Could new passenger plane be lifeline for BAE Brough?

[Fedaykin]

Civil aircraft in the military section?...bare with me

I read this report today:

Could new passenger plane be lifeline for BAE Brough?

Now I understand the concern, the fact is whilst the Hawk has been an excellent platform over the years and as a training solution as a whole still up there but we can't ignore that it is being overtaken by newer types that benefit from more modern technology. Unless another big order after the Indian follow on contract Hawk production is going to wind down.

Now the idea in this story is to develop a passenger aircraft at Brough...hmmm now here is another idea! Develop a new Hawk! New airframe, wings and FBW. Lever technology from the current Hawk program as well and carry on doing what has worked well for UK Plc!

Just an idea ... discuss

[Arthur Pewtey]

It isn't going to happen - not when subsidized airliners are built cheaper elsewhere. Building them is one thing. Designing, testing and certificating them is quite another. Brough has no history in this market at all. We used to build airliners in the UK not a million miles from where I'm sitting. It was stopped because BAE wasn't interested in building airliners anymore.
When Woodford/Hatfield etc. were closed nobody cared and the skilled workforce was allowed to dissipate.

Good luck with their venture but where was the support for a similar venture when RJ production was closed at Woodford? Nowhere. Because no-one was interested.

Not sure about a suitable runway though. 3500ft long is it?

[Fedaykin]

That is pretty much my thinking, its a saturated market segment and any new jet would have to compete with the Embraer and Bombardiers of the world...even Airbus with the A318. As you also point out there was little interest in continuing RJ production...actually as far as I see it the government and Bae did everything they could to kill it off. I think there was talk of some newer more competative twin engine RJ variant but that died a death. On the other hand Hawk sales have been a consistent over the years, whilst I don't think we can compete with the K8 in the low end of the market there is no reason why a new type levering off the old Hawk and Typhoon programs couldn't be a success especially with a suitable UK order post 2020...might well be a good solution as a replacement for the older none T2 Hawks in UK service (maybe even a new platform for the Reds...)

[mrmalaya]

Well clearly BAE are having to think about what if anything follows the Hawk. After such success it would be odd for the UK to roll over and hand it all to Italy and South Korea/US....

Having said that, why not design and build a ground-breaking green machine. The politics of Green is not that of the past- we must look to the future!

Now which bit of myself do you want me to expose in solidarity?

[Trident]

A regional jet would certainly not work, for all the reasons which have already been stated (market saturation, subsidised competition). Perhaps a turboprop (maybe even embracing new aerospace players by joining forces with India's NAL), but even that seems like a long shot.

[Giblets]

Just such a shame the RJK project got shelved, am sure this would have kept the production line going for a few more years, though whether it would still be manufactured is another matter (and in my opinion unlikely)

[Amiga500]

Given how badly Airbus are run, I'm quite confident BAe could bury them in whichever market they chose to compete in within 20 years.

[Fedaykin]

You forgot the sarcasm emoticon Amiga500

[Amiga500]

You forgot the sarcasm emoticon Amiga500

Having worked with both I am not in any way being sarcastic.


Airbus is no longer an engineering company run by engineers.

It is some kind of bstartised "services" company run by bean-counters (procurement) and project managers - and unsurprisingly neither group has a scooby about how to efficiently design and build a plane.


BAe (at least as far as any I've worked with) haven't forgot the basics - to manage an engineering project you must first understand the engineering of the project.

[J-20 Hotdog]

A regional jet would certainly not work, for all the reasons which have already been stated (market saturation, subsidised competition). Perhaps a turboprop (maybe even embracing new aerospace players by joining forces with India's NAL), but even that seems like a long shot.

indeed, BAe needs to aim big, not like Sukhoi, Embraer, Bomberman, and CACK

[TooCool_12f]

BAe needs to think twice before going into something they've left behind years ago...

On what basis will they build that new "big" aircraft? when was the last biig aircraft they made, besides? what technological evolutions happened since then? Imagining they'd be able just to sit down a design a new efficient and competitive aircraft would be like saying that other companies have been sleeping for the last 20 years..

catching up on a technological level will take a big investment and for that they'd need a big potential market, something they'll have hard time finding as all civilan markets are more or less saturated with competitive offers already

[Jackonicko]

With the growth and potential growth in the Middle East, China, and India, there ought to be a big enough market to sustain a new offering, particularly if it brought something new to the market.

And with its expertise in composites, flight control systems, etc. BAE Systems ought to be able to design a great new civil aircraft.

A new super-cruising Biz jet, perhaps? A STOL regional jet? An economical VLJ based on the Hawk's wing design?

Or may be the company should look at some military requirements - a high flying and agile platform for ISTAR and EW (think U-2/RB-57/Canberra replacement)? A STOL transport to replace aircraft like the Caribou, and to present a low cost alternative to Chinook? Or maybe a new generation basic trainer? Or a niche CAS/ground attack aircraft in the mould of the A-10, optimised for the post Cold War environment?

[Sign]

Having worked with both I am not in any way being sarcastic.


Airbus is no longer an engineering company run by engineers.

It is some kind of bstartised "services" company run by bean-counters (procurement) and project managers - and unsurprisingly neither group has a scooby about how to efficiently design and build a plane.


BAe (at least as far as any I've worked with) haven't forgot the basics - to manage an engineering project you must first understand the engineering of the project.

isnt all western tech companies runed like that?

[djcross]

It is difficult to justify investment in commercial aviation manufacturing when you can get people to buck rivets and assemble wiring harnesses for €5 per day in Brazil, India and China.

[seahawk]

It hard to get people to invest if you do not have a unique product. Another RJ will be hardly creating much interest, as would just another biz jet.

If there is a niche, then I think it could be turboprop airliner in a seat range from 80-130. This could fly if the gas price increases.

[swerve]

It is difficult to justify investment in commercial aviation manufacturing when you can get people to buck rivets and assemble wiring harnesses for €5 per day in Brazil, India and China.

That's a lot less than minimum wage in Brazil (currently €2 per HOUR), & you'd need to pay a lot more than the minimum to get riveters & the like. Employers pay heavy payroll taxes on top of that.

I doubt you'd get riveters & wiring harness assemblers for anything like that in China, either. Look at what firms like Foxconn pay assembly workers in Shenzhen these days, & add on all the fringe benefits the firm provides (laundry, housing, uniforms, canteern, etc - all free or heavily subsidised), & you arrive at much higher figures.

[garryrussell]

They should have replaced the Hawk many years ago with an up to date product

For years no the British industry has continued to sell old product lines until they finally fade out and then just close up.

As mentioned above, the skill base has long since go to produce a civil airliner and the only one that comes close and still in production well past it's time is the Islander.

I really don't know why Airbus, when expansion determines new production line to assemble the jetliners, Britain never seems to be on the list.

Airbus have a capacity shortfall, the answer would seem obvious. I suspect a lot of the current backlog of A.320 series machines will never be built as by then the NEO will be the current version and the orders switched.

If there was not such a big backlog, many of those would be have been built then later replaced by NEOS meaning two sales in place of the one they are likely to make in such cases.

[swerve]

The Hawk has been thoroughly re-engineered, with a new wing, new nose, other airframe changes, & a completely new, all digital cockpit, FADEC for the engine, etc. There's not much left of the original Hawk.

[Amiga500]

If there is a niche, then I think it could be turboprop airliner in a seat range from 80-130. This could fly if the gas price increases.

I'd go bigger again.


150-200 seat Mach 0.6-0.65 cruising turboprop or propfan.


Sacrifice speed for fuel economy. Don't try to beat the incumbents (Airbus/Boeing) on their own patch by copying them - move the battleground to somewhere that suits you.

[alertken]

No new aircraft type could reach production in time to save Brough.

BAE is a land bank. Woodford, Hatfield, Filton (and various ROF sites) having been moved from asset ledger to cash, now it's Brough's turn.

Brough workforce has been sustained with internal work orders, on Hawk and Harrier. Now done.

BAE managers have many sites competing for whatever structure fabrication the firm can win and retain. Making chunks of Boeings is a hefty business line.

If the Board were ever to be pursuaded to embark on a new civil project, they would require the investment risk to be laid off, by sending workshare to the risk-sharing partner. But they won't because they won't be so pursuaded. BAE (and its antecedents) has never, say again, never, made a true accountant's profit from a civil type. Few types have been profitable for any one: Chairman T.Wilson: by ’72 Boeing had “sold c.$20Bn. of commercial airplanes and hadn’t made any money (at that time we were an) absolute basket case on 737” R.J.Serling,Legend & Legacy,St.Martin’s P.,92,P.385. 737 became profitable after No.2000.

[JSR]

That's a lot less than minimum wage in Brazil (currently €2 per HOUR), & you'd need to pay a lot more than the minimum to get riveters & the like. Employers pay heavy payroll taxes on top of that.

I doubt you'd get riveters & wiring harness assemblers for anything like that in China, either. Look at what firms like Foxconn pay assembly workers in Shenzhen these days, & add on all the fringe benefits the firm provides (laundry, housing, uniforms, canteern, etc - all free or heavily subsidised), & you arrive at much higher figures.

The problem is ur comparing wage rate of Chinese coastal cities. It is like building a plane inside central London or in big Brazillian cities.
US south and Midwest is famous for industries because its wages/housing are not like NY/LA.
Building/Assembling Aeroplanes is manpower intensive work relative to economic output per hr when you compared to auto/electronics industries.
That is mistake of Chinese of building large airliner in Coastal cities. It will become unworkable with time.


Any way I dont think BAE will be willing to risk technical manpower and money on single independent project. It cannot affford to create unique design and component product.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...-c919-on-costs
Bombardier Agrees to Share CSeries Cockpit With China’s C919

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...e=null&next=10
Comac has, for a start, been rather busy spending money. Only halfway through the C919 development schedule, the budget has almost all been spent and will not be enough to see the aircraft into service, says Feng Peide

[Speedy]

Don't knock the Hawk. It is still pretty unbeatable.... bang for buck. It is an interesting rival in the TX program. I suspect it misses just a few requirements for this, but it could win on economy.

UK will not make aeroplanes again.... at least in my lifetime. It is 100% clear that nobody in UK has the resolve or vision that went into superb aircraft like the Hawk.

There may be scope for better turboprop regional airliners. I would be very surprised if UK made anything more than parts of such a project

[Amiga500]

I am now 100% certain BAe are not considering entering the commercial aircraft market again.

The reasons for my position will become clear in their own time.


But long and short - this story is busted. Unfortunately.

[matt]

Why would BAe want to go back into Civil avaition having already sold of its part of Airbus?

[mrmalaya]

Well, wasn't the story more about a Government plan to put the UK on the green aviation map....?

Either way on this forum I suppose the question is more one of a Hawk replacement than a super-green airliner.

[Zebedee]

I am now 100% certain BAe are not considering entering the commercial aircraft market again.

The reasons for my position will become clear in their own time.


But long and short - this story is busted. Unfortunately.

I dont want to but cant help agreeing with you... BAe have spent the last 15 years trying their damnedest to get out of the aviation business... considering they've never actually flown anything (with the exception of their recent UAV research...) that wasn't either based on a design from before they were formed or in collaboration with someone else im not particularly surprised...

Zeb

[alertken]

The number of aircraft types that have made financial sense is, ah, modest. If a friendly Govt. can be induced to shovel taxpayers' munificence, so. But to raise 30-year Project Finance...few. Boeing's Company 1998 Result was 2% on $56.2Bn. revenue but only 1% on civil work, 63% of the total: it was conjectured that Commercial Airplane Group would be sold. Airbus, 1998, built 229 a/c for a loss of $204Mn. on $12.3Bn. revenue.

Boeing beat BAe.146 to BA, 3/78, with 44x737-200ADV, by arranging walk-away leases, buoyant Supplier-financing laid-off to a secondary market. BAe. belatedly devised such a scheme, itself as Head Lessor, shoring Future Value with its (then: our) balance sheet. Commercial A/c Divn.’s first profit (£12Mn. in 1998) was gross of £51Mn. to unload this exposure: most 146/Avro RJs were sold by BAe. to BAe. In 1990 its bankers were “within an ace of calling in Receivers” BAe.Chairman,S.Times,30 July,2000.

So, Q: why, I hear you say, do Russia and China and Brazil and Canada seem so interested in entering the RJ sector?
A: Because it's high value-added, knowledge. At a cost.
Better Q: why has Japan, so dominant in other engineering, not done much original Aero design?
A: Because they happily build great chunks of (largely,)Boeing products; wham, bam, thank you Ma'am: build, ship, cash the cheque. See also Alenia. See also various BAe. sites.