• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Rozanoff kills Duncan Sandys, April 3, 1954

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
840
Reaction score
166
Not this again....
I’m nothing doing another exchange with based on you apparent inability to accept that your view isn’t the sole view and that the evidence suggests your not 100 percent right.
I never said that maintaining industry capacity was the only or even necessarily primary basis for 4 bombers to the 2 v-bomber requirements; I am well aware of the back ground to the v-bombers.
I never suggested that Maudlin opposed industry consolidation (I don’t think he did).
My contention is that the UK government/ state could have done more and earlier to have helped the necessary consolidation along, you appear to be stating an absolutist position that they could not have done anything more any sooner.
We don’t agree.
While I can see some nuance in this (may have required an more interventionist mindset than many of the stakeholders had at the time and which only later came to the fore) you appear not to.
Hence I don’t really see the point arguing this with you and derailing the topic.
Suggest we just accept we disagree.
If you keep posting incorrect and fact free screeds I will keep pointing out that they are incorrect.
But I’m very clearly not doing that and if you continue this pattern of behavior I’m going to have to report you to the administrators.
 

JFC Fuller

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
3,248
Reaction score
249
But what was the real outcome of the rationalisation policy? What was the real outcome?
It sucked up a lot of capital. BAC spent £1.3M in May 1960 buying up Hunting. Thankfully its plans for merging with Boulton Paul, Handley Page and Shorts never came off or millions more would have been spent. Hawker Siddeley spent £15M acquiring de Havilland in December 1959, Folland in May 1960 cost £814,000. Westland's purchase of Fairey included a £4M sweetner for the Rotodyne.
In 1960 Hawker Siddeley was doing well, its new group had a turnover of £324 million and a net profit of almost £21 million. BAC's pre-tax profit in 1961 was a more miserly £567,000.
But industry wide profits fell post rationalisation as funds were sucked into diversifying (Hawker Siddeley buying up electrical and diesel locomotive manufactuers and large investments in Canada including steel and coal interests) and buying up smaller companies. By 1964 Hawker Siddeley was in dire straits and being refused bank overdrafts.
Industry profits in 1957 had been £29.7M, they had declined to £18.9M by 1960, just £13.8M in 1961, breifly rising in 1963 to £23.3M, 1964 slumped back to £17.9M.

The original aim for the rationalised industry of bigger, stronger units was to self-finance civil programmes. This never happened, by 1960 the govenment was offering 50% launch aid for the VC-10 and VC-11, totalling £73M with as much as a cool £258M if the Super VC-10 and further VC-11 funding was thrown in.
Macmillan later directed Jones to spend funds to reduce unemployment in the aircraft industry due to the defence cutbacks and rationalisation before the October 1959 General Election, which resulted in the award of supersonic airliner feasibility study contracts. The origins of Concorde were as much a vote-winning sop than a technological way to leapfrog ahead.
But the government kept having to pump money into the industry. Treasury Issues for the industry had been £684M in 1956, £647M in 1959 but after the 1960 reorganisation they jumped to £711M in 1961, £751M in 1962 and £782M in 1962. Cutbacks in 1963 saw Issues fall to £707M.

But the performance of the industry declined further. In 1956 all British aircraft exports were worth £102.2M, this peaked in 1959 at £154.6M. After the big mergers of 1959-60 it fell to £140.3M, by 1962 was £114.3M and by 1964 only £107.3M. In 1963 no less than £20.8M of exports were actually second-hand airframes (Hunters etc.) and refurbished engines. Things only picked up from 1965 with £131M and not peaking until a record breaking year of £304.7M in 1969. Britain's share of the world market shrank from 32.9% in 1959 to just 14.2% in 1964. Dollar Area exports fell from £60.7M in 1961 to £20.6M in 1962.
In comparison home (civil and military) orders had been £290M in 1956, peaked at £305M in 1957 then maintained around £350M from 1961 to 1963. In 1964 home orders were worth £432M (only £79.4M being military), that's £300M more than its export value.

The final proof of the policy's failure came with the 1965 Plowden Report to re-examine the industry again. But if offered up the same solutions, more exports, further rationalisation into a state-shareholding company and throwing in international collaboration as a means to cut government funding.
This is a key point. I once spent weeks going through old FT articles to get a feel for, what today we would call, investor sentiment around the UK A&D industry in 1950s/1960s and came up with exactly the above. I am left with the view that for the most part these companies were defence companies (by which I mean they were used to having most of their R&D funded by the taxpayer), not aircraft companies, and were ill-equipped financially (and perhaps intellectually) to make the transition from one to the other. Of course, that was compounded by the relative lack of demand for airliners in the UK compared with the US.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CNH

pathology_doc

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
868
Reaction score
76
Somewhat off-topic but yet on-topic, it occurred to me that the title of this post is misleading. I read "Rozanoff kills Duncan Sandys" and imagined him being assassinated by a Russian spy! :D:p
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
840
Reaction score
166
Somewhat off-topic but yet on-topic, it occurred to me that the title of this post is misleading. I read "Rozanoff kills Duncan Sandys" and imagined him being assassinated by a Russian spy! :D:p
That was also my initial thought; some guy from Spectre with an eye-patch and an evil grin.
 

Volkodav

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
123
Reaction score
10
Much of the work was started was started by his predecessor, Aubrey Jones, but Macmillan didn't think he had to drive to force the R&D and force cuts through , in his diary he confided his thoughts on Jones, a decent chap but not suited to the rough and tumble world of politics. In Sandys he found the man he wanted.
And of course, Sandys had been involved in rocketry during the war so that probably influenced his thoughts too. Missile-myopia of course was evident in other nations too at the time.

Personally I feel that had it not been for the Korean War, the industry would have been trimmed sooner and some of the wasteful projects never begun.
I must admit I have always been impressed with France, they always seem to have been able to get the stuff they wanted by going it alone (carriers, SSNs, nukes, IRBMs, SLBMs, tanks, fighters, trainers etc.) without seemingly spending crippling amounts and without too much waste in abandoned sidelines. Had the British ministries and services had more focus and a dose of reality, things might have turned out rather different.
How much of the extra spent by the UK comes down to investing in R&D then cancelling the project for no return, over and over again? The French tended to identify a capability, invest in a solution, push that solution into service and then sell it overseas while continuing investment in the next project. The Brits kick off a project, or a British company does, the British customer (be it government or airlines etc) chop and change their requirements over and over, then when something usable arrives, attracting overseas interest, the government talks it down and kills it. Its like they want to spend on R&D but not on actually building anything.
 
Last edited:

pathology_doc

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
868
Reaction score
76
The Brits kick off a project, or a British company does, the British customer (be it government or airlines etc) chop and change their requirements over and over, then when something usable arrives, attracting overseas interest, the government talks it down and kills it.
The real problem is that the chopping and changing of requirements/official meddling (e.g. in the rationalisation/mergers of the aerospace companies) blows out the R&D budget and delays progress to the point that the resultant product misses its best service window and emerges into semi-obsolescence (Sea Vixen), becomes unaffordably expensive per unit (TSR.2), or sometimes both.

The tragedy is that sometimes the requirements are FORCED to change due to outside circumstances, but one has to wonder what would have happened to TSR.2 if English Electric had been given absolute project design leadership without Vickers being allowed to effectively independently design its "part" of the aircraft and without the requirements changing midway (e.g. as I understand it, blurring the line between tactical and strategic nuclear delivery and demanding the requisite penetration performance did a lot to drive up the per-unit cost). We probably would have had three or four hundred built, that could have been adapted easily to the new wave of guided bombs and missiles that came in as of the late 1960s.
 

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
1,187
Reaction score
158
In terms of the OR.339 it really should have been one of the 3. Avro, Vickers-Supermarine or EE.

Of these V-S's Single Engine offering is the most logical for a tactical machine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CNH

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,793
Reaction score
382
Somewhat off-topic but yet on-topic, it occurred to me that the title of this post is misleading. I read "Rozanoff kills Duncan Sandys" and imagined him being assassinated by a Russian spy! :D:p
That was also my initial thought; some guy from Spectre with an eye-patch and an evil grin.
He is France closest analog from a Chuck Yeager. Except he died young.

Soooo.... blasphemy !!

Who threw that stone ?!! SHE, SHEEEE, SHEEEE, eeerrh.... HIM, HIM, HIM.
 
Last edited:

Archibald

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
2,793
Reaction score
382
:(:(:(:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::mad:

bloody hell... I've just learn that Python Terry Jones has passed away....

Niiiiiii !!! Niiiiii !!!

Camelot ! Camelot ! it's only a model...
 
Top