were being ordered anyway.
Rover was allowed to go tits up. I know that was a slightly different situation.
The only bit of BAe that is a national "asset" is Barrrow. If a company like BAe need hand out orders to survive in the UK then there is something wrong with their business. Should that be the concern of a free market government?
Handing out prop up orders is a form of nationalisation without any potential profit going back to the government.
Just imagine if Swans and Camjel Laird still did shipbuilding. The MoD has a Type 26 frigate class to build. You get three prices, and firms bid for the work. Where is the sense in Bae as a private firm knowing it has the job come what may.
A ocombination of politics, MoD dithering inter service bickering politics and the absence of choice.
stevesingo said:
The T26 will have a US Mk45 5” gun which was originally a United Defence product, latterly purchased by BAE. BAE in the UK have proof fired the Mk8 with a 155mm barrel and ammunition (imagine the cost savings for the UK MOD in using a common ammunition across land and sea). BAE did not offer the Mk8 155 as an option when tendering for the navel gun system for T26. Why? I suspect that the US market would be easier using an existing in service NGS and therefore the UK will have to just suck it up at the cost of UK jobs.
I would hazard a guess that, aside from the small cost saving obtained by cancelling it, the RN may have been a bit sniffy about getting a 6" gun without much extra range compared to the whizzo AGS thing on the Zumwalts; the 5" may end up with an extended range guided round if the US find a development budget. There may be fingers being crossed that Qinetiq get their arse into gear and produce a functioning rail gun instead.jamieduff1981 said:
I've been told by a current design team lead at BAES that the TSR2's trans and supersonic drag figures were not what they needed to be to maintain the intended cruising speeds over the specified range, so although the airframe flew and seemingly well, even that wasn't really good enough to carry the non-existant avionics to the target and back at the low level and high speeds intended.
I don't think anyone expected it to meet the frankly lala-land paper requirements the RAF came up with, but the anecdotal reports of the flight tests imply it was capable of supercruise about 40 years before the term was invented.A couple of points!
The MRA 4 was canned because, despite the billions spent on it, it would have cost many millions/billions more to make the wretched thing airworthy - it was not compliant with modern standards in a huge number of ways. The MAA had a mountain of evidence to prove this and in the post Haddon-Cave era, this couldn't be ignored! So it was far from 'up and running' as ginetta G15 girl suggests. In fact, binning it was one of the better decisions made in SDSR. The sadness is that with £63bn of unfunded spending commitments from the last government, including rivet joint, there was no money to fund a replacement at the time - I seem to remember the phrase 'capability holiday' being used....
Sentinel is not the answer, certainly in isolation. My understanding is that if anything ever came from the maritime role, it would be as part of a number of assets.
I am confused by the comment 'Given the lack of range' regarding Sentinel. That is most certainly not true!!!!!!!!!
The MRA 4 was canned because, despite the billions spent on it, it would have cost many millions/billions more to make the wretched thing airworthy - it was not compliant with modern standards in a huge number of ways. The MAA had a mountain of evidence to prove this and in the post Haddon-Cave era, this couldn't be ignored! So it was far from 'up and running' as ginetta G15 girl suggests. In fact, binning it was one of the better decisions made in SDSR. The sadness is that with £63bn of unfunded spending commitments from the last government, including rivet joint, there was no money to fund a replacement at the time - I seem to remember the phrase 'capability holiday' being used....
Sentinel is not the answer, certainly in isolation. My understanding is that if anything ever came from the maritime role, it would be as part of a number of assets.
I am confused by the comment 'Given the lack of range' regarding Sentinel. That is most certainly not true!!!!!!!!!
Ryan T said:
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
In the short term I'd be looking at leasing P3s. In the long term I'd be looking at the Kawasaki P-1.
So short term we lease an old airframe the Americans are retiring, which would cost more than a new airframe to maintain, to then buy once again an untested newer aircraft?Oh and have they finally coerced some subaltern at the MOD to sign the RtS??
Mistrale said:
A couple of points!
The MRA 4 was canned because, despite the billions spent on it, it would have cost many millions/billions more to make the wretched thing airworthy - it was not compliant with modern standards in a huge number of ways. The MAA had a mountain of evidence to prove this and in the post Haddon-Cave era, this couldn't be ignored! So it was far from 'up and running' as ginetta G15 girl suggests. In fact, binning it was one of the better decisions made in SDSR. The sadness is that with £63bn of unfunded spending commitments from the last government, including rivet joint, there was no money to fund a replacement at the time - I seem to remember the phrase 'capability holiday' being used....
Sentinel is not the answer, certainly in isolation. My understanding is that if anything ever came from the maritime role, it would be as part of a number of assets.
I am confused by the comment 'Given the lack of range' regarding Sentinel. That is most certainly not true!!!!!!!!!
I wouldn't say binning it was a good idea, the whole project as flawed from day 1. Trying to re-engine and completely rebuild an existing airframe using a 40 year old fuselage, with larger wings, and paying BAe a fixed cost upfront for the work was always going to be a recipe for disaster. I think they were trying to get through using "grandfather rights," which meant it did not have to be certified as a completely new airframe. How BAe even thought they could re-wing a bespoke hand-built aircraft, and it not completely screw up the handling and weight distribution is beyond me.The MRA 4 was canned because, despite the billions spent on it, it would have cost many millions/billions more to make the wretched thing airworthy - it was not compliant with modern standards in a huge number of ways. The MAA had a mountain of evidence to prove this and in the post Haddon-Cave era, this couldn't be ignored! So it was far from 'up and running' as ginetta G15 girl suggests. In fact, binning it was one of the better decisions made in SDSR. The sadness is that with £63bn of unfunded spending commitments from the last government, including rivet joint, there was no money to fund a replacement at the time - I seem to remember the phrase 'capability holiday' being used....
Sentinel is not the answer, certainly in isolation. My understanding is that if anything ever came from the maritime role, it would be as part of a number of assets.
I am confused by the comment 'Given the lack of range' regarding Sentinel. That is most certainly not true!!!!!!!!!
The first airframe was handed over to the RAF and they chucked it back at BAe Systems and asked them to rectify all of the defects (early 2010 IIRC).
I don't know whether BAe Systems had lost interest at this stage, but it all went quiet whilst the aircraft were apparently being worked on.
I think they were probably more interested in flogging aircraft to the Saudis, and their shareholder returns than building a small number of aircraft for the RAF, which they had already been paid for.
I thought I saw a figure flying around was that it would cost a further £100 or £200 million to put into service. It cost £100million in cancellation fees if I remember correctly to break contracts with RR and suppliers.
It wouldn't have been so bad if there were other capable, off the shelf airframes, unfortunately, there are not. The P3 is a retrograde step in performance terms from the Nimrod MR2. The P8 Poseidon isn't all its cracked up to be, limited range, limited payload, and there were concerns that it wouldn't even last 25 years in service due to fatigue.
So canning the Nimrod also canned a complete capability (or you could say a range of capabilities). The SDSR was not a Defence Review. It was a pure and simple hasty Budget cutting exercise. I don't know how, after several years since the previous review, you can do a full review of all military capabilities in under 6 months like the Tories/Coalition supposedly did?
The Government stated that Hercules, Merlin Helicopters and Navy warships would take over the Nimrod's roles, which as we knew at the time, and has been proven since is complete tosh. We have had to call in the French and the Americans to perform SAR and look for Russian subs as we can no longer do it.
Liam Fox was battling publicly for the Nimrod before it was axed (he then U-Turned and said it was the right idea to cancel it, once it was axed). I am sure Cameron would have scrapped the Carriers as well if he could.
The Sentinel was also due to be scrapped post Afghanistan. Everyone was saying that was a bad idea, and lo and behold, Government U-Turn it has had a reprieve, and has been used in various other conflicts since. The only sensible thing from the SDSR was the intention to change the F-35B to the F-35C, which they publically announced as Labour getting it wrong, then after their willy waving in parliament had to perform another U-Turn because they hadn't investigated whether the F-35C could actually be used at that late stage in the Carrier's build (which after £80million of subsequent investigations they found it couldn't).
The final thing is (as alluded to above) how the RC135 Rivet Joints, (old ex-USAF tankers, which where sitting in the desert for years and are over 50 years old), managed to get signed off as airworthy. There were concerns about a year ago that they may never be able to be allowed into service.
I don't know how they managed to get around that one.
So £100 million or £500 million to get the Nimrod into service, it would have been a small amount when you consider how much is chucked at the Welfare Budget or dare I say International Aid? How much will it now cost to buy the flimsy P8 and retrain completely new crews that have now been dispersed, a lot more than sticking with the MRA4 I would say.
The next SDSR isn't going to be any better, with departments like International Aid still being ringfenced, (and other politically sensitive departments being spared the worst of the cuts) and the deficit not being cleared, Defence is going to get a hammering again next time.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff