The main speaker was David Davis who raised points about the betrayal of a long history successful work at the Brough plant. That the Hawk still has prospects for sales and that much of it is being offered to overseas companies in ‘offset’ deals to gain more sales. Also the point was raised that BAE had made the error of selling off its commercial aircraft interests which had often taken up the slack when defence orders are slow. A plea to slow the rate of redundancies at Brough was raised.

There was also talk about the terms in the ‘yellow book’ which represents the trading agreements between government and industry. This relates to guaranteeing jobs to maintain capability and covers who pays for redundancy costs. It seems the government pays in this case. Some MP’s think BAE is exploiting this.

Others mentioned large overspends that need to be reduced and ensuring the ability to satisfy future projects.

Each MP spoke. It seemed reading the debate that very little was said that hasn’t been said a dozen times. It is perhaps unusual for redundancies at one company to secure so much time for discussion and it left me wondering what was achieved. At the end there was a resolution which might mean more in politics than it does when reading it. This says;

That this House urges BAE Systems to act to preserve the UK’s defence production skills base and, as a recipient of enormous resources over many years from the UK taxpayer, to deploy those resources in such a way as to protect the nation’s manufacturing capability.

Or it seemed;  Carry on as planned,  if what you make costs more and what you can offer is limited by inflexibility then you reduce the chance to sell it, and so could lose more jobs.

It could be argued that to preserve jobs the government should place contracts that pull work forward or create new research. In the current climate this seems unlikely.

An overview of defence as a whole could read as follows. Over the years the UK aircraft industry has consolidated to a few plants and BAE has changed from an aircraft company to one that delivers systems with a large part in the US. Also the number of projects has declined and it appears that the UK is likely to become an aircraft ‘part’ manufacturer. With UAV’s potentially creating work but it isn’t clear how that will evolve. The alternatives come with large bill. Perhaps a measure of the UK’s decline over the years coupled with increased complexity and the range of military options from tanks to submarines, UCAV’s and very expensive electronics, counter-measures, surveillance and cyber-warfare. Where to focus? Which elements to play a major part in?  Off the shelf, licence build, direct purchase? A lot to consider.  Let’s hope we can maintain a viable aircraft industry producing whole aircraft rather than a bit player. Today we might not be optimistic. Only the French put national glory and maintenance of capability on an equal pedestal to financials e.g. Renault, Airbus, TGV, Nuclear Power, Ships.

The aircraft industry has been recognised as one that generates large export earnings through products and services over long periods of time.  Aircraft also contain a wide range of sophisticated equipment that provides high technology business and employment all over the country and these items are also exported. The business fosters close relationships and partnerships with other countries of all sizes that often leads onto other business, particularly infrastructure, as well as demonstrating a capability to participate in future high technology international ventures. Investment in aircraft projects provides the likes of BAE, Rolls Royce, Martin Baker, Marconi with the foundation for their products. There is a lot to lose without care.

Read the full debate on the website ‘they work for you’.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2011-11-24a.472.1&s=speaker%3A11668#g475.0

Warton and Samlesbury are hit by a slowdown in Typhoon deliveries which has been agreed with Germany, Italy and Spain. Also by a slowdown in the build up of the US led programme, the F35.

The Brough site is Hawk related and a union representative said on the BBC that Hawk work will be moved to Warton which they are going to resist. The company has stated it is negotiating ending manufacture at Brough which will leave structural testing at the site.

In the last few years there have been a number of reductions at the Preston area sites. The Jaguar and Harrier taken out of UK service. Nimrod scrapped. Some Tornados mothballed. Previously defence work has been consolidated at Warton as other sites closed and export orders kept the workforce numbers high. As Tornado and Typhoon have peaked and F35 work delayed some reduction seems inevitable.

Yet BAE has often cut numbers locally and sometimes taken them back within a couple of years. Whether this will happen again is questionable although there are a number of potential orders such as Typhoon for India. Also the company declared the job reductions as ‘potential’ so there is perhaps optmistically  some scope for movement of staff and new work which may reduce actual redundancies.

For the future the company are working on unmanned aircraft and prototypes have been built. Questions will be asked about what comes after Typhoon and fits above the F35, if anything.  The US has long wanted to be the monopoly supplier to Europe’s Air Forces. A ‘super project’ like the F35 ordered by almost every western air force will no doubt be proposed to see off the capability of the UK. Although it might be expected the French will continue their full range of aircraft and air vehicle manufacturing capability and perhaps they are the people to use as an example or logical partner.

Preston isn’t the only area with advanced technology development and manufacturing on these aircraft. The engines, radar, electronics, undercarriage, ejection seats all have major UK development and manufacture and are all assisted by a home market which enables their equipment to be chosen on American and other aircraft. A manufacturer not selected on a home project loses mass and credibility. A long term plan for the industry isn’t visible at this time although this isn’t a new situation with aircraft projects being complex and long term.

BAE SYSTEMS has 35,000 UK employees of which 11,000 work at Warton and Samlesbury.  The portfolio of major programmes locally now includes the Typhoon, Tornado, Hawk, F35 plus Harriers in service overseas. Future unmanned aircraft are in development and collaboration with France has been proposed.  

The job reduction is about 8% locally so not insignificant but whether that many actually leave can depend on many factors such as new work and other consolidation and initiatives.  In addition local suppliers and out-sourcing companies may be effected.   Several million pounds will be taken from the regions economy, not good news for anyone at this time.

What the implications are for the the status of the UK in the F35 programme will unfold as the details are finalised. Not to ignore the Rolls Royce involvement. Samlesbury has major investment due to the F35 and it would be bad for the region if this was affected.

That the Tornado and Typhoon continue as the RAF’s prime fighters is good news.  No mention of the future of unmanned aircraft projects although the French relationship is increasing overall which might be a clue.

Over the years there have been many ups and downs and the factories in the north west have benefitted from consolidation of the industry.  With the rump of the aircraft sector now being in the north-west there isn’t a lot more consolidation available and changing technologies mean new types of aircraft are being developed with new companies entering the market as well as new countries.

Over the years this industry has done well for the region and there is little opportunity for similar work possibly in the UK so any damage could further degrade the UK skilled engineering base.  Reduce the potential for exports and influence while creating a need to import these expensive products: double losses all round.  Not to mention the small factories all over the north-west who supply parts.

At the moment it hasn’t come to major reductions and Liam Fox commented that he wanted new technology to be introduced rather than upgrading old products.  Upgrading is a useful piece of business but the prestige of producing a new and complete product creates a more solid core and a reputation that brings customer confidence and a position of strength in negotiations with potential partners.

The most promising part of the speech was the support for export programmes. This is quite different from what Robin Cook started out with in the last government, although he soon found out it was easier said than done.

Some of it sounded like fine words and it will be interesting to find what happens in the longer term. Statements like upgrading existing products is taking funding away from new technology. This sounds real enough yet getting those few extra years or enabling an existing item to meet a new threat sound more cost effective than letting them become incapable. Also the statement about too much optimisation also sounds good but with many defence products you either win or lose and being unable to hit the target isn’t a useful option.  In reality watch out for less upgrading, more new technology, less gold plating.

Other statements like recognising sovereignty for some items but co-operating more with the French are things that the aircraft industry has done for years.  Cutting numbers to make up for cost overruns isn’t that new either. Co-operating with the French is something that has been mentioned in both nuclear and aircraft carrier work so perhaps that is a clue to his thinking on one or both of those.

In conclusion the export support and new technology themes are positive. We await the defence review.

This aircraft demonstrates the UK capability to produce the stealthy airframe, electronics and engine with the complex ground control system. Positioning for the future is important with BAE SYSTEMS and Rolls Royce being two of the biggest and most advanced engineering companies in the UK. The market for these vehicles will be substantial and international partnerships, leadership and workshare isn’t yet established. At this time we also await the government strategic defence review output which will examine the UK’s requirements.

With Tornado, Typhoon and Lightning II the manned element has at least 30 years life unless technology overtakes it as it frequently threatens, but not succeeding, to do. Although it seems likely the two types will complement each other for some time. Interesting imagining how quickly things could change.

Many years ago a BA flight over Malaysia flew into a volcanic cloud, all four engines went out and the windscreen was sandblasted. A great story if you can find the full transcript. After gliding out of the ash the pilot managed to restart the engines but couldn’t see out of the windscreen. He landed successfully to much acclaim.

You might think the aircraft could fly lower or higher where there is less ash. Aircraft fly into desert airports with sand blowing about. Is this an over-reaction and total risk aversion. A bit of a surprise to wake up with this announcement when nothing had been publicly threatened as late as 11pm last night and the volcano has been erupting for some time. Also not a lot of news about how long this might continue and what flight alternatives are being offered people. Overall seems to be being covered more like a show than a major disruption. Few questions are being asked about whether it’s an over-reaction and why was there no notice.

You expect the Green Party to support green policies. Yes, wind power, insulation and waste management are high on the agenda.  Along with quite high social provision and low defence provision. 

Who could argue with wind, insulation and waste measures? Insulation seems to be one of the biggest factors in reducing energy bills. It isn’t very glamorous though and isn’t going to gain technological credibility so doesn’t get a lot of press. 

All those windmills.  Are they becoming a bit of a blight already?  They’re often not turning, so not very dependable. For the region with its seas, hills and facing the prevailing wind we can expect a lot more who-ever is in power but even more with the Greens. We can also expect Heysham Power Stations to close and the fuel site at Salwick.

Waste? All that plastic packaging and milk cartons. Surely it should be discouraged.  Some countries already re-cycle twice as much as the UK without too much difficulty.

Another Green policy is an increase in public transport.  Not too long ago their promise of building 30,000 new buses would sound like manna from heaven for this region, Leyland,  but now there is hardly any bus building except some body work at East Lancs Coachbuilders, Optare.  

There wasn’t much written about reducing car use but cutting rail fares by  30% and expanding public transport implies a reduction in car use. I’m not convinced about a 30% cut in rail fares. A cut from £10 to £7 is only marginally advantageous and if I was spending that every day, a cut from £50 to £35 wouldn’t be life changing. I’m against encouraging distance commuting so in some ways an increase in fares might help that.  I have free bus use now and have never used it, so cars will need to be penalised. 

The 30,000 buses are an interesting concept. British jobs for British workers?  Including steel from Middlesbrough for windmills and buses, although probably it’s the wrong steel and too little, too late and steel making isn’t green. 

Taxes on aviation, like VAT on aviation fuel, and restrictions on new runways coupled with reductions in rail fares, might create an advantage to resorts like Blackpool.  Especially if the pound sank because of the financial controls the Greens promise. 

On defence the Greens are looking at a defensive posture and only venturing overseas under the UN. As UN don’t usually use more than Land Rovers and light armour you could say no overseas capability will be needed.  Is that goodbye to Ascension, Falklands and perhaps Gibraltar.  Aircraft Carriers and their aircraft and probably a lot of the navy wouldn’t be needed. Trident is definitely out.  I wouldn’t hold much hope for the aircraft industry in Lancashire or ship industry at Barrow.  As an area with a large defence and nuclear industry how many defence workers does it take to insulate one loft.

The Greens are also big on social welfare including workers and human rights and a citizens wage. 

There are other policies about building solar arrays in Africa and using high voltage d.c. transmission lines to bring in the power.  As well as local generation.  It’s not long ago I was reading about the advantages of the a.c. distribution system so I must re-visit that. Surely a policy like that couldn’t be written without engineering awareness. 

The Greens also support the EU, but not as a nation, and support international co-operation, who doesn’t.

As you’d expect, some big changes would result and I was a bit surprised that they seem quite left wing when out of the major elements of the ‘green zone’.   I’d support a ‘greener’ track in many aspects and use of local producers and local workers appeals. There’s always a downside to this type of social engineering in that if basic stuff becomes more expensive you’ve less to spend on enjoyment. In conclusion they won’t get my vote but have my support as a pressure group.