BAe Chadderton Demolition

re:

[QUOTE=seand;1104305]Waybridge, Kingston, Dunsfold, Chadderton, Woodford and Brough on the cards, what is left of aviation history in the uk, shame.

I thought they were trying to get the runway reopened at Brough for Hawks?

imagine what it was like in the days when we built and …….., VC-10s ………and 146 to America. ……..
These aircraft were designed, built and flown by the British aircraft industry, .

Do you mean the Super VC10 fuselage sections which were designed in France, and the 146 wings all of which were built in the States?

Don’t take this the wrong way as I share your sentiment.

Although the Nimrod MRA4 may look to the untrained eye as a rebuild it was for all intent and purpose a new aircraft design (politics dictated it had to share the same name and about 4-5% original parts). Indeed when its flight testing, service release and small production run is complete, then that’s the end of the “whole aircraft engineering capability” in the UK for anything other than a light aircraft. Sure we will be able to produce bits n pieces but when it comes to major aircraft archutecture integration, flight testing, A/C level certification and new production capability, it will be gone……. about 2011-12 I reckon.

Great first hand info, thanks.

I worked there for 18 years and was familiar with the tales of such…………..but I never saw any photographic evidence, which for such an event one would think there would be plenty.
All the metal lamposts in that area were the foldable type, to enable bulb change and general maintenance. I’ve seen such lamposts in other areas of the UK too.
I think it’s an urban myth, probably started to wind up the new starters or apprentices.

returning to the BAE Chadderton thread…does anyone have any pictures of them moving the vulcan sections to woodford for assembly. In a couple of interviews with ex employees, they mention that on the route they had special lamp-posts that folded over to allow for the vulcan sections to pass………..is this correct ? 🙂

which part of ‘I’m not knocking things’ didn’t you understand, all of it I’m guessing.
I am truly pleased that we still have got an industry left, and I do believe we have the finest people working on the best componants in the world, but I still do not believe the claim that you have put forward here.

As somebody who hasn’t missed a Farnborough, I am well aware of the globalization of the aircraft industy, in fact it was probably one of the first in this respect. I do appreciate that most industries (including our once great motor industry) cannot survive without world partnerships.

But when I walk down that Farnborough isle all the corporate tents blend into one, I put on my black and white tinted glasses, and immagine what it was like in the days when we built and sold Viscounts and Canberras to America and Europe, Hunters all over the world, VC-10s to Africa, Sea Furys to Europe and the Middle East, Tridents to China, and even more recently the 1-11 and 146 to America. I do appreciate that some of these sales were NATO or Commonwealth led.
These aircraft were designed, built and flown by the British aircraft industry, a fact reflected in the SBAC shows, in that participents had to be British built aircraft and engines only, until 1968 when European aircraft with British componants were admitted. By the Late ’70s it was open to worldwide participation, i.e we wern’t producing enough to keep our own showcase going.

agreed

pagen01,
You clearly do not understand the global nature of the modern aerospace industry nor indeed the truly global nature of industry in this Century!

SBAC is not a Government body and it represents hundreds of British aerospace companies.

Stop knocking all the while.

which part of ‘I’m not knocking things’ didn’t you understand, all of it I’m guessing.
I am truly pleased that we still have got an industry left, and I do believe we have the finest people working on the best componants in the world, but I still do not believe the claim that you have put forward here.

As somebody who hasn’t missed a Farnborough, I am well aware of the globalization of the aircraft industy, in fact it was probably one of the first in this respect. I do appreciate that most industries (including our once great motor industry) cannot survive without world partnerships.

But when I walk down that Farnborough isle all the corporate tents blend into one, I put on my black and white tinted glasses, and immagine what it was like in the days when we built and sold Viscounts and Canberras to America and Europe, Hunters all over the world, VC-10s to Africa, Sea Furys to Europe and the Middle East, Tridents to China, and even more recently the 1-11 and 146 to America. I do appreciate that some of these sales were NATO or Commonwealth led.
These aircraft were designed, built and flown by the British aircraft industry, a fact reflected in the SBAC shows, in that participents had to be British built aircraft and engines only, until 1968 when European aircraft with British componants were admitted. By the Late ’70s it was open to worldwide participation, i.e we wern’t producing enough to keep our own showcase going.

However, we do still assemble the Islander, Hawk, Merlin, Lynx, AW149, Typhoon, Nimrod, Raytheon Hawker complete airframes, Europa, numerous micro and ultra lights, UAVs and balloons

Are complete Raytheons assembled over here? I thought they only produced the fuse and then it went to Wichita?

The Islander is manufactured in Romania. The Nimrod is really a conversion of a 1950’s design isn’t it, which is late as was the Typhoon IIRC. The Hawk and the Lynx designs must be getting nearly 40 years old.

Granted, the technology updates to these airframes is phenomenal but how much of that technology is British?

J

If we hadn’t built large awkward “things” in inaccessable places, companies like Scammell would never have become world leaders in “prime movers”, themselves a victim of “putting all your eggs in one basket” (in their case Leyland), and their factory is now a housing estate as well.

dhfan,

It’s not a case of “various other companies aerosopace industries” it’s more a case of the industry being a series of partnerships, very few aircraft are made by one nation these days and absolutely none by one company.

Even a so called ‘national product’ such as the Boeing 777 has nearly all of its fuselage and wings made in either Italy or Japan with a dozen other countries contributing systems, components or sub-assemblies.

What I think you mean is final assembly. This we do less of than we used to, but it only makes up around 10% of the value of a product, is very low tech, does not employ many people and has no real value add in terms of design or innovative technology.

It is often said that the UK is out of the civil airliner business as we do not currently do final assembly on any airliners. Yet the industry in the UK, through it’s design, engineering and manufacturing for the entire Airbus range earns more money, has more cutting edge technology and employs more people than in the heyday of the VC10 and Trident. The only thing it does not do is the final bolting together of fully equipped sub assemblies and systems which adds precious little in terms of employment, technology or earnings.

However, we do still assemble the Islander, Hawk, Merlin, Lynx, AW149, Typhoon, Nimrod, Raytheon Hawker complete airframes, Europa, numerous micro and ultra lights, UAVs and balloons.

Regardless of what the statistics say, which used selectively can be made to prove anything…

Can or do we make any aeroplanes? Or is just bits for various other countries aerospace industries.

pagen01,

You clearly do not understand the global nature of the modern aerospace industry nor indeed the truly global nature of industry in this Century!

SBAC is not a Government body and it represents hundreds of British aerospace companies.

Stop knocking all the while.

Well wouldn’t the SBAC (Society of Both Aircraft Companies) say that?
Looking at those stats reminds me of the way modern goverments make things sound better than they actually are.
Believe me, I’m not knocking things, glad we still have people employed in the industry and involved with these major projects.
However to count the F-35 and B787 as part of our healthy state is crazy, these are American projects, which to apease European customers, use some European labour and componants. Everything is teflon coated and shined up these days, just to make figures sound better than they once were, or better than anyone else.

I still don’t believe we are the 2nd strongest, or in fact that we are anywhere near what we used to be.

SBAC Survey as at June 2007;

“The aerospace industry is a UK success story says the Society of British Aerospace Companies (SBAC).

Its 2007 Annual Aerospace Survey published today (11 June), shows that the industry supports 276,000 UK jobs, has a turnover of £20 billion and exports 63 per cent of all it produces. Highlights from the 2007 survey include:

New orders increased by 6 per cent to £26.2 billion.
Turnover increased by 5.5 per cent to £20 billion.
Productivity increased by 5.5 per cent.
Civil aerospace sales were £10.3 billion, up 8 per cent.
Defence aerospace sales were £9.6 billion, up 3 per cent.
Abroad – UK aerospace companies employ 48,785 people and generate £7.9 billion of turnover outside the UK.
Commenting on the 2007 survey, Chris Geoghegan, SBAC President said, “The aerospace industry continues to benefit from the global growth in demand for air transport. It has had a phenomenal year with substantial increases in turnover, new orders and productivity. The sector has demonstrated remarkable resilience, but we are not complacent and recognise that we must respond to global competition.”

Aerospace investment in early stage research and technology increased to £260 million, up 20 per cent.
Aerospace invested £2.5 billion in research & development.
Maintenance, repair and overhaul turnover increased by 8 per cent to £6.1 billion.
Aerospace made a positive net contribution of £1.54 billion to the UK balance of trade.
Dr Sally Howes, SBAC Director General said, ‘‘Aerospace is a UK success story. The industry is at the forefront of technological development delivering high value manufacturing jobs and success in tough global markets. The aerospace industry invests more than £2.5 billion in research and development each year and is second only to the pharmaceutical sector in terms of R&D intensity.”

Recent SBAC research demonstrates that the broader economic returns of R&D investment in the aerospace industry are around 70 per cent. This means every £100 million investment in R&D raises UK GDP by £70 million per annum.”

Hundreds of companies involved, not just BAE Systems.

I beleive that the Chadderton offices are staying as part of BAE Customer Support and Solutions Group?

Alertken,

Good points well made about historic factory locations, Brooklands was a ridiculous place to assemble something like the VC10!

(US jealousy to dub it the Single British Aircraft Company). “Largest” is probably true only by some semantic juggling. Headcount? China employs more bodies…let me correct that: has more bodies on payroll. CATIC’s factories alone in 1985 had 500,000 and there were many other PRC aerospace entities. Russia, too, may still have more bodies than UK. Sales volume? Double-counting of collaborators’ chunks, and of bought-in lumps – like engines. Range of activity? France is there. Finished aircraft units? Brazil likely larger. Let us on this board accept that UK retains a world-class capability. (Not all native-owned, but this is oneworld).

Pride in heritage is part of national identity: necessary to hold on to it. But not to preserve time-expired plant, or to prevent scarce land finding fresh employment. ex-Sopwith Kingston site is now housing and light commercial: that’s better, surely, than shifting metal around the South Circular Road. Coal mines in narrow valleys, textile sites on softwater streams, shipyards on shallow estuaries were sited as determined by the technology of their day. In the wrong place now. Retain momentos on Chadderton; assemble aircraft far from cluttered streets and dense housing, and preferably where a barge can bring lumps in.

Are the offices going to be demolished at BAE Systems Chadderton as well as the hangars?

Yes, just the Grade 2 facade of the main entrance is being kept. They might even take that down brick-by-brick and put it somewhere else.
Google Earth still has the site on, for those interested.

True, and don’t forget the myriad of small companies that are not part of the SBAC but are Aerospace companies.

pagen01,

Well, you are arguing with the Society of British Aerospace Companies!

Below is a direct quote from their industry introduction page.

“The UK’s aircraft and aerospace industry is the largest in the world outside the USA and a significant driver of regional and national economic growth and productivity.”

Think about it, UK is present on SO many huge international projects. 60% of an A380 is British, 35% of a Boeing 787 Dreamliner, 38% of a Eurofighter Typhoon, 24% of a Lockheed-Martin F-35 and so on and so on and so on.

No-one apart from the US has the range or diversity of aerospace companies as the UK or is present on so many projects.

THE SECOND LARGEST AEROSPACE INDUSTRY ON THE PLANET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!

I’m sorry, I do not believe that. If facts and figures are presented to back that statement up, then I will apologise.
I’m guessing you Mean second largest to the ‘States. Does that mean we have a larger industry to France, Russia, Germany and China?

Beside, I don’t really see that that has much to do with demolishing our heritage, a heritage that provided fine aircraft and employed lots of British skilled tradesmen.

Sad to see yet another facet of a once great and innovative aircraft industry consigned to history.
Maybe, just maybe, when politicians are finally prevented from hidding behind the wall of secrecy they themselves created we will manage to re-constuct the time line from pre Sands days to establish were it all went wrong for the UK, who was responsible and who profited from it, ???.

It probably started to go wrong when we let everyone else into the technology from the beginings of the industrial revolution.

I have always said our greatest weakness in this country is not to learn from history & past mistakes- I feel it is time that we took a fresh look at our past achievements & brought the most useful ones up to date.