British Aerospace: Good or evil?

[uk 75]

Now that the Government seems to be turning back to Jump up and down Dave otherwise know as the JCA STOVL, I cannot help wondering again as a poor, and getting poorer, taxpayer, why we have allowed ourselves to be flimflammed by BAe and the MOD once again.

It was obvious to anyone that unless we built a nuclear carrier like France or the US the catapult option was going to be risky and expensive. So we embarked on a risky and oversized carrier programme built round an aircraft of only limited capability and great risk-STOVL JSF as was.

Italy on the other hand has built itself a prefectly good modern Harrier carrier (which can also operate Dave if they ever get it into service). In the years since the 1997 Defence Review we could have built a whole trio of such ships to replace the Invincibles in time for them to leave service gracefully and without embarassing spares shortages. The RAF Harriers could have been kept in service until Dave arrived. All at a reasonable price and even with some possibility of Australia buying the same ships.

MOD and BAe screw up again. Denis Healey would have called time on the ships and let BAe argue it out with the lawyers. Even now we could build upgraded Oceans which would employ the shipyards and be much more use to a workaday post Iraq madness military.

Well thats what the Bar is for a good old rant!

 

[hole in the ground]

In so many ways I agree with that! I cant see how the money saved by scrapping Harriers early instead of say, Tornado and leaving us without a carrier strike capability was cheaper than having to regenerate the capability 10 years down the line. Not to mention the lack of carrier strike for Libya requiring the use of the RAF in what would have otherwise been a perfect centrepiece action for naval strike. And of course the well documented costs of keep people in Italy in accomodation, air to air re-fueling requirements, the extended time to target caused, the risk to ocean by having to carry out carrier strike from close in shore and requesting permission for each strike mission from the Italians... Blimey..


As an aside though. Im not sure that I agree with the obviously nuclear point. Nuclear limits where we would be able to operate the carrier as some countries and even separate ports ban nuclear vessels. If it is a point about "unlimited range" what about the non nuclear escorts? or the aircraft? They all need refueling. RASing is a good way of extending the endurance of task groups, not to mention the food for the personel. If it is an argument about the power requirements then I would have to point to the HV RFA's, Albion and Bulwark and the T45s. From what I understood essentially the QE and PW will be powered by 2 T45 systems...

 

[CNH]

One is used to seeing defence cock ups, but this is one of mega proportions.

Keep the Harriers, even build some more, and order new Invincibles. Bit no. Someone in the Navy is still smarting over the loss of CVA01.

 

[GTX]

Please be accurate with the company names. It is BAE Systems. It has not been BAe or British Aerospace for over 10 yrs now (and, no I do not work for them, nor are they my favourite OEM).


Also enough with the "Dave" appellation. It is derogatory to the many hundreds and thousands of people who have worked on it. I am not saying that you have to like it, but at least be respectful of people's work.

 

[uk 75]

GTX

I sort of agree with your points, but most people still call it "British Aerospace" in the Uk because of the litany of screw ups that we have experienced over the years. Some real gems come to mind, but the latest in which BAE Systems is also involved is the wondrous inability to but a simple refueling aircraft for the RAF.

As for "Dave", I make no apologies for using this simple form. The plane has a series of equally stupid and confusing designations, and its given name "Lightning II" is just plain insulting to a Brit who saw the wondrous English Electric Lightning burning across the skies over Abingdon and Benson as a child. Lockheed Martin's shafting of the US Taxpayer is if anything as epic as British Aerospace's

 

[shedofdread]

It's not a question of good / bad - rather one of doing the best for it's shareholders. As any publicly quoted company MUST and in that lies the problem because in an ideal world such a company should be thinking of both it's dividend payments AND the national good. Partial state ownership, then? Hmmmm... not sure what to make of that one.

I also don't much care for 'Lightning II' - I can't imagine that's what it'll get called in FAA / RAF use.

 

[Byeman]

GTX

As for "Dave", I make no apologies for using this simple form. The plane has a series of equally stupid and confusing designations, and its given name "Lightning II" is just plain insulting to a Brit who saw the wondrous English Electric Lightning burning across the skies over Abingdon and Benson as a child.

Why is it insulting? It isn't named after that plane, but a more famous one.