It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

F-35 scared of Sparrows

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Lockheed Martin Corporation and BAE SYSTEMS North America, Inc. announced today that they have reached a definitive agreement under which BAE SYSTEMS will acquire Lockheed Martin's Control Systems business for $510 million in cash. BAE SYSTEMS North America is a wholly-owned subsidiary of British Aerospace plc, Farnborough, England.


www.defense-aerospace.com...@xsOa9dUAADBV6Qg&modele=release

That was in 2000 by the way. It might not be the entire company but it was a substantial chunk of the business.



also dont forget BAE has just bought United Defence as well
news.bbc.co.uk...




posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 04:29 AM
link   
Wow have I been missing out on a discussion or what!


Well, in response to whoever said that the UK would have to pull out of Europe for us to get some things.......hmmmm now despite the US being our closest ally I'd rather have the big 5 (UK, France, Germany, Spain, Italy) as my allies rather than just the US.

I don't really see why the US won't let us have the source code. Ok so we are not getting the JCA for a while but whilst we don't have it we may as well use the time to fine tune the code to how we want it. Heck I think we shouldn't give the US the manuals on the EW stuff for the F-22 until we get the source code. Heh war comes along and they would be a bit screwed running around pushing buttons trying to get the EW stuff to work. Seriously though this is petty, the UK has done loads for the US. Just to name one example though the UK actually came up with the Silo concept for missles during the Blue Streak project. When it was abandoned due to rising costs we gave EVERYTHING we gained from that project (a heck of a lot of stuff) to the Americans, they then went on to use most of it on the Apollo projects.

And why do some Americans insist on putting the UK down? We are a nation (ok well more than one but hey) that is smaller than some of your states and yet we are a big military power (ok not in numbers) and have extremely heavy political influence and bloody common sense (although I sometimes wonder about some defence issues).

The JCA is a joint UK (and others) project and should be treated as such, "a problem shared is a problem solved" well realise that just because America currently leads the world on computing related stuff does not mean that you don't need help. I would rather have a project shared around many countries that then works rather than the US being over-zealous (look it up if you don't know what that means) of their projects and over confident in their abilities.

Right, now rant over gimme a JCA! (Acutally quite passionate about this as I may be flying one some day [Just got a RAF 6th Form Scholarship so good indication I hope even if it doesn't get me a place or anything])



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 05:32 AM
link   
Just to clarify yes I did mean Lockheed Martin, it was late sorry. Also I meant the code’s for the F-35 variant that the RN are getting. and not the F-22, which there not,yet







I don't really see why the US won't let us have the source code. Ok so we are not getting the JCA for a while but whilst we don't have it we may as well use the time to fine tune the code to how we want it. Heck I think we shouldn't give the US the manuals on the EW stuff for the F-22 until we get the source code. Heh war comes along and they would be a bit screwed running around pushing buttons trying to get the EW stuff to work. Seriously though this is petty, the UK has done loads for the US. Just to name one example though the UK actually came up with the Silo concept for missles during the Blue Streak project. When it was abandoned due to rising costs we gave EVERYTHING we gained from that project (a heck of a lot of stuff) to the Americans, they then went on to use most of it on the Apollo projects.

And why do some Americans insist on putting the UK down? We are a nation (ok well more than one but hey) that is smaller than some of your states and yet we are a big military power (ok not in numbers) and have extremely heavy political influence and bloody common sense (although I sometimes wonder about some defence issues).

The JCA is a joint UK (and others) project and should be treated as such, "a problem shared is a problem solved" well realise that just because America currently leads the world on computing related stuff does not mean that you don't need help. I would rather have a project shared around many countries that then works rather than the US being over-zealous (look it up if you don't know what that means) of their projects and over confident in their abilities.


I couldn't have said it better myself.

[edit on 7/4/2005 by 300k]



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
The origuinal poster's 'Lockheed Merlin' error may have something to do with the fact that Lockheed are going to license build the AgustaWestland Merlin for US service and that somehow got mangled up into argument?

I wonder if BAE are overstretching themselves a bit as not only have they bought this chunk of Lockheed Martin but they have also acquired a similar chunk of Boeing. Are they trying to take over US Industry or just trying to corner the market in that particular field of electronics?

It saddens me as a UK plane buff that BAE are moving away from actual Aeroplanes and becoming more systems oriented, hence the recent name change. It may well be based on a sound business case but it seems a shame we aren't building planes as much as we should, for instance would it have been SO difficult to have a BAE competitior in the civil 80-100 seat market currently being carved up between Embraer and Bombardier? The BAC One Eleven was the first twin in the class but now we are totally absent. Sorry for rambling, I'll shut up now.

[edit on 7-4-2005 by waynos]




British Aerospace became BaE Systems when they bought out Marconi Electronic Systems in 1999. They have no plans to leave the aircraft industry, The company has through various acquistions (almost the entire uk defence industry) become one of the largest defence contractors in the world. As part of this they are expanding into new areas such as more systems work, but that in no way means there want to just do that.

[edit on 7-4-2005 by paperplane_uk]



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 06:16 AM
link   
Also theres a LOT more money in systems than there is in complete aircraft. But BAe still produced the Hawk, which is an excellent aircraft in its own right.



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 06:43 AM
link   
So, no sign of Westy so far then?

No more silly bleating about "the US needing to keep 'it's' tech to itself" today yet?




[edit on 7-4-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 07:45 AM
link   
paperplane uk;

British Aerospace became BaE Systems when they bought out Marconi Electronic Systems in 1999. They have no plans to leave the aircraft industry,


richard;

Also theres a LOT more money in systems than there is in complete aircraft. But BAe still produced the Hawk, which is an excellent aircraft in its own right.


I think maybe you both slightly misunderstand my post as well as the situation.

I understand the points you both made to be true, especially the point about where the money is at, but it is fact that BAE Systems is positioning itself further and further away from its traditional 'airframe' based roots and it is also true that the name 'BAE Systems' was deliberately chosen to reflect this.

If you take the year 1977, when BAe (as was) was formed as a reference point you would see that BAe had a commercial aircraft operation which included manufacture of the BAC 1-11, Trident, HS.748 and HS.125 which was quickly followed by the launch of the Jetstream 31 and BAe 146. Not a trace of this business remains, with the UK having completely abdicated from commercial aircraft manufacture outside Airbus, this was a market in which the UK had done well in the past and which did not encroach on Airbus ops so it pains me that we are unable to compete in it today at all, other than the leasing operation for used 146's Jetstreams and ATP's that we now have.

Likewise we are apparently unable to develop a new trainer for the RAF, the Hawk as mentioned by Richard dates in its original form from 1974 and was a Hawker Siddeley design, the updated version is alright but its no Mako or M.346/Yak.130 is it.

The Harrier was gifted to the USA and we are now a fairly small partner in the F-35 whern our knowledge and expertise SHOULD have led to us being able to get a bigger share.

The Jaguar was sorely underdeveloped and the Super Jaguar could have competed with the F-16 in the export market had the Govt had the courage to back it, how many current operators of the F-16 were for decades regarded as traditional customers of the UK? Until we decided tio offer them nothing after the Hawker Hunter that is..

Back in 1977 BAe was also big in avionics, missiles and space systems so diversification is not a new thing for the company but I feel the loss of airframe expertise is very sad. Of course we are the leaders of the Typhoon programme so that is one thing and I do not think for a second that we could or should have produced it alone but surely BAE systems ought to be able to offer a range of competitive aircraft in other roles to back up its position?



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
I think maybe you both slightly misunderstand my post as well as the situation.


I wasnt aware that the BAe discussion was initiated by you
I was mainly replying to paperplane_uk.



Likewise we are apparently unable to develop a new trainer for the RAF, the Hawk as mentioned by Richard dates in its original form from 1974 and was a Hawker Siddeley design, the updated version is alright but its no Mako or M.346/Yak.130 is it.


The Hawk is pretty much redesigned each time BAe put out a new version, it may look the same but it undergoes massive improvements each time.

BAe was recently handed a new £160m contract by the MoD to produce a new version of the Hawk which will lead to a further £800m contact to produce the aircraft. The Hawk is also sold worldwide as a combat aircraft, not just a trainer, and can handle the vast majority of the NATO weapons range.

news.bbc.co.uk...

THe issue is that the barrier to entry into the civilian aircraft market is very high, and its the same height each time you release a new aircraft. The market is very small, so I dont blame them for diversifying into more profitable markets.

If you want to blame anyone, blame the government that forced all the aircraft manufacturers in the UK to merge into 3 main companies (if i remember correctly). That was what mainly killed the UK aircraft industry.



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 10:14 AM
link   
yeah but BaE own a 20% stake in Airbus anyway, so why would they compete against themselves??? Doing that helped bring down the UK car industy in the 70's.



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Sorry Richard, I thought you were replying to my post, that may be why I thought you misinterpreted it.
Actually me and you seem to be telling each other stuff that we both already know.


Originally posted by paperplane_uk
yeah but BaE own a 20% stake in Airbus anyway, so why would they compete against themselves??? Doing that helped bring down the UK car industy in the 70's.


But that was the very point I was making, it would not be in competition with Airbus, the A318 has only come out since the demise of the Avroliner (ex-BAe 146). The other Airbus partners have no qualms about competing in the sub 100 seat market (ATR72 for example). I just think its a shame that we are producing so little that is new and indegenous, especially since other nations are becoming aircraft producers themselves and benefitting greatly from it.

If you doubt what I say look at any aircraft directory from the late '60's or 70's and compare what the UK was producing then to what we are producing now, then compare such as China, India Brazil etc over the same period.

I don't dispute that BAE is one of the worlds largest companies and of course that is good, I merely speak from the perspective of an aeroplane lover rather than a business analyst.



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Sorry Richard, I thought you were replying to my post, that may be why I thought you misinterpreted it.
Actually me and you seem to be telling each other stuff that we both already know.


No worries, and yes Ive noticed that too! Wierd eh?



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 10:46 AM
link   
have just finished reading stuck on the drawing board by richard payne

www.amazon.co.uk...=1112888886/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl/202-9708445-5213450

if you like what they did build then you should see what they didnt!!!



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Thanks for that, I will of course be ordering it immediately. Don't tell the wife.

Done it, that 'one click' ordering is damn handy isn't it?


[edit on 7-4-2005 by waynos]



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 10:56 AM
link   
i did much the same, some of the supersonic, concorde replacement work was intresting (especially with regards some rumours about new engines on here recently)



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Sounds like a book I might order then!



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 05:33 PM
link   

No more silly bleating about "the US needing to keep 'it's' tech to itself" today yet?


I only said keeping the most advanced secret tech for ourselves, not everything. I don't mind giving or selling some technology unless it is very secret and important.
Also I don't agree wit the U.K not getting the codes for the Chinook, and I think they will get the codes for the F-35 when they actually get the plane.



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I only said keeping the most advanced secret tech for ourselves


- What do you call a British company 'owning' and having full access to the sensitive systems on the B2 then, hmmm?

(BTW glad to see the comments about the Chinook & F35 coding.....be sure to write to your congress rep huh?)

[edit on 7-4-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 08:47 AM
link   
I've just looked in an old (ish) mag I had lying around and in it it described some of the aircraft that QinetiQ (formerly part of DERA - basically it is our primary research company they produced LCD technology amongst other things). In this article it mentioned the only Harrier that they own and mentioned that it was undergoing tests for the JCA (JSF). Reading further in on this it turned out that it was being used to evaluate and I think extensively used in creating code for the FBW system in new STOVL aircraft including the JSF doesn't this mean that we are already making our own/a portion of the JCA code for the FBW system? It was apparently fitted with a sidestick so that tests would be closer to that of the JCA system.



EDIT: Just seen this on the QinetiQ page....hmmm am I missing something here or does it suggest that the UK did the FBW and not the US in which case where is the issue raised by people above?


Sources:

Magazine I will go look for sometime
Official QinetiQ lowdown on the aircraft

[edit on 17/4/05 by Infidellic]



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Why are some of you Brits getting all worked up over the codes?

YOU DON'T NEED THEM YET! All it is is prudent security, nothing more. When you get your aircraft, you will also get the codes.



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Why are some of you Brits getting all worked up over the codes?

YOU DON'T NEED THEM YET! All it is is prudent security, nothing more. When you get your aircraft, you will also get the codes.

It does matter if we needed them now, yetsterday or the day before, we want them now thats the end of the story.
Your a partner in this, I thought partners helped each other and if one asked another to have something they would gladly do so.




top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join