Commonwealth Air Forces

[Giorgio N]

It may be a struggle to sell weapons against the big boys but having products that people are interested in usually helps. The abovementioned Chieftain and Challenger tanks followed a philosophy (maximum protection and armament while sacrificing mobility) that not too many liked, reason why they sold in few countries. In those same years Germany sold large numbers of Leopard 1 and 2 tanks to many more countries showing how it's possible to compete with the US.

Clearly the development of weapon systems designed closely around the needs of a single user has the advantage of giving such user the best but at the same time has the disadvantage of making such design less interesting to others with different needs.

P.S. totally agree with Charlie on the Australian Seasprites, the Australians have a lot to be blamed for in this story

[Meatbox8]

Canada bought (and built) British during the war. Our experiences with unfriendly people lurking in undersea boats trying hard to sink all the things convinced us that protecting our supply lines by buying things from our neighbours to the South was a better idea.

But don't forget that we bought Vampires, Comets, Bristol Freighters, Fireflies, Sea Furies, Centurions and many other British pieces of kit during the 1950s. We also bought the rights to redesign the Britannia twice.

Then the British Government did its best to kill the British aircraft industry and there was nothing left to buy. Except Hawks, and we bought those.

Yes, one of the few British aircraft built with true export potential (Hawk) and it sells really well in the Commonwealth (CAF, ADF, IAF, SAAF, Kenya to name a few). There must be a moral there. Even the USN use it. I always thought it rather odd the the RAF was practically last to get the Hawk 2 though.

[Meatbox8]

It has always been a struggle for anybody to compete with the Americans when selling shiny toys of death; I remember once reading a comment by a member of the Saab sales team that when trying to sell the Gripen, the Americans would always offer the F-16 for $1 million less per aircraft. While facetious, it is true that the economies of scale enjoyed by US companies mean that in terms of price it is very difficult for companies from other nations to compete.

Yes, and the F-104. By all accounts the only reason to buy it was the US/Lockheed was practically giving them away. I understand that the Luftwaffe was actually more interested in the Lightning and Buccaneer. At least Dassault managed to flog some Mirages around that time. Pretty much the only company (in the West) that has managed to compete with US concerns.

Edited February 12, 2016 by Meatbox8

[Procopius]

By all accounts the only reason to buy it was the US/Lockheed was practically giving them away.

That's certainly one way to put it...

[Jessica]

Meatbox8, on 12 Feb 2016 - 05:25 AM, said:

Yes, one of the few British aircraft built with true export potential (Hawk) and it sells really well in the Commonwealth (CAF, ADF, IAF, SAAF, Kenya to name a few). There must be a moral there. Even the USN use it. I always thought it rather odd the the RAF was practically last to get the Hawk 2 though.

Well they had to wring all the life out of the Hawk 1s first...

[Meatbox8]

Well they had to wring all the life out of the Hawk 1s first...

Ha ha. Yes, a very British trait.

It's interesting, albeit futile, to speculate on what might have happened had the CF-105 gone ahead. I wonder whether the UK MOD were interested. After all, the RAF had a similar need as the RCAF i.e. hunting Bear, and as the Lightning had next to no endurance The Arrow might have fitted the bill. One for the Whatiffers, I suppose.

[Meatbox8]

That's certainly one way to put it...

Crikey. Naughty Lockheed.

[Giorgio N]

Yes, and the F-104. By all accounts the only reason to buy it was the US/Lockheed was practically giving them away. I understand that the Luftwaffe was actually more interested in the Lightning and Buccaneer. At least Dassault managed to flog some Mirages around that time. Pretty much the only company (in the West) that has managed to compete with US concerns.

Germany was never interested in the Lightning. The Lightning was included in most preliminary lists of aircrafts to consider in most European countries in those years but it caught the interest of nobody. Simply put, it was seen as a uselessly complicated type with very limited range and dubious multirole capabilities.

Other types present in most lists were the F-105, the Northrop N-156 (that led to the F-5), the Grumman Super Tiger and the F-104. The Mirage III also featured heavily. Considering that most European countries wanted a type capable of performing both interception and strike missions, it's clear that the F-105 was not suitable (and was anyway too expensive) and the F-5 was too limited. The Super Tiger could have been a winner, although it was maybe better as a fighter than as a strike type. The same can be said for the Mirage that in the end became the true competitor of the F-104.

It was the Marineflieger in Germany that looked with interest at the Buccaneer. The problem with this type was that it was expensive, with the Luftwaffe purchasing hundreds of Starfighters it made sense to the government to impose the type to the German Navy too rather than field another type with a new logistic chain.

One other important aspect of the Starfighter should not be forgotten: Lockheed involved in the manufacture a large number of companies from the countries that purchased the type.

Yes, one of the few British aircraft built with true export potential (Hawk) and it sells really well in the Commonwealth (CAF, ADF, IAF, SAAF, Kenya to name a few). There must be a moral there. Even the USN use it. I always thought it rather odd the the RAF was practically last to get the Hawk 2 though.

Most second generation Hawk customers did not use the first generation variants while at the same time a number of users of the first generation variant did not switch to the newer type. The RAF is one of the few users with both generation Hawks in service.

The Hawk was one of Britain's greatest export success and this success is fully deserved as the little Hawker/BAe trainer is a great aircraft. As said before, when a product is good, buyers are more likely to appear.

That's certainly one way to put it...

It's however interesting that many of the cases that involved Lockheeds sales team policy concerned the C-130, a type that really had no competition on the market and was the best in its class of its generation (and maybe beyond)...

Not that Lockheed was the only company using this approach as the sale of the Lightning to Saudi Arabia was also "facilitated" in not too dissimilar ways

http://www.theguardian.com/baefiles/page/0,,2095814,00.html

Edited February 12, 2016 by Giorgio N

[Meatbox8]

Germany was never interested in the Lightning. The Lightning was included in most preliminary lists of aircrafts to consider in most European countries in those years but it caught the interest of nobody. Simply put, it was seen as a uselessly complicated type with very limited range and dubious multirole capabilities.

Other types present in most lists were the F-105, the Northrop N-156 (that led to the F-5), the Grumman Super Tiger and the F-104. The Mirage III also featured heavily. Considering that most European countries wanted a type capable of performing both interception and strike missions, it's clear that the F-105 was not suitable (and was anyway too expensive) and the F-5 was too limited. The Super Tiger could have been a winner, although it was maybe better as a fighter than as a strike type. The same can be said for the Mirage that in the end became the true competitor of the F-104.

It was the Marineflieger in Germany that looked with interest at the Buccaneer. The problem with this type was that it was expensive, with the Luftwaffe purchasing hundreds of Starfighters it made sense to the government to impose the type to the German Navy too rather than field another type with a new logistic chain.

One other important aspect of the Starfighter should not be forgotten: Lockheed involved in the manufacture a large number of companies from the countries that purchased the type.

Most second generation Hawk customers did not use the first generation variants while at the same time a number of users of the first generation variant did not switch to the newer type. The RAF is one of the few users with both generation Hawks in service.

The Hawk was one of Britain's greatest export success and this success is fully deserved as the little Hawker/BAe trainer is a great aircraft. As said before, when a product is good, buyers are more likely to appear.

It's however interesting that many of the cases that involved Lockheeds sales team policy concerned the C-130, a type that really had no competition on the market and was the best in its class of its generation (and maybe beyond)...

Not that Lockheed was the only company using this approach as the sale of the Lightning to Saudi Arabia was also "facilitated" in not too dissimilar ways

http://www.theguardian.com/baefiles/page/0,,2095814,00.html

Indeed.

[GMK]

It may be a struggle to sell weapons against the big boys but having products that people are interested in usually helps.

P.S. totally agree with Charlie on the Australian Seasprites, the Australians have a lot to be blamed for in this story

The Seasprite is classic project management case study fodder: the platform size limitation was dictated by a platform that was cancelled! The RAN was to buy an "offshore patrol combatant" - larger than a patrol boat, smaller than a frigate (corvette?). The existing S-70B Seahawk wouldn't fit, so a smaller aircraft was selected. Then the OPC/OPV (forget which, specifics don't really matter) was cancelled.

Still persevered with the Seasprite and tried to shoehorn our procedures & requirements into an airframe that wasn't compatible with either. Nothing wrong with the aircraft itself, it should never have been selected in the first place.

You're right about having products customers want. In seven years of capability development, I became sick of "used by the British Army/RAF/RN/RM" being the question, answer, & rationale by UK sales guys. British-made became shorthand for high cost, low quality, usually late. This is the (unintended) flip side to the stories celebrating UK Forces' triumph over equipment shortfalls. Why struggle against poor kit when you have the option of simply buying better from elsewhere?

[hairystick]

The Seasprite is classic project management case study fodder: the platform size limitation was dictated by a platform that was cancelled! The RAN was to buy an "offshore patrol combatant" - larger than a patrol boat, smaller than a frigate (corvette?). The existing S-70B Seahawk wouldn't fit, so a smaller aircraft was selected. Then the OPC/OPV (forget which, specifics don't really matter) was cancelled.

Still persevered with the Seasprite and tried to shoehorn our procedures & requirements into an airframe that wasn't compatible with either. Nothing wrong with the aircraft itself, it should never have been selected in the first place.

You're right about having products customers want. In seven years of capability development, I became sick of "used by the British Army/RAF/RN/RM" being the question, answer, & rationale by UK sales guys. British-made became shorthand for high cost, low quality, usually late. This is the (unintended) flip side to the stories celebrating UK Forces' triumph over equipment shortfalls. Why struggle against poor kit when you have the option of simply buying better from elsewhere?

The RNZN would like to thank Australia for their fine planning and development, which has resulted in their "new" Seasprites' joining the NZ Fleet.

Jolly decent of you!

[CharlieNZ]

The RNZN would like to thank Australia for their fine planning and development, which has resulted in their "new" Seasprites' joining the NZ Fleet.

Jolly decent of you!

I did quite well out of it too, a seven week trip to the Kaman factory in CT to learn about the systems.

[MikeR]

You're right about having products customers want. In seven years of capability development, I became sick of "used by the British Army/RAF/RN/RM" being the question, answer, & rationale by UK sales guys. British-made became shorthand for high cost, low quality, usually late. This is the (unintended) flip side to the stories celebrating UK Forces' triumph over equipment shortfalls. Why struggle against poor kit when you have the option of simply buying better from elsewhere?

Which is largely a function Britain of supporting British industry and British jobs. Even if the equipment is subsequently found to be deficient in service, at least it's kept people employed. Which is both a good thing and a bad thing.

Mike.

[GMK]

The RNZN would like to thank Australia for their fine planning and development, which has resulted in their "new" Seasprites' joining the NZ Fleet.

Jolly decent of you!

You're welcome cancelling the SH-2G(A) meant we got there in the end - the Romeo is very, very capable.

[Giorgio N]

You're right about having products customers want. In seven years of capability development, I became sick of "used by the British Army/RAF/RN/RM" being the question, answer, & rationale by UK sales guys. British-made became shorthand for high cost, low quality, usually late. This is the (unintended) flip side to the stories celebrating UK Forces' triumph over equipment shortfalls. Why struggle against poor kit when you have the option of simply buying better from elsewhere?

Which is largely a function Britain of supporting British industry and British jobs. Even if the equipment is subsequently found to be deficient in service, at least it's kept people employed. Which is both a good thing and a bad thing.

Mike.

Unfortunately it's not always easy, especially when reseources are limited, to reconcile the supply of the best possible equipment to the armed forces with the quest for having people employed in the defece sector. Then there's the matter of specifications that may be too excessively tailored to one single user's needs.

It's however interesting that more than a Century ago the UK had a much more pragmatic approach, particularly when it came to small arms: competitions were open to designs from all over the world and the various Ordnance Commitees didn't care if a design was British or not, the best was selected and the others weren't. This often put the Directors of Ordnance in contrast with the then large number of British gunmakers as these for obvious reasons resented the inclusion of so many foreign designs, more so as these were often selected. Manufacturing was then done in Britain so in a sense this approach managed to solve the problem mentioned above.

I often read comments resenting the fact that a Country with so much tradition as Britain use more and more foreign equipment and tend to dress their soldiers in a more "american" way, but we should not forget than Queen Victoria's Army, the same Army that conquered so many lands and guarded the largest ever empire in History, achieved most of their feats while armed with a Swiss designed rifle and wearing a Danish style helmet...

P.S. it may be little known, but most small arms used by the British Army starting in the late XIX Century originated from foreign designs: the Martini Henry originated in Switzerland, the Lee was an American design and American were many machine guns, the Bren came from Czechoslovakia, the SLR and the GPMG from Belgium.

Edited February 24, 2016 by Giorgio N