I still think the problems ARE timescale and global workshare. If you spend 20 years on any project, it will cost at least double as much as a 10 year project. I have worked on projects where we had to liaise with USA, UK, Japan and India, and it wastes huge amounts of time. Worse still, the engineering is not good. Different time zones, cultures, and commercial motives of different partners cost big projects dearly.
If we are making a swing role aircraft, for example, and we say it will take 20 years (like Eurofighter). It has an operational life of 10 years, for example. We are expecting our military planners to look 30 years ahead. That’s rediculous! There should be procurement rules that state the timescale from concept to operational should be MAX 10 years, preferably less. This might force us into working more locally and achieving more in less time for lower cost. You can then be working on the next generation 10 years earlier, and our air forces will probably end up with something less obsolete.

Phew… I can last another week without a rant now ! 🙂

The hunter pit

Not just money, but workshare.
Collaborative arrangements to enable industry to flourish in the host nations. “We’ll buy some but we want 20% workshare to ensure we have X,000 jobs created” Similar to the export market, more and more sales are dependant on offset. “We’ll buy some but put some work in our country”.
The other form of offset is to sell Country A some military kit, our Government reciprocates by buying “Stuff” that Country A has plenty of. Al Yamama is a prime example. UK Gov. gets cheap oil from Saudi as payment for the Tonkas/Hawks and everything else. UK Gov’t pays BAe the cost of the stuff…at BAe cashcow prices. It’s a good earner!
IIRC “Finlandia” electric goods (Especially TV’s) flooded the UK in the late 70’s and 80’s. That was as part of an offset deal…but I can’t remember what it was we sold Finland.

Well that all sounds unsurprisingly sad. If that’s the way you are happy to operate UK you are welcome to it. It isn’t any good for the future.

Was it Napoleon who said, “England is a nation of shopkeepers” ?

Deal me out.

Don’t be miserable, young fellow.
Britain designs & produces the wings for half of the airliners in the world, including the by far largest. Britain still has technological lead in many areas in Europe, without Britain projects like A400M or A380 are unthinkable. Rolls Royce is the only engine manufacturer in Europe that can design, produce and sell competitive engines for all applications on its own funds.

The only failure of the British was to allow manufacturing to go away, something that is not regrettable from a pure financial point of view. I think even today the British government refrains from having too much influence in its privately owned aviation industry (=BAe), with the result that BAe practically canceled the “B” in its name and did strategic non-sense like getting rid from of its stake in Airbus.

Aviation industry is too sensitive to let it just be managed by private investors and managers, some loose government control and oversight is of advantage.

‘Young fellow” ? !!! Thanks ! I like you 😀

I am a Cold War baby, and prospered in the defence industry because of it. The whole country prospered because of it, whilst the USSR did the opposite.

I would like it if my generation could leave our successors the kind of aerospace industry our parents left to us. Building wings for airliners isn’t enough. UK made the best and only really useable VTOL aircraft. We should be doing a new British one instead of partnering in JSF for the F-35B.

The UK govenment is negligent, and has been for too long. All parties have been too keen to just keep the ‘money-go-round’ going, based on wealth that doesn’t exist. Lady Thatcher’s service economy doesn’t work without some major research and manufacturing sector. I’d better not get onto the automotive mess…. My PC would run out of letters !

Also the F-15 is basicly a stable platform, F-16 and F-18 are “just” instable
Gripen is very instable. Just as the rafale and eurofighter or any other 4 gen.

‘Not sure that’s 100% correct, Sign. I think Gripen is pitch stable until the vortex lift kicks in…. probably around 6 to 8 degrees AoA. In level flight you don’t see the canards twitching like the Eurofighter’s do. Even when the vortex lift starts we see Gripen’s canards pitch down, and below the aircraft’s centreline, but I think they still have a positive AoA, ‘cos the aircraft centreline has a larger positive AoA then the canards ‘aircraft negative’ (I think the FCS allows up to 28 degrees aircraft AoA, since the Stockholm crash). It’s ‘relaxed stability’ rather than ‘instability’. If you have a totally pitch instable canard aircraft the canards have to make downforce, and that would be inefficient.

Signatory seems to be more Gripen nerdy than me, so he might confirm this. 🙂

Gripen is a very clever piece of design! It is underestimated in my view, just like F-5 was about 200 years ago! It is a great example that small countries CAN develop their own very good aircraft. UK could too., and there are huge spin-offs in education, engineering experience and prestige, IMO, as well as some strategic safety in being capable of making your own equipment.