Here’s one Westland prepared earlier. In the 1950’s to be exact. A design which bears a passing
resemblance to a heavy lift version of the Blackhawk. A sort of British 'Sky Crane'. Which is a bit
of a coincidence since some of the components were from a Sikorsky S-64 ... err… Skycrane.

Originally Posted by GLOCK09

Here’s one Westland prepared earlier. In the 1950’s to be exact. A design which bears a passing
resemblance to a heavy lift version of the Blackhawk. A sort of British 'Sky Crane'. Which is a bit
of a coincidence since some of the components were from a Sikorsky S-64 ... err… Skycrane.

Now let me think…

Wastelands made a rather good living taking proven Sikorsky cabs since 1945 and building them under licence and suitably upgraded here in the UK and sold them like gangbusters.

Wastelands then get a rush of blood to their heads and team up to build the EH101 woptocopter with Augusta…

Augusta had made a rather good living taking proven Bell and Boeing helicopters and building them under licence and selling them like gangbusters before getting a rush of blood to it's head and teaming up with Wastelands to build the EH101 woptocopter…

I wonder? Should they have stuck to building proven and popular US helos with strong sales?

Nah! No market for them things, I mean, anyone would think the RAF is the biggest user of Wokkas outside the US Army!

Originally Posted by Commentator

It goes on to say that "The MoD does not consider wider employment, industrial, or economic factors in its value for money assessments"

That statement is complete and utters balls on every count. MoD procurement decisions are regularly over-ruled following successful lobbying by the MP in whose constituency a losing bidder is. It's why competitions take so long and overheads are so high, with companies who have no chance of winning being encouraged to spend millions bidding.

Originally Posted by 4(T)

Look at the V-bomber story: an Air Ministry requirement produces (in an unbelievably short time) three exceptional aircraft from rival manufacturers. Nowadays, UK industry couldn't even realistically respond to a requirement for something as simple as a new rifle or a few million rounds of small arms ammunition.

Yep but all were subsumed into the monopoly/bag o'shite that is now BAE Systems.

Along with our AFV and warship capabilities.

Worked out well, didn't it?

[I mean, who the hell would want to dirty their hands manufacturing small arms ammunition, for instance? It's the big toys where the real money is...]

Look at it from the other side of the fence:

Why invest millions of research pounds in a product that will at best be ordered in very limited quantity, with so many 'UK specific' features that it will likely never sell on the international market.
Worse still, we will likley change our mind on the requirements, or cancel it altogether halfway through.

If A UK Defence Contractor were trying to get funded on Dragon's Den, they would get ripped to shreds when asked what sort of demand they are marketting to.

Originally Posted by Gassing_Badgers

Look at it from the other side of the fence:

Why invest millions of research pounds in a product that will at best be ordered in very limited quantity, with so many 'UK specific' features that it will likely never sell on the international market.
Worse still, we will likley change our mind on the requirements, or cancel it altogether halfway through.

If A UK Defence Contractor were trying to get funded on Dragon's Den, they would get ripped to shreds when asked what sort of demand they are marketting to.

Looks back over other smart MOD moves…

Centurian tanks: 105mm conventional rifled ammunition, mahossive export sales sucess. Every man and his dog adopts the gun and buys the tanks.

Chieftain tank: 120mm gun with two piece rifled ammunition. Rather a flop, Man walking his dog stops so his dog can piss on the wheels of the broken down Chieftain.

Tadah! Lets build a better Chieftain and call it Challenger!

Shall we give it a 120mm smooth bore gun as fitted to Leopards and M1's that are mahossive export sucesses?
Nah, we stick with the two piece ammo and the rifled gat that seems to be rather a bespoke flop. We have to give away spare Challengers 1's to an arab bloke with a dog.

And now we're up shite creek as we can't afford to develop gucchi new ammo for our rather bespoke gat, and unplanned obsolescence awaits as it would cost nearly as much to convert CR2's to smooth bore gats as to buy new tanks.

I haven't read the link, but IIRC MoD is shackled by regulations on procurement and strategic considerations which are outside its domain, namely procurement rules mandated by HMT. It is naive to think that military procurement exists within its own bubble and not within a wider context and as part of the economic engine of the nation. Notwithstanding ownership of Defence manufacturers, there are real and measurable economic and knowledge benefits to the country.

I say buy British where possible, keep the strategic means to develop weapons on our shores and keep our industry alive...even if it means getting the 80% solution.

Sent from my HTC Desire HD A9191 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by metimmee

I say buy British where possible, keep the strategic means to develop weapons on our shores and keep our industry alive...even if it means getting the 80% solution.

Sent from my HTC Desire HD A9191 using Tapatalk

That would have been a lovely philosophy in the 1960s. Alas in this day and age where we are actually required to use our kit in a warfighting sense and want it to work, buying British falls short in so many areas.

Watch Pentagon Wars. A brilliantly satirical film about the M2 Bradley procurement fiasco. Whenever I watch that, its so easy to translate it in to pretty much every UK MoD procurement.

Originally Posted by Gassing_Badgers

Look at it from the other side of the fence:

Why invest millions of research pounds in a product that will at best be ordered in very limited quantity, with so many 'UK specific' features that it will likely never sell on the international market.
Worse still, we will likley change our mind on the requirements, or cancel it altogether halfway through.

If A UK Defence Contractor were trying to get funded on Dragon's Den, they would get ripped to shreds when asked what sort of demand they are marketting to.

Or look at it from another angle entirely: what is it that we do, or how is it that we do it, which genuinely needs such highly bespoke kit?

We've long talked about the training of the individual and working to him/her and not the kit, and yet our procurements often sharply contradict that.

Arms industries have always been a problem...

Nobody except manufacturers and megolomaniacs ever lkes them and they are invariably hotbeds of petty rivalries and incredible waste..

Even the Germans in the WW2 era, who had some of the best designs and a "free" workforce, wasted huge amounts of resource on grandiose projects and blind alleys.

I think on reflection that the balance we have lost in procurement is that between the short and long term. Too much of the "throw away" society has translated into the military, which I think is very dangerous. Miltiaries like "throw away" - it is quick and easy and needs little management and control. You break something, simples - just grab another..

The problem is however sustainablity. "Throw away" is fine until you run out! In civil society this is annoying but rarely fatal. I would suggest that this is not the same case with the miitary. Far too much dependence is now placed on the logistic chain, which is expected to maintain "Salisbury Plain" levels of availablity regardless of location..

Procurement is now all about "projects" not "capablities" - Projects are nice, they are all about "buying new stuff" and forgetting about what went before. They are also a wonderful mechanism for not getting blamed. You also get to play the "competative tender" game which again, unless 1. you really have choice and 2. you know exactly what you are looking for, is yet another con..

To make military procurement really work, we need to rebalance the process back to the point where most of what we buy is to meet the long term, day to day core requirement, and we spend much less on the speculative "edgy" stuff that allows a few willy wavers to grandstand for a few days...

I think the strategy taken by the Navy with the type 45s where they have gone for a big modular platform with lots of space and a flexible infrastructure, but with only a few "edgy" weapon systems for the moment, is probably sound. No point in bouncing sexy gear around the oggin just to replace it ten years later never having used it.