..or the Battle of the Atlantic where long range patrol/bomber aircraft were essential in tracking U-boats. Some historians have suggested that government leaders were products of a "public" education system that had much to do with these types of decisions. Emphasis on learning Latin and Greek, plus classic literature; and very anti what is now called "STEM" (Science/Tech/Engineering/Math). Thus oftentimes these guys literally had zero clue about what they were being asked to decide.
No offence to any or all involved but, I personally, much prefer having inept and "boring" politicians than the sycophantic prostitutes in the republican party and the rank criminality and corruption of the president and all who support him. "Boring" or "Crime family"? not much of a choice really.
It's something of a running theme in plenty of scientific fields in the UK, but also some other European countries, especially in the 20th century. People going on and on about patriotism, but then neglecting innovators in domestic R&D, forcing them to go elsewhere, or letting other countries "steal their thunder". It's a pity. Though I do think this sort of short-sightedness is less common these days, but you still get all sorts of knowitalls and populists underestimating R&D and financing new talents and innovators.
Superior? How so? Admittedly I have no experience with British aeronautics, but plenty time messing with "drive a week, work on it a week" British autos from the late 50s, 60s, into the 70s, I take "superior engineering" with a large grain of salt. Although I love the Droid"s page the problem is even when the Brits get to claim firsts like radar and encription, they seem to glide right over help received from the French or Poles in filling in large holes in the developmental processes saving years as a consequnce. It certainly isn't "only" a British thing as it seems every other Nation has done much the same. The example of the catastrophic structural failure in the first commercial airliner causing the evaporation of a considerable industry investment and technological edge.is illustrative of at least some of the Ministers grasping some of the realities of being funtionally broke. It isn't that the idea isn't sound, or the out come desireable, it is simply you don't have the depth of pockets to stand the bad breaks that must come. The Pioneers take the spears. How many Pioneers can you fund?
Man of the west Well first off let’s not conflate the use of the word “superior” with some singular effort in achievement. I generally agree with your points but the use of the word here signifies only that they are superior engineers. They have many credits under their belt to cement this claim. What you discussed in terms of manufacturing has always haunted post industrial Britain. Germans, for instance, are always touted as superior ‘machinists’ and rightfully so. Many of their mechanical achievements are, in fact, not ‘superior’ to their British counterparts as engineering marvels, they are simply better made. When I purchased my Triumph 750 Bonneville, I immediately replaced the wiring and never had another issue. Much the same was true for cars like the Jaguar, which, when under the care of American mechanics, thrived. But on the roads of Europe, like the Ferrari and Lamborghini, were woefully expensive to maintain. Your final point is certainly true enough, but I think Droid was pointing out that the pragmatic tale you tell was not all there was to the story. It’s been a while since I have watched the video, but I recall a great deal of internal politics at play here. Politics intended to insure monetary and political power in the hands of the eventual victors. An all to common (and in may way all to British) human failing. The bottom line was that British engineers had made significant advances that were not only commensurate with, but in many ways more advanced, than their European or American counterparts. This rightfully implies the proper usage (admittedly in a generic sense) of the word “superior”.
Mr.Cox I grant you are seeking tob pragmatic, however it is more in line with my reasoning that "superior", as used, generally would cover concept to cash register. The Brits have generally been the guys to come up with great ideas yet suffer on follow thru and intigration. My comment was not meant as a slight to anything , it was solely to call attention to the crux of what "superior" would be (in my mind) as to engineering.. As you know given unlimited resources,time, money, men, material, anyrhing can be successfully done. Truely superior engineering is displayed when you have success with the resources at hand. Superior engineering wouldn't have left it at needing something as simple as rewiring to make so nice a automobile problem free. You are absolutely correct as to the politics.
The culling of British aeronautical industry is one of the greatest sins in the world of economy. It happened elsewhere too, for example in my country, Italy, only in the name of profit and economic sustainability. It is not difficult to understand that the aerospace industry is one of the strategic technology assets that can't be immolated to the altar of money. It must be kept preserved, shielded from external interference, and pushed high and high to keep the pace with the best. The amount of inspiration and greatness it generates is incommensurate and beyond any other consideration. I have watery eyes now.
Yeah, but you know profit and economic sustainability is important, right? Unless it state owned, private companies must make money. Of course, for critical industries there's absolutely nothing wrong with them being taken into state ownership.
@Anne Isopod To be fair we were rather embarrassed about all the the shooting people we'd done with them over the previous 500 years. It was getting a bit much.
Churchill gave away all our R&D + technology to the USA for free after the war.... sigh when they had break a through like H-bomb they told us to stuff off.
Still going strong, Just look at the Mig 25 & 31. Denial of Responsibility is a sin. The U.S.A. is not innocent, But the bigger problem was the lack of security in the engineering and design in Canada.
@@keyboarddancers7751 I voted leave, the EU is undemocratic and corrupt to its core. Don't patronize the silent majority of the UK's population with your pretentious arrogance.
@@charleswood7001 And then you'll get dependent from america - see the truth NO EUROPEAN COUNTRY CAN BE A REAL BIG PLAYER ON IT'S OWN ANYMORE. The single european countries are just too small for that
What happened to the British aircraft industry? The same thing that happened to the British automotive industry, the British shipbuilding industry and British Railways. Amalgamation, Nationalisation, Cuts, Privatisation and Asset-Stripping. British Industry led the world in technology and innovation, but was let down by incompetent government.
That was the deal the British took twice: give up Britain's global position to the US to stop the Germans from becoming a regional power in Europe. Only Britain had the capability of resisting the US from becoming the global hegemon. Neither Germany nor the Soviets later ever had a chance, they simply lacked the Navy to even question American dominance of the seas. The Americans did develop a plan in the 1920-1930s called War Plan Red for the coming confrontation with Britain where they could only hope for a stalemate because of the Royal Navy. The Germans then accomplished for them what they could not: the destruction of Britain to the level where it was easy to overtake. This was a choice for Britain, both in 1914 and 1939. In 1914, had they not entered the war they could have become either rich by supplying both Germany and the Allies and/or acquire some more colonies for this supply from both sides. It was not in the interest of the British to get directly involved in that war and have a generation massacred to defend their historical enemies, the French. Without British intervention the war would have not lasted 4 years but the Germans would have still lost a lot of men and have been severely weakened, and Britain's greatest rivals, France and Russia would have been cut back. In 1939 had Britain not entered the war, the Germans might have not turned westward towards France but started their Eastern campaign sooner. It would have been a prolonged disaster even without Britain, but again, a chance to supply and get rich while the potential rivals kill each other. America would have found it very hard to overtake an intact and newly enriched Britain.
@@thebravegallade731 the Soviets relocated their industry past the Urals where it could not be bombed were making 10,000 T/34s per year and had oil sources other than the Caucasus. The German got stuck in the mud and froze after reaching the absolute limit of their logistic capability which was 800 km. Trying to over-extend it lead to Stalingrad. You really think your Dieppe raid and the tertiary importance of the African front mattered? What, tying down 2-3 divisions compared to 150-180 mattered? Land Lease helped the Soviets gain speed in 43/44 but the Germans would have ran out of men and materials either way, even only just the oil would have been problematic for the Germans. They were not close to winning it ... it was just as impossible with or without Britain. Also, without a Germany first strategy all the industry of the US could concentrate on Japan that is a Japanese surrender in 43/44. Not 45. After that if there is a Soviet-Axis war the US would have pushed land-lease into the Soviet Union.
Indeed, he has a very pleasant voice to listen too. He also articulates very well and doesn't speak to fast, which for me, a non english speaker, makes it easy to follow and understand.
@@thunberbolttwo3953 False. Both the British and the Americas showed interest (the Americans would later take the F-106 Delta as a replacement. The British were using it for future projects similar to TSR-2. The French also wanted the Orenda engines for their newer fighters
@@jamiewhichelo9983 Yet the f4 phantom 2 did the same thing as the aroow at a cheaper price.Plus the orenda engines were never full devloped.No surprisae ther.they were trying to devlop both the plane and the engine.Its one or the other.as tto the british they had the electric lighting.thnuis no need for the arrow.
@@thunberbolttwo3953 A country can either build the engine or the aircraft? -F-35, F-16, F-15. Plus, contrary to what you say, 3 Arrows were installed with Orendas at the time of their destruction.
@Jon Seymour Yes because well tested and known laws of physics are EXACTLY the same thing as the incorrect ideas of a puffed up asshole. Same thing, totes. :V
asdaffewwerqa asafdaqwrad 2016 British PM "We'll have a referendum on leaving the EU. The people will reject it." 2019 British PM "We're leaving the EU and it's going to be great for the U.K." 2035 PM of England "We want back in!"
The thing is when scientist or engineers say X is impossible they usually give the environment under which that statement is. Lazy journalist and quote miners of course will leave that part out. Case in point. It's impossible to fly faster than the speed of sound.... For a propeller aircraft. It was impossible then and it's STILL impossible now.
It just makes me mad that a change of government can have such catastrophic long-term effects when they make their decisions on dogma and ignorance alone. It happens every 4-8 years in the US, but it sure happens in the UK too.
It happens elsewhere too. Dogma, not reason. We had several government owned businesses, providing top quality services in affordable prices while still making a nice profit for the government. But since dogma says privatised is better, the profitable companies were sold, now the costs have gone up, profit has gone down and service quality is falling like a rock. Basic rules of capitalism apply, or basic rules of life: if it works, dont try to fix it. These businesses had spent decades to improve their operations, to get into the top of their game. And after being sold, the buyers tried to get their money back fast by "rationalising" and "slimming down", and in effect just cutting away operational effeciency, turning a top company into struggling second rate operation. Dogma. Its magic rituals to compensate the lack of knowhow.
Labour governments have been gradually destroying Britain. Tony Blair was the final nail in the coffin and made sure Britain would never rise again. I must admit though, the trend started with treasonous Churchill selling out to the international elites and bankers. That was the beginning of a fast decline which can only be stopped or slowed down if the corrupt Tory, Labour and Liberal establishment parties disappear and are never voted in again and if Britain leaves the EU as demanded democratically by the majority.
@@squarerootof2 If it is known Britain will never rise again, the logical solution is disbanding Britain completely and possibly joining a system that can, for example nearby France.
@@squarerootof2 So 38% of the electorate is a majority? What is needed (not that it will happen) is those in the UK who don't vote should be (somehow) encouraged to vote. I am an expat who pays UK tax but guess what - I was disfranchised by Tony Blair when he was PM.
I know this will go against the grain, but this "reset" of goals is in many ways a benefit. This prevents the dogmatic following of previous investments that may be already obsolete. there are also other benefits in terms of government nimbleness. Obviously, there are downsides as well.
The reason they were in the wings is because of the perceived risk of uncontained engine failure. Although modern turbofan nacelles are designed to try to contain catastrophic engine failure (such as a blade fracture), uncontained failure still happen sometimes.
If metal fatigue and pressurising and depressurising was understood better then those square windows would never have been used This certainly killed off the comet
@@markmitchell450 I believe there was a design change for manufacturing which was effectively unauthorised and compounded the problem. Something to do with the assembly method, screws, rivets, adhesives or similar. The knowledge about stress fractures etc. was freely passed to others who learnt from it. "The cutting edge of new technology is stained with the blood of those who tried it first".
@@walterrudich2175 Actually I was refering to the interference in the local aeronautical industry (the Avro Arrow specifically) but Brexit would equally fit... you could even add the "mass wholesale" of public infrastructure to foreign investment as well if you like (as has occurred here in Australia) 👍
Well... look into the mirror, Adam, because "politics (as is waging war) is completely and forever woven into the human psyche. And ANY one of us, put into the right situation, are More than capable of waging war on, and killing wholesale, an "enemy" threatening us or our loved ones, or becoming the type of politician we all profess to detest. Always has been that way, since our ancestors' knuckle-dragging early years...always will be. But we also have lots of "good sides": We are at our very best when things are at their very worst.
Yeah but Winston Churchill came up with the idea of NATO specifically to make a permanent American military presence in Europe because Britain couldn't afford to defend itself anymore. So you can hardly blame the government for then relying on the Americans, that was the plan all along.
The election system as well as the education system have drained Britain of guidance and knowledge. The idea that the brightest brains are only to be found among the Lord’s and the Upper Class is sadly the fate of Britain...
Nalle Elections are a lot like asking “What flavour sauce would you like on your shit? We’ve got chocolate, pepper, trees, and none” - hmmm, it’s a tough decision that ultimately has no bearing on anything - “Stop over thinking and just eat your chosen shit” This is how mad it’s got in the UK. I’m a scientist with 30+ years experience, as is a highly educated colleague of mine who votes like this: Conservative in local elections because he likes how they make his town look, and Labour for the country because he doesn’t care about anything except what affects his town - he says it’s like devil’s advocate - I say it’s the product of a mind crafted by his town’s sewage system, and a questionable upbringing.
Ah yes, the government should have stepped in and funneled more money to these private projects to save them from...a lack of government funding. Government incompetence is the problem, the market didn't fund any of this and if left to them it'd likely have taken decades more
@@MrAlwaysBlue yeah you really couldn't make it up Probably deliberate as the Labour Party wanted the UK have the euro and drop the pound two currencies running around the same value long enough would seal the argument not to adopt the euro
Well, the F-35B was a bit expensive, unrealible and just completley useless. And someone will say: "Why do we need such a plane when there is an VTOL aircraft no other then the Harrier jump-jet, available from Hawker" (not anymore)
@@frankbecerril9835- 300 Argentinian fighters??? You must mean the Magellanic penguins, who, to be sure, put up a stiff resistance. Or perhaps you meant the Korean-era Argentinian A-4s; the plane that, during the Vietnam war, racked up a kill/loss ratio of 1:1(literally one to one) over the even-more-decrepit MIG 17. Due to a lack of refueling, these planes had barely 2 minutes to find a target, miss the target (blowing up a few more hapless Gentoo penguins), before streaking back to base, praying they didn't run out of fuel and have to ditch in the ocean.
@@luism5514 Bollocks, the British Aircraft industry shot itself in the foot by producing crap aircraft which were on the whole very late into service and way over budget.
Whittle had patented the turbofan and 'reheat' or afterburning specifically for his supersonic engine to power the Miles M52 aircraft. It was to be flown by Winkle Brown, the amazing test pilot who's record of aviation firsts and number of types flown (from memory over 2000) will never be beaten - surely an impossible goal for anyone to reach.. Winkle Brown was utterly heartbroken by the cancelation, as were the rest of the team. Whittle, I guess was used to it. De Havilland built the worlds first triplex aircraft, in the DH121 Trident and it was the first passenger aircraft with auto land. When everything else in Europe was fogged in only the Trident could be seen completing journeys. It also had a remarkable feature that allowed extremely rapid descents and the reverse thrusters could be operated in flight. Many british built passenger aircraft missed the boat in sales because of receiving the wrong specifications from BEA and BOAC. The VC10 was built for 'hot and high' difficult airports on the commonwealth routes that could not be serviced by jets like the 707, unfortunately this added weight and cost and efficiency was hit. A VC10 could be at 5000ft before a 707 had got half way down the runway. Hence only 50 or 60 were made. Cost per passenger seat in fuel - even in those days was a major consideration. The Trident didn't carry enough passengers in early forms. Anyone know why else the Trident didn't sell in big numbers?? The Concorde was an engineering tour de force never likely to be repeated. The only real Brabazon success was the Vickers Viscount which was the first turboprop airliner and quite a marvelous one too. Between the M52 and TSR2 was dealt a deadly blow. Competing in certain areas we may be, yet the opportunity to compete in the commercial and military aircraft industry and producing what could have been the finest aircraft in the world was bonked on the head. Many stories here and each could have a film made about it....
Paul, I love absolutely everything you create. I will was that as an American (don't hate me lol) I really appreciate the videos that tell British stories. The way things have gone down in history is so much different than what we are taught here so keep the Royal Refreshers coming. I really appreciate it.
To late for UK. They turned to socialism shortly after WW2. The government then claimed that the only way to rebuild UK was for the government to takeover all industry.
if it wasn't for government these plane companies would never had the orders to make a go of it to begin with, or money for all that R&D. And they went bust exactly because the government didn't sustain them. The 'market' alone couldn't sustain them, ever. Do you think all those American companies, or Dassault, or SAAB, or anyone else, would have lasted without massive amounts of Government money & contracts & support? You're taking completely the wrong lesson. Either an American or someone who read too much American business propaganda...
@@grathapilot LOL, And you sound extremely Chinese. Whether the market might or might not have been able to sustain that many Companies is debatable, but being a major Customer didn't give the Government the moral right or insight to dramatically change Businesses. No non-communist County has meddled as much with Private Industry as the UK and the Burocrats wise plans made things worse every time.
When I started working at BAE SYSTEMS (GEC-Avionics in those days) in the late '80s we won every HUD/HDD/MFD contract out there and had 4,500 personnel at the Rochester UK site. When I left 20 years later the headcount was down to 1,250 and we were losing contracts by being undercut by companies of the likes of Elbit of Israel. The unique and comfortable lead we once had was no longer there, our HUDs were no longer a niche market and it seemed anyone bidding for such contracts was beating us on costs. Add to that how our American "colleagues" had come and taken over and in doing so and spent (by that I do of course mean wasted) a fortune by employing the likes of KPMG to "streamline" our UK operations and I could see exactly why and how our great British aviation and avionics empire died a painful death. A very sad affair, yet I remain proud to have been able to work in said industry and deliver some awesome solutions and technology.
@Simon England Shakespear couldn't spell for toffee. But interesting to hear there spelling may be closer to the original, I've heard American accents are closer to those of the 17th ish century.
Like British shipbuilding, it was betrayed from within and overtaken from without; plummeting in a post-industrial and post-imperial paradigm, where continental rivals on three continents undercut dwindling British industries; from the USA to Japan, from Germany to South Korea (in terms of shipbuilding especially) It is a terrible shame what happened. We couldn't modernise our industrial infrastructure fast enough, with antiquated shipyard machinery and a shrinking defence budget putting our aviation industry under terrible pressure. British aviation was the gold standard for a glorious time in the blossoming jet age. Trade unions were also very problematic, stalling British industry and making it worse, while others surged forward. A distinct confidence crisis. A tragic decline. Britain lost so much - but now we're slowly rebuilding a respectable industry.
@@subscribeorsus6862 Well, like the video points out, Britain is developing it's own 6th gen fighter (for 2035-2040 debut onward I think) BAE Systems Tempest, named for the Hawker Tempest which itself followed another Typhoon (Hawker Typhoon) BAE Systems Tempest is designed to follow and replace the Eurofighter Typhoon :) I agree it is a bit hard to say it's being rebuilt anywhere near as much as it once was. But BAE Systems being the 3rd biggest aerospace company in the world behind only the two massive US giants (Boeing and Lockheed Martin) is pretty damned impressive in it's own right. You'd think Japan or Germany (being bigger economically) might be bigger and better at this. But they are more powerhouses in cars etc. And they also have healthier shares of the global shipbuilding trade, too. Basically, Britain ain't doing bad at all. But fair enough, it's not rebuilt as such. Contributing 20% of every F-35 built by components via BAE Systems is a great thing too, and the UK was always the leading member of the Eurofighter Typhoon project, with the UK building the most parts and having the biggest fleet.
@@soulsphere9242 I didn't say it was ''strictly'' British. Stop putting words there I didn't say :/ It's *majority* British. Italian Leonardo and the Swedish will be contributing to the program, and the UK has already had talks with India about the Tempest project. But the point is, it is a British led program, a British design with £2.5 billion initial UK investment from *our* Defence budget. Is Italy giving £2.5 billion initial investment? No. Leonardo does electronics mainly if I remember correctly. The UK will supply the vast majority of the aircraft's parts and this includes the Rolls-Royce engines, obviously. The 2.5 billion initial development contract will take it to 2025 (not much by fighter development, I know, but that is for initial R+D alone) Who knows what it will be by 2035-2040. For instance, the four strong class of the new Strategic Missile submarines which will replace the Vanguard-class (also 4 in class), the up and coming Dreadnought-class (the new HMS Dreadnought, already under construction) will cost over £38 billion for the four boats collectively. Of course, it is cheaper to build a fighter than a submarine - but of course, there'll be dozens and dozens of fighters, not just four :P So the costs of the Tempest are still up in the air. If things go according to whatever they are planning (the Farnborough Airshow July 2018 preliminary concept mock up made of fibre glass and finished to give an idea of what it'll be like, is very likely not quite how it'll look in the end - with major developments in planning likely) Once the project gets so far in that cancelling or turning back wouldn't be possible or excusable, then you'll see a full commitment (probably post-2025) For the time being it's basically slow-cooking and just getting ready to move into the more serious phases. Basically, ''watch this space'' says BAE Systems, or so it looks to be anyway. They seem pretty proud of this new project. Doubt they'll shelve it. It the UK can invest 38 billion pounds into the Dreadnought-class and updating it's nuclear weapons, then it can also afford to develop this fighter. The RAF and potentially even the RN FAA (Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm) will be deploying the Tempest or some variants of it, I should hope (just my speculation; otherwise it is probably just going to be the RAF from land bases, like how there is no Eurofighter Typhoon model at sea) It is unclear if there will be a VTOL model of the Tempest, but I think the RAF and RN are quite happy with it at the moment in testing on HMS Queen Elizabeth! If Tempest is to be done properly it'll probably cost dozens of billions and absorb large proportions of the annual defence budget. However, considering the UK Defence Budget is slowly rising and is currently at 2.3% GDP per annum up from 2.1% previously, it is not looking too bad. I think that over the next 20 years there is going to be more than enough money to develop Tempest. I did not at any point claim it was a solo UK project but it IS our project. Having a bit of help from Italy and Sweden doesn't suddenly make it not majority British and it'll always be a British idea by conception. It has a British naming convention name (named after the Hawker Typhoon directly) and it is primarily intended for the RAF and for British aerospace sales to other countries. It is trying to angle itself to be a new benchmark for European aviation. It is really ambitious and who knows what'll succeed. I've seen plenty of cynicism in online comments about the amount they are currently spending, and the way it seems a drop in the ocean compared to the costs run up by say, the F-35 program. But I think attitudes to this need to change because using one metric of how much is typically spent and by whom, isn't fair - the USA routinely goes grotesquely over budget on Defence programs. I can't think of any major ones recently that have been on target. e.g. the Ford-class carriers are overbudget, F-35 is insanely overbudget, the Zumwalt-class Destroyers/Stealth Destroyers are wildly overpriced thanks to their numbers being limited to just 3 and becoming something of a white elephant test-bed and in general US missile programs and other military programs, do tend to go overbudget. It's common across many military powers for their projects and programs to be pricier than desired. A scaling problem. The UK's Queen Elizabeth-class carriers also went overbudget, let's be fair - but comparatively in small change terms compared to how overbudget the US carriers did/and continue to be with most not even underway. So yes, I doubt 2.5 billion will even scratch the surface of the final spend. But lets say the British manage to lead the project (well over 80% of it I'd estimate) and basically produce a better aircraft than the F-35 and Eurofighter (or even the F-22A Raptor) Would be a bit of a coup for British aviation. Marketing it to Canada, Australia, India and others, might help make the UK a lot of money - because manufacture will almost certainly be UK based. It will be the new flagship for BAE. I knew people who worked on the Eurofighter and they were sad when the Eurofighter had it's final production tranche. So if they ain't building anymore of those, lets believe that Tempest is on the way. BAE will be looking after and upgrading the Eurofighters and F-35's the RAF and RN have, but they'll want something more, solid for the future, so to speak. Tempest can work. I thoroughly believe in it. The entire point in believing in Tempest, is believing in British aviation industries. If the 3rd largest aerospace company in the world, being UK based, can't lead a project with two smaller European partners to produce a British designed Gen 6, then how could France and Germany make one on their own while Germany is struggling to even maintain it's Eurofighters? (they are planning their own Franco-German Gen 6 fighter) Basically, the UK *will* commit to this because it kind of has to now. The USA, Russia, China, Japan, Germany+France all have Gen 6 ambitions. So it makes sense the UK makes moves towards hammering out the Tempest in the next 15 years or so. It'll be expensive but very interesting, competing with the Franco-German designs most likely (for sales especially) It'll be a big test for the future of UK aviation industries if the UK pulls off a convincing, popular and widely sold Gen 6. Maybe the USA will make a better Gen 6, but the point is, we might just get away with a crazy value for money gem of an aircraft based on developing Gen 5 technologies already being mastered in the West. Western Gen 5 aircraft are the best in the world. The UK's familiarity and closeness with the F-35 program will help it a lot when leading a Gen 6 program. Will there be roadblocks? Probably. Will it be at risk of becoming bogged down in some political argument? Most likely. But will it be necessary if British aviation industries want a flagship production aircraft that will see them right for the next 50 years? I'm guessing so. After all, the F-35 is fully intended to be flying from British carriers and bases for the next 40 plus years, with the carriers expected to serve for over 50 years each. The last Commanding Officer and Captain of HMS Queen Elizabeth, have not been born yet. Think about that...crazy really. Good thing these ships are modular, deliberately designed for being upgraded (having compartments stripped and replaced with new computers and fittings etc when required) The British have made them to be future proof. I'm sure there'll be a lot of problems on the road and I'll be keeping an ear out to hear if there are any problems with Tempest in the news etc. Like say politicians get pissy about the costs of the program, well, that kind of thing. HMS Prince of Wales nearly got axed in 2015's SDR (Strategic Defence Review) but survived because it was over 2/3 complete and would cost more to cancel and scrap at that point so far into construction and development even by 2015. 4 years down the line there are still folks claiming it'll get mothballed or sold off -.- I don't think so! People are so quick to doubt the UK. It needs to stop. Sick and tired of the negativity from some people out there. Self-confidence in the UK's ability to achieve these engineering feats, is vital. Too often negativity is the order of the day. How about positivity? I fully respect the Swedish Saab and Italian Leonardo. I'm aware they are already cooperating on Tempest. I knew that already. I do keep an eye on these things. But yeah, it's still British dominated and a British idea. It's ours as much as the F-35 is American in spite of it having multi-national partners (none more so important than the UK - whom is the only Tier 1 partner on the F-35 program and contributes 1/5 of the parts, plus a huge input through British engineers and aviation specialists) The US and UK are really, really close allies, and work together on a lot these days. The alliance is very strong (and amen to that)
The initial rise of British industry was built on colonial plunder. When that dried up of course it was going to fail... It was built unsustainably on the assumption that other countries would be looted and pillaged to produce cheap resources for these industries to profit from, so the moment the prize of loot dried up, it became uncompetitive. The current industrial base of Britain is more sustainable and capable, but you guys still have a long way to go.
@@xmlthegreat British science and aviation pioneers allowed the rise of this, and WWI forced Britain to develop a massive aviation industry. It was WWI. Not colonialism. UK based British factories produced the aircraft of that time. Britain went from nearly no aircraft to the biggest air force in the world by the end of WWI. It was industrialised warfare not colonialism that instigated Britain's aerospace rise. Stop blaming colonialism for all your sour grapes about Britain. Get over it.
@@KanyeTheGayFish69 American is not a race you moron. At worst it would be xenophobia. But he is 100% correct, the British trusted the Americans and got shafted. Fact. They also trusted the Russians with things like Rolls Royce Jet engines. And got shafted for that as well. Britain and post war naivety. Name a more iconic duo.
Ur channel is definitely one of the best.. no irritating pauses.. everything read clearly and explained at the perfect speed.. all the other channels always have some annoying habits
Excellent potted history of British aerospace history. Well done for mentioning the British Miles M.52: the real first supersonic design, and the origins of the Bell X1 (you're welcome, America). Few know of the Lancastrian, the TSR-2 (which became the Tornado, ultimately), or the British Aerospace EAP experimental aircraft on which the Eurofighter was based (you're welcome, Europe).
I love how the U.S.A. and Great Britain still bicker about things. We're like siblings still competing with one another time and again. Cheers to our British brothers and sisters from the U.S.A.!
Yeah it's bit like giving your younger brother a wedgie when he is heavyweight champion of the world. Don't hit me or I'll tell mum. UK+USA+Canada+Australia+NZ=Family
usa and uk are not like siblings. after ww2, usa hasn't been a friend either. there's direct and indirect role of usa behind the erosion of uk's industries. (look at how usa sabotaged uk's rocket program. the video is right here in this channel. and it's not the only example). of course bureaucrats have to take significant blame but only blaming it on them is a mistake. france for example, has significant bureaucracy, so does china and japan and yet their industries are in much better shape.
@@jameswatsonatheistgamer In some ways you're quite right. In others, I'm not so sure. I'd fight for England's survival if need be and I think that most in England would fight for ours if need be. That's the bond that joins us. Both our nations are made better for it.
@@JaleelJohanson62 I have no issues with the Americans, who don't spout shit/slag my country off. It's the minority, amongst your fellow country men and women. I would fight for and alongside you lot. You are our cousin's afterall. Bound in blood and honour.
I flew on the Nimrod, military version of the Comet, 4 times. They used them for maritime patrols which included photographing fishing boats which they did with the plane rolled 90 degrees and a window open at an altitude of under 1,000 feet and a camera on a tripod bolted to the floor inside the window....I kid you not!
Miles Aircraft went bankrupt after the M.52 scandal broke... the company and key employees were charged by the Crown with 24 counts of fraud and embezzlement. The Avro Arrow was too expensive for Canada and there was zero interest from foreign buyers.. it would have been obsolete by the time it entered service.. the program was doomed to failure.
@dustisdeadbodies85 I'm not deaf, but I admire and respect a genuinely bloody thoughtful act when I'm witness it.. If there was more people like you out there, then the world would be a much kinder place. Props to you sir 👍
The BAE 146 was an awesome little four engined high wing airliner! Smoothest landing airliner out there. PSA flew them in California, etc. For business trips, it was my favorite.
The Brabazon Committee was a committee set up by the British government in 1942 to investigate the future needs of the British Empire's civilian airliner market following World War II.[1] The study was an attempt at defining, in broad overview, the impact of projected advances in aviation technology and to forecast the global needs of the post war British Empire (in South Asia, Africa, the Near and Far East) and Commonwealth (Australia, Canada, New Zealand) in the area of air transport, for passengers, mail, and cargo.[1]
Thank you for your piece on the Miles M52. A lot of people either don't know about it, or choose to ignore it (because it doesn't suit their narrative) I'm suprised that you didn't mention the TSR-2 (cancelled by Dennis Healey.) That was the second traversty.
The super expensive TSR2 (echoes of HS2 trains) was not needed as the nuclear deterrent had been passed over to the Royal Navy. The technology was passed over to Concorde with many of the engineers snapped up by the Americans.
Too many good(strong in morals and values) died in too many wars. The big problem with all of Europe. Now it is Americans problem with the current generation being ball-less. To have a value, it most have a cost. Freedom's value comes from loss ie death, and pain. Too many here in the U.S.A. have no sense of the value of freedom.
The only reason MPs allow the squaddies from the NI conflict to be victims of witch hunts is because if they stopped it the heat would be on them. After all who sends the soldiers into war? So who is to blame?
@@sshep86 It still is subsonic, and still in front line service. With the USMC, whose jets today were all built in St. Louis, Missouri. The UK even abandons its most successful programs.
@@alastairbarkley6572 The F-35B does not use a Pegasus engine; it uses a geared lift fan. Not sure who builds the engine, might be RR. I remember there was a political battle to make sure two builders were contracted to make sure supply wouldn't stop if one were grounded, but I don't think that ever got through.
The Harrier is a cool thing, but at the same time its like one of those products you hear about being the one doing things like "doing what apple did, but just doing it too soon" (Apple is almost notorious for having made a massive business on things and concepts that failed a even few years earlier). The Harrier's main issue is that you can't really use its VTOL capability during normal use except when landing. Using it to take off requires you to lighten the aircraft too much (i.e. carrying fewer weapons, and/or outright taking off with less than full fuel, which itself is an issue as VTOL takes a lot more fuel for the Harrier than normal take-off does). Hell, the tech STILL isn't really there yet. The F-35 can't just VTOL perfectly either. It just took the approach of making use of the system in a way that lets it do a STOL instead with a reasonable load being carried. And this is the bloated budget-mess that is the F-35 that we are talking about. Its a fine plane to be sure, with the primary issue being its range (and perhaps being too ambitious in being designed with what the "future of air combat" is supposedly going to be in mind). The range is the big thing brought up every time someone wants to talk about the F-22 being better. And well they have a point. The F-35 is shorter range and effectively suited to being used by carriers or friendly locations closer to any enemy they might face. And their long-range stand-off combat future-philosophy is something that would only remain effective for as long as long range missiles continue to be effective.
Great stuff as usual. I would add a bit of info though on the M52. I believe that Whittle was part of that program too and suffered yet again from cancellations. But there may be another force behind such mysterious decisions. And there were many! The US wanted the prestige of breaking the sound barrier first and used their influence to ensure that.
We have a Comet-4 in one of the local museums undergoing restoration. It's by far one of the most beautiful large jet aircraft I've ever seen. I love that aircraft.
As I lived through much of this, and my father was a designer for Rolls Royce in Derby, I found this presentation to be spot-on. Many thanks and congrats on your youtube channel. Consistently brilliant.
Usual story where UK (govt) gives knowledge to US and gets nothing back. Same happened with jet engines/aircraft, computers, internet, nuclear technology, supersonic flight etc. etc.
... and the US adopted German rocket technology and scientists, despite the fact that those German scientists should have been on trial for the indiscriminate bombing of British civilians.
Wrong, go and look in the files of the National Archives and you will find that the information flow between the USA and UK on defence tech was very much two way.
5 років тому
Richard Vernon - The burden of proof is on you, mate. I'm not digging through a website when you should provide direct links that support your argument. Wipe your own bum.
This whole thing has the aire of a UK whitewash of history. Tell me then my cross Atlantic friends, if the UK was truly at the leading edge of all technology why do they still TO THIS DAY lag behind the Americans in their technological advancement?! Do not confuse a few small trade ideas with the birthing of an entire industry. Sounds like you may need to learn to wipe your ass period before spewing your shit.
So consolidation into huge business conglomerates that cordon the whole market and make the government pay what they will, no real competition whatsoever. System is failing, needs reboot.
As an American I tire somewhat of the repeated blame of the US for the collapse of British aerospace in the 50s and 60s. This is a repeated theme in British aerospace documentaries and essentially implies that the UK wasn’t a free nation able to make free decisions. The UK has never been a puppet of the US and should take responsibility for its own success and failures. Looking at the US as the cause for various aerospace failures is a great way of avoiding learning from Britain’s own mistakes.
Kier Riemersma I don’t know what you were watching but I didn’t hear anyone “blame” the US. The demise of our aircraft industry was clearly down to the incompetence of our own politicians. You cannot take the credit for that.
with the amount of debt owed to the US, I'm sure that helped the politicians in the decision to can and sell off these projects. No blaming America, just shrude business sense on their part :)
@ the rockerator your point is dead on the bullseye. your statement of truth makes most of the brits' comments on here very juvenile in comparison. it's very sad that a lot of brits blame the usa for almost EVERYTHING bad that's happened to them and their country. it's as though they've never gotten over losing the revolutionary war against the colonists. note to britain: grow up and look in the mirror for the culprit responsible for your country's problems.you are not alone in this regard.
@@bobwhite5440 See now I don't take things that way at all being an American..... Britain and the U.S.A. will be allies till the bitter end. We're like siblings with our sibling rivalries is all....
With the greatest respect, no one in the UK gives a crap about the revolutionary war against the colonialists. You guys seem to spout that old chestnut all the time lol . We are close allies that share a common language and democratic values. The fact that BAE systems have a foot in the door of the pentagon exemplifies this perfectly. Enough of the rhetoric now guys!
@@bobwhite5440 Don't flatter yourself into thinking that this is our outlook. We view you as our strongest allies and we rely on each other for groundbreaking research and production, so get off your high horse and get real, I'm glad not all Americans are as immature as you are.
@@bobwhite5440 Your comment started off well, but rapidly destroyed any respect I had for your opinion. First off, we don't care about pulling out of America, and it wasn't even your Taliban tactics that forced us out. It was not worth the money to stay in America and since only a small portion of our military was over there, the terrorist style war the traitors fought was becoming inconvenient considering what else was going on in the world. Trust me, there were way bigger and more important things happening in Europe than America, it really wasn't that big of a tragedy. Also, we actually can blame a lot on America as a country. Yeah our politicians started giving our territory away for no reason, but America had been working to destroy the Empire since WWII. I would direct you to the Suez Crisis for an example. The whole problem of information and research sharing is cropping up quite a lot in history with America. Britain and America work together to develop something, then America refuses to give Britain anything to do with it afterwards. Cough cough nuclear bomb and also the example he gave in this video. You call most of us juvenile, yet you managed to easily jump from 'the Americans didn't share our own work with us, again' to 'Yeah we're all salty about the revolutionary war that happened hundreds of years ago.' Yeah pal some of our houses are older than your country you mug, and the War of Independence was just an average day for the British Empire. Stop sucking yanky doodle dick.
Ariane project(space rocket) was officially agreed at the end of 1973 after negotiations between France, Germany and the UK. UK and Germany pulled out of the project later on due to US government pressures. France went on alone despite the US government opposition and launched Ariane to the space on June 14, 1988. US president Richard Nixon said: "Britons can go to the space in our rockets. They don't need to make them" Vive la France 🇫🇷 !
Thanks for the insight David, I have met few Brits trying to make a life in the US. Understandable. The US needs more folks that come here for the right reasons. They often appreciate and don't take for granted the opportunities available. They often understand the foundations better than folks born here. God Bless em. America is rooted in British Liberty. Limiting the rights of Kings started it from what I understand. The wife and I are caught up in just about all the Brits historical drama...The Crown, Victoria, Poldark, Outlander (Scots Irish), The Tudors, and more. The world cannot afford for one of, if not, "the" major cornerstones of western civilization to disappear into the socialist abyss. After thought on just finishing the 3rd season of the Crown. Not sure if it is entirely accurate, but it may have gave me a "now I get it" moment on why you folks stick with your royal family.
CIVIL AVIATION HC Deb 17 December 1942 vol 385 cc2118-542118 Mr. Perkins (Stroud) Before the war we had a number of debates on civil aviation. Those debates took place because there was in this House a large body of opinion that all was not well with civil aviation.
Eerily similar to what happened to the Turkish aircraft industry. After WWI Turkey started developing aircrafts. We managed to produce an airliner and even sold 10 of them to Danmark(?). Shortly after, the USA came with a deal. They'd sell us an aircraft of similar capability to 1/10th of the price it took to build one ourselves. Only if we agreed to stop our own airplane production programme. Our shortsighted politicians agreed. They shut down the factory and the R&D offices and asked the USA to send the aircraft. Only to be told that the deal was off the table and if we wanted to buy that plane, we'd have to pay what everyone else was paying. During that period they also poached all of the aircraft engineers and trained personal too. That was the end of the Turkish aircraft industry.
Speaking as a proud American it is humbling, heartwarming, and inspiring to see y’all “Make Britain Great Again!” Props from across the pond in Florida!
Recovering New Yorker? Hi! Thanks for that! I noticed that you identify yourself as a 'proud American'. That 'proud' label is definitely not something an English person would ever consider using. A Scotsman might, but then the Scots have always been a funny lot. National pride (to us) is a bad thing. Very bad. Does more harm than good. [Pride is for lions!] Pride in humans comes just before a fall, as I recall... I posted another much longer Comment in this section which might help to explain why. In the meantime, would you like me to send you some lovely British weather out there in sunny Florida? It's bitterly cold and pouring with rain and blowing a gale and raining and dank and grey and foggy in the morning and raining and miserable and gloomy and raining and - Oh, what the heck. MERRY CHRISTMAS! ;-)
It's hard to believe that we, the Brits are the only nation retarded enough to scrap an amazing orbital class rocket. We have a good nack for engineering but sometimes we lack common sense. Props back to you guys. Your space program in the 60s was inspiring.
@@EleanorPeterson Well, we used to be proud and we've certainly fallen, but our days of greatness were in the days when we were proud. Now we have very little to be proud of.
just the same as at what happened to your ATF fighter Lockheed won the contract but it its plane was not as good as Northrop's simply Lockheed had better salesmen same as our tech today you simply have bigger companies and more better paid salesmen.
Unfortunately our politicians seem to love the US more than their own country. They have been stripping us of anything British for decades and selling us out to move everything American in. Pretty much they want us to be another state. I don't mean any offence to Americans here but I hope you can understand it's a piss take when my own countries politicians are always trying to ruin my countries prosperity, potential and identity.
Predominantly is a little far fetched. Most our fixed wing aircraft are British made. The typhoon which we have 157 of were built in UK. All our hawk training jets are british and the BA 146 and Pumas. In fact, if you look at it on paper, it is currently predominantly British made. As for a few rotor wings and large boeings and yes the new f35s, they are US made, but far from predominant.
Cost. American producers have the scale to recoup the huge R&D spending on modern aircraft. The UK doesn’t, unless it co-operates with other countries like in Airbus & Eurofighter.
@@L3gionMusic Maybe you should go beyond Brexit and just apply for statehood in the USA. At least then you'd get congressional representation and maybe Lockheed or Boeing will build a factory there and get you back in the manufacturing business. (edit to add: this was a JOKE, don't @ me)
Simple: the right people were slipped the right bribes (or threats) to kill the right projects to ensure the USA had no competition. There's no real secret that the USA had this as national policy. It did the same to the Canadian aviation industry too. First rule of keeping vassal states: keep them technologically inferior and dependant on buying your technology - someone forgot to give USA business that memo in the 1980s.
Your Channel is Phenomenal and sad, I come from Nottinghamshire and the Harrier Jump Jet/Flying Bedstead and the JET ENGINE was made and Designed here! My youngest son is Training to be a technology and design teacher at Sheffield uni and I have educated him about the Jet engine and the area he grew up as as it has a rich history in aviation:) Thank you for your video.
Now that was really interesting It’s well known that lack understanding by politicians kill the British aircraft industry But the success of BAE and Rolls Royce today is hardly known at all A little like Formula one technology in the Oxfordshire area I take it that because you’re site is scientific and researched properly using fact as opposed to speculation that it’s all true The media would have us believe that science, technology and industry is dead in this country I’m really encouraged by your articles Thank you 👍😊
So we're now strategically dependant on a constant demand for arms & military equipment, and as a result the continuance of global warfare in general. Anyone else see a big problem with this long term? 🙄
Certainly recent history. The last 50 years have been dire for Britain. It is as though it's own politicians have done everything thay can to ensure Britain fails. Future is bleak indeed.
British politicians have always been inept, it's just that before 1950 they had an empire that they could loot and plunder to prevent their own economy from being ruined, using that as a cushion to prevent their own suffering and inflicting it instead on those they were ruling. Eg. The Bengal famine in 1943 occurred because the British government diverted all the rice to supply the war effort, and it led to the death of millions. Churchill, when told of the casualties remarked that it was a shame Gandhi hadn't died.
Several of the prototypes from the last days of the dying UK aircraft industry (including TSR2, Bristol 188 and SR153) can be found in the Cosford Aerospace Museum. I found a visit there both inspiring and rather sad.
Thank you for an excellent documentary A major factor that has been overlooked B.O.A.C - the forerunner of BA - BOAC = Bpeing Only Aircraft Not only had the UK Ministry of Defence abandon the British aircraft industry but the commercial (non Government) sector effectively walked away from it but setting silly specification requirements which would render the planes unviable from an export industry perspective - but worse, they then got subsidies from the UK government to FLY them - on the basis that the extra cost) over and above that of American planes) should be paid by the UK citizens Brixit has also been overlooked - a complex issue, that should have major cost implications for their European customers particularly Airbus etc
As an American, I want the old powerful UK back. The special relationship is a thing. I don't believe most Americans want the UK to be a subservient virtual 51st state. Britain is our mother country, and seeing it in its current state is like seeing your once proud matriarch fall to Alzheimer's.
Everything wrong with the UK is down to government. Particularly when it came to making the same dumb decisions that kept us losing our colonies over and over again.
Brilliant analysis as ever!! Never seen it put like that before. Overall though there is still a large deficit in jobs, particularly in the North, Scotland and even around London. The closure of the Avro works at Woodford and Chadderton in Greater Manchester in 2012 being a good example where many thousands of highly skilled workers were once employed.
There were 6 engine options on the Sopwith Camel of varying power, the main improvement being the carrier version with a 15% increase in power compared to baseline, though there was also another engine that was 23% more powerful.
Britain only ruled the skies in 1917-18. With the exception of some of the Jet Engines, by 1945 the USA was miles ahead. They were miles ahead in the 1930's as well.
Nationalisation destroyed British global competitiveness, alongside the fall of the pound (or the sterling block) as a global currency of reserve (or trade). Currency convertibility into gold was forcible imposes on the British by the USA, which rapidly bankrupted Britain even further, until it was scrapped. One must remember that during the Golden Age of Economic growth, Britain’s focus was full employment and housing building. (See 13 wasted years, of the Conservative Government). Germany in this time period focused on low inflation, and stringent monetary policy which essentially saw West Germany (which had lost in excess of 25%! of its industrial capacity and was forbidden from engaging in arms/aerospace manufacture, with a drastically diminished workforce and a huge brain drain to both the west and the east, still grew faster than Britain over this period!) Both Labour and Conservatives are to blame, the failure can simply be attested to the fact that Britain became great, NOT because of government policy but in spite of government policy prior to 1945. After 1939 Britain became entirely controlled by the State, if you research this, the British people had far more controls imposed by the government than Nazi Germany ever had imposed on its people. Rationing continued for a decade after the war for example. Britain was destroyed by terrible economic and social policy post 1945, both aerospace and computing we where leading globally, yet within a couple of decades had limited capacity to provide, and now where we have no domestic producers!
Odd thing I've noted: for France, it's been the other way around. Nationalisation brought success, and subsequent privatisation started to throw everything under the bus. Food for thought 🤔.
Luc Fauvarque - 100% correct, it’s relativity long and complex economic and political history, however France in the 1950s pursued a “marginalist approach” driven by economists. Where by the state would intervene to provide the high fixed start up costs for public work schemes, then subsequent pricing would be based on the marginal cost of running and maintaining of those public schemes, infrastructure or organisations. The French during this period really should be the model for all future public intervention in the market. if you are interested (and can read french), this paper The Green Tariff of the Electricite de France by Marcel Boiteux is a great example of french nationalisation and pricing policy for their domestic electricity industry.
@@LawrenceTimme No, because French are Statists. And realists. They *know* privatizing public services is a shitty idea. Do you know how? Easy, they looked at your NHS and trains 😀. Feel the burn.
Classic example: The VC10 Built under orders of the Air Ministry to provide Empire service to service hot and high airports - short takeoff capabilities. Hugely expensive (which the government didn't pay for) and intended to be bought by BOAC - who didn't want them. About the same time as they entered service, the airports in question all lengthened their runways, so 707s could land there without problems - total cost at all airports about the same as ONE VC10, let alone the R&D costs. Who'da thunk that the answer to runways being too short would be to make them longer?
The government needs to be supporting the next generation of Barnes Wallis, the 'mad inventors' who think outside the box and come up with truly unique solutions to problems
Imagine surviving the battle of britain and still not understanding the value of aircraft development.
If they had listened to Frank Whittle, we could have had jet fighters at the beginning of the war instead of at the end.
w0mbatina Why imagine it when it’s actual history?
@@jonathanj.7344 We could've had functional missiles and supersonic fighters before the Germans even had retractable gears.
..or the Battle of the Atlantic where long range patrol/bomber aircraft were essential in tracking U-boats. Some historians have suggested that government leaders were products of a "public" education system that had much to do with these types of decisions. Emphasis on learning Latin and Greek, plus classic literature; and very anti what is now called "STEM" (Science/Tech/Engineering/Math). Thus oftentimes these guys literally had zero clue about what they were being asked to decide.
@@jonathanj.7344 Never heard of Frank Whittle. Will have to check it out.
Goddamn inept British politicians, still serving ineptly today...
Carl Richards it’s about to get worse!
They've done well with the arms dealing
@@lukefreeman828 especially liberals
No offence to any or all involved but, I personally, much prefer having inept and "boring" politicians than the sycophantic prostitutes in the republican party and the rank criminality and corruption of the president and all who support him. "Boring" or "Crime family"? not much of a choice really.
in Italy we have far worse politicians. You are very lucky from my point of view :-(
This was painful to watch. Superior British engineering hobbled by short sightedness.
scabthecat indeed
It's something of a running theme in plenty of scientific fields in the UK, but also some other European countries, especially in the 20th century. People going on and on about patriotism, but then neglecting innovators in domestic R&D, forcing them to go elsewhere, or letting other countries "steal their thunder". It's a pity. Though I do think this sort of short-sightedness is less common these days, but you still get all sorts of knowitalls and populists underestimating R&D and financing new talents and innovators.
Superior? How so? Admittedly I have no experience with British aeronautics, but plenty time messing with "drive a week, work on it a week" British autos from the late 50s, 60s, into the 70s, I take "superior engineering" with a large grain of salt.
Although I love the Droid"s page the problem is even when the Brits get to claim firsts like radar and encription, they seem to glide right over help received from the French or Poles in filling in large holes in the developmental processes saving years as a consequnce. It certainly isn't "only" a British thing as it seems every other Nation has done much the same.
The example of the catastrophic structural failure in the first commercial airliner causing the evaporation of a considerable industry investment and technological edge.is illustrative of at least some of the Ministers grasping some of the realities of being funtionally broke. It isn't that the idea isn't sound, or the out come desireable, it is simply you don't have the depth of pockets to stand the bad breaks that must come. The Pioneers take the spears. How many Pioneers can you fund?
Man of the west
Well first off let’s not conflate the use of the word “superior” with some singular effort in achievement. I generally agree with your points but the use of the word here signifies only that they are superior engineers. They have many credits under their belt to cement this claim.
What you discussed in terms of manufacturing has always haunted post industrial Britain. Germans, for instance, are always touted as superior ‘machinists’ and rightfully so. Many of their mechanical achievements are, in fact, not ‘superior’ to their British counterparts as engineering marvels, they are simply better made. When I purchased my Triumph 750 Bonneville, I immediately replaced the wiring and never had another issue. Much the same was true for cars like the Jaguar, which, when under the care of American mechanics, thrived. But on the roads of Europe, like the Ferrari and Lamborghini, were woefully expensive to maintain.
Your final point is certainly true enough, but I think Droid was pointing out that the pragmatic tale you tell was not all there was to the story. It’s been a while since I have watched the video, but I recall a great deal of internal politics at play here. Politics intended to insure monetary and political power in the hands of the eventual victors. An all to common (and in may way all to British) human failing.
The bottom line was that British engineers had made significant advances that were not only commensurate with, but in many ways more advanced, than their European or American counterparts. This rightfully implies the proper usage (admittedly in a generic sense) of the word “superior”.
Mr.Cox I grant you are seeking tob pragmatic, however it is more in line with my reasoning that "superior", as used, generally would cover concept to cash register. The Brits have generally been the guys to come up with great ideas yet suffer on follow thru and intigration. My comment was not meant as a slight to anything , it was solely to call attention to the crux of what "superior" would be (in my mind) as to engineering.. As you know given unlimited resources,time, money, men, material, anyrhing can be successfully done. Truely superior engineering is displayed when you have success with the resources at hand.
Superior engineering wouldn't have left it at needing something as simple as rewiring to make so nice a automobile problem free.
You are absolutely correct as to the politics.
The culling of British aeronautical industry is one of the greatest sins in the world of economy. It happened elsewhere too, for example in my country, Italy, only in the name of profit and economic sustainability. It is not difficult to understand that the aerospace industry is one of the strategic technology assets that can't be immolated to the altar of money. It must be kept preserved, shielded from external interference, and pushed high and high to keep the pace with the best. The amount of inspiration and greatness it generates is incommensurate and beyond any other consideration. I have watery eyes now.
Yeah, but you know profit and economic sustainability is important, right?
Unless it state owned, private companies must make money.
Of course, for critical industries there's absolutely nothing wrong with them being taken into state ownership.
To be fair, "Made in Italy" never really was the most comforting marking to read on any piece of machinery..
@@JL-cn1qi
They made some sick battleships and fighters.
_whispers_
Just don't mention the tanks...
@Anne Isopod
To be fair we were rather embarrassed about all the the shooting people we'd done with them over the previous 500 years.
It was getting a bit much.
@J Biafra But i sure would like a Ferrari or Lambo even though they are mostly Audi
Never underestimate the ability of bureaucrats to ruin anything.
Or show me what they do not ruin.....
Expect a very long wait,
On that one....
It was/is cheaper to buy American weapons and let them do all the R&D. The F-35 is a case in point.
The beaucrats got the arms dealing right
Isn't that their job descripition?
Churchill gave away all our R&D + technology to the USA for free after the war.... sigh
when they had break a through like H-bomb they told us to stuff off.
UA-cam REALLY REALLY wanted me to watch this lol! It’s been in my recommended literally all weekend!
I understand why...
Mat is here..
If only MOD and treasury ministers would, too
Oh hi mate.
@m n my condoleances
Canada remembers as well... (RIP the Avro Arrow)
Still going strong,
Just look at the Mig 25 & 31.
Denial of Responsibility is a sin.
The U.S.A. is not innocent,
But the bigger problem was the lack of security in the engineering and design in Canada.
@@knutdergroe9757 Fairy Delta > TSR2 > Avro Arrow > Mirage.
Security wasn't/ isn't the issue, our civil servants gave jet engines to the soviets. Much like they are giving our country away to the europeans....
@@mhappy01,
Gave ?
At a high point of the cold war ?
Really how does that work ?
Just after 1945, so not cold war but not long before Churchill made his Iron curtain speech.
The same thing UK does every time, shooting at it's own foot! 🤦
That was only posible after Heckler & Koch revised the rifle,...
hence brexit
In wars the UK always shells it’s own positions.
@@keyboarddancers7751 I voted leave, the EU is undemocratic and corrupt to its core. Don't patronize the silent majority of the UK's population with your pretentious arrogance.
@@charleswood7001 And then you'll get dependent from america - see the truth NO EUROPEAN COUNTRY CAN BE A REAL BIG PLAYER ON IT'S OWN ANYMORE. The single european countries are just too small for that
The decline of the British aircraft industry parallels much in the nation post 1945.
What happened to the British aircraft industry? The same thing that happened to the British automotive industry, the British shipbuilding industry and British Railways. Amalgamation, Nationalisation, Cuts, Privatisation and Asset-Stripping.
British Industry led the world in technology and innovation, but was let down by incompetent government.
@@SteamboatWilley the Brits do get shafted by their leaders time and time again.
That was the deal the British took twice: give up Britain's global position to the US to stop the Germans from becoming a regional power in Europe. Only Britain had the capability of resisting the US from becoming the global hegemon. Neither Germany nor the Soviets later ever had a chance, they simply lacked the Navy to even question American dominance of the seas. The Americans did develop a plan in the 1920-1930s called War Plan Red for the coming confrontation with Britain where they could only hope for a stalemate because of the Royal Navy. The Germans then accomplished for them what they could not: the destruction of Britain to the level where it was easy to overtake.
This was a choice for Britain, both in 1914 and 1939. In 1914, had they not entered the war they could have become either rich by supplying both Germany and the Allies and/or acquire some more colonies for this supply from both sides. It was not in the interest of the British to get directly involved in that war and have a generation massacred to defend their historical enemies, the French. Without British intervention the war would have not lasted 4 years but the Germans would have still lost a lot of men and have been severely weakened, and Britain's greatest rivals, France and Russia would have been cut back. In 1939 had Britain not entered the war, the Germans might have not turned westward towards France but started their Eastern campaign sooner. It would have been a prolonged disaster even without Britain, but again, a chance to supply and get rich while the potential rivals kill each other. America would have found it very hard to overtake an intact and newly enriched Britain.
Andras Libal well if its JUST. the eastern front germany might have won.
Meanwhile japan would have been wreaking havoc on the US navy.
@@thebravegallade731 the Soviets relocated their industry past the Urals where it could not be bombed were making 10,000 T/34s per year and had oil sources other than the Caucasus. The German got stuck in the mud and froze after reaching the absolute limit of their logistic capability which was 800 km. Trying to over-extend it lead to Stalingrad. You really think your Dieppe raid and the tertiary importance of the African front mattered? What, tying down 2-3 divisions compared to 150-180 mattered? Land Lease helped the Soviets gain speed in 43/44 but the Germans would have ran out of men and materials either way, even only just the oil would have been problematic for the Germans. They were not close to winning it ... it was just as impossible with or without Britain.
Also, without a Germany first strategy all the industry of the US could concentrate on Japan that is a Japanese surrender in 43/44. Not 45. After that if there is a Soviet-Axis war the US would have pushed land-lease into the Soviet Union.
The only thing they have never cut is their wages!
How DARE you! You have stolen my aircraft industry!
Neg Ative
Sorry..
Had to pay for the dope somehow
@14miki u mug go scratch in the sand!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
how dare you！
14miki exact reason were disarming isis
I love the Narrator's Voice.
Feels likr storytelling
he reminds me of a british android
And shirts
It is storytelling...
I could listen to this chap all day!
Indeed, he has a very pleasant voice to listen too. He also articulates very well and doesn't speak to fast, which for me, a non english speaker, makes it easy to follow and understand.
As a Canadian, it's amazing seeing how similarly inept (see also: corrupt) both our govt's were in the mid-century.
[cries in Avro Arrow]
The arrow was cancelled because they was no market for it.aside from canada no one was going to buy it.
@@thunberbolttwo3953 False. Both the British and the Americas showed interest (the Americans would later take the F-106 Delta as a replacement. The British were using it for future projects similar to TSR-2. The French also wanted the Orenda engines for their newer fighters
@@jamiewhichelo9983 Yet the f4 phantom 2 did the same thing as the aroow at a cheaper price.Plus the orenda engines were never full devloped.No surprisae ther.they were trying to devlop both the plane and the engine.Its one or the other.as tto the british they had the electric lighting.thnuis no need for the arrow.
You lost me at ‘were’.
@@thunberbolttwo3953 A country can either build the engine or the aircraft? -F-35, F-16, F-15. Plus, contrary to what you say, 3 Arrows were installed with Orendas at the time of their destruction.
19th century head of UK scientists: "It's impossible to go over 40mph"
1946 head of UK scientists: "It's impossible for planes to go supersonic"
Present day - "faster-than-light travel for matter with mass is impossible"
@Jon Seymour Yes because well tested and known laws of physics are EXACTLY the same thing as the incorrect ideas of a puffed up asshole. Same thing, totes. :V
asdaffewwerqa asafdaqwrad
2016 British PM "We'll have a referendum on leaving the EU. The people will reject it."
2019 British PM "We're leaving the EU and it's going to be great for the U.K."
2035 PM of England "We want back in!"
@@unevenelephant469 the scientists always think they are right with there laws of bullshit at the time only to be proven wrong a few decades later.
The thing is when scientist or engineers say X is impossible they usually give the environment under which that statement is. Lazy journalist and quote miners of course will leave that part out. Case in point. It's impossible to fly faster than the speed of sound....
For a propeller aircraft. It was impossible then and it's STILL impossible now.
It just makes me mad that a change of government can have such catastrophic long-term effects when they make their decisions on dogma and ignorance alone. It happens every 4-8 years in the US, but it sure happens in the UK too.
It happens elsewhere too. Dogma, not reason. We had several government owned businesses, providing top quality services in affordable prices while still making a nice profit for the government.
But since dogma says privatised is better, the profitable companies were sold, now the costs have gone up, profit has gone down and service quality is falling like a rock.
Basic rules of capitalism apply, or basic rules of life: if it works, dont try to fix it. These businesses had spent decades to improve their operations, to get into the top of their game. And after being sold, the buyers tried to get their money back fast by "rationalising" and "slimming down", and in effect just cutting away operational effeciency, turning a top company into struggling second rate operation.
Dogma. Its magic rituals to compensate the lack of knowhow.
Labour governments have been gradually destroying Britain. Tony Blair was the final nail in the coffin and made sure Britain would never rise again.
I must admit though, the trend started with treasonous Churchill selling out to the international elites and bankers. That was the beginning of a fast decline which can only be stopped or slowed down if the corrupt Tory, Labour and Liberal establishment parties disappear and are never voted in again and if Britain leaves the EU as demanded democratically by the majority.
@@squarerootof2 If it is known Britain will never rise again, the logical solution is disbanding Britain completely and possibly joining a system that can, for example nearby France.
@@squarerootof2 So 38% of the electorate is a majority? What is needed (not that it will happen) is those in the UK who don't vote should be (somehow) encouraged to vote. I am an expat who pays UK tax but guess what - I was disfranchised by Tony Blair when he was PM.
I know this will go against the grain, but this "reset" of goals is in many ways a benefit. This prevents the dogmatic following of previous investments that may be already obsolete. there are also other benefits in terms of government nimbleness. Obviously, there are downsides as well.
I've always loved the look of the De Havilland Comet. Those engines being in the wings looks very futuristic.
They were a pain in the a.. to access and service, tho...
Shame about the square windows... Ruined the reputation, and the world lost a thing of undeniable beauty
The reason they were in the wings is because of the perceived risk of uncontained engine failure. Although modern turbofan nacelles are designed to try to contain catastrophic engine failure (such as a blade fracture), uncontained failure still happen sometimes.
If metal fatigue and pressurising and depressurising was understood better then those square windows would never have been used
This certainly killed off the comet
@@markmitchell450 I believe there was a design change for manufacturing which was effectively unauthorised and compounded the problem. Something to do with the assembly method, screws, rivets, adhesives or similar. The knowledge about stress fractures etc. was freely passed to others who learnt from it. "The cutting edge of new technology is stained with the blood of those who tried it first".
Treason disguised as ineptitude, incompetence and ignorance
Oldest one in the book.
Are you referring to Brexit?
@@walterrudich2175 Actually I was refering to the interference in the local aeronautical industry (the Avro Arrow specifically) but Brexit would equally fit... you could even add the "mass wholesale" of public infrastructure to foreign investment as well if you like (as has occurred here in Australia) 👍
@@SpectreOZ Agree
British governments have always had large numbers of traitors, quislings and turn coats.
As if I didn’t need another reason to hate politics.
TRUTH !!!
Politicians are like diapers,
Need to be changed often, and always smelling like shit....
Remember, never ever vote for a lawyer.
Well... look into the mirror, Adam, because "politics (as is waging war) is completely and forever woven into the human psyche. And ANY one of us, put into the right situation, are More than capable of waging war on, and killing wholesale, an "enemy" threatening us or our loved ones, or becoming the type of politician we all profess to detest. Always has been that way, since our ancestors' knuckle-dragging early years...always will be. But we also have lots of "good sides": We are at our very best when things are at their very worst.
Yeah but Winston Churchill came up with the idea of NATO specifically to make a permanent American military presence in Europe because Britain couldn't afford to defend itself anymore.
So you can hardly blame the government for then relying on the Americans, that was the plan all along.
Agreed.
Politicians basically just make an enemy of these programs as money plugholes and raise hate for them for votes
What happened to the British aircraft industry?
In one word; Government.
The election system as well as the education system have drained Britain of guidance and knowledge. The idea that the brightest brains are only to be found among the Lord’s and the Upper Class is sadly the fate of Britain...
Two words. Incompetent government. The U.S. government built up the most advanced aerospace industry in the world, and placed a man on the moon.
Nalle Elections are a lot like asking “What flavour sauce would you like on your shit? We’ve got chocolate, pepper, trees, and none” - hmmm, it’s a tough decision that ultimately has no bearing on anything - “Stop over thinking and just eat your chosen shit”
This is how mad it’s got in the UK.
I’m a scientist with 30+ years experience, as is a highly educated colleague of mine who votes like this: Conservative in local elections because he likes how they make his town look, and Labour for the country because he doesn’t care about anything except what affects his town - he says it’s like devil’s advocate - I say it’s the product of a mind crafted by his town’s sewage system, and a questionable upbringing.
Ah yes, the government should have stepped in and funneled more money to these private projects to save them from...a lack of government funding.
Government incompetence is the problem, the market didn't fund any of this and if left to them it'd likely have taken decades more
@@Joesolo13 Government funding worked out very well for the American aerospace industry.
British governments and British banks are incredibly bad at investing.
William Chamberlain The less the government get involved with the better, generally
Gordon Brown selling all our gold reserves at an historic low price in 2002...
@@Tom_Hadler Swedish Government did allright with SAAB they had a mach 2 jet befire the lightning that could do the cobra
The banks are good at investing, so they invest outisede of the UK to end the empire.
@@MrAlwaysBlue yeah you really couldn't make it up
Probably deliberate as the Labour Party wanted the UK have the euro and drop the pound two currencies running around the same value long enough would seal the argument not to adopt the euro
The Harrier jumpjet, such a nice little fighter.
But kinda ass overall
Well, the F-35B was a bit expensive, unrealible and just completley useless. And someone will say: "Why do we need such a plane when there is an VTOL aircraft no other then the Harrier jump-jet, available from Hawker" (not anymore)
@@frankbecerril9835- 300 Argentinian fighters??? You must mean the Magellanic penguins, who, to be sure, put up a stiff resistance.
Or perhaps you meant the Korean-era Argentinian A-4s; the plane that, during the Vietnam war, racked up a kill/loss ratio of 1:1(literally one to one) over the even-more-decrepit MIG 17. Due to a lack of refueling, these planes had barely 2 minutes to find a target, miss the target (blowing up a few more hapless Gentoo penguins), before streaking back to base, praying they didn't run out of fuel and have to ditch in the ocean.
@smile 2192 the harrier is not in service in the US
@@chrisafp071 av8b ?
British Government: Observe how we can cause massive damage to our Aviation Industry...
Boeing Top Management: Hold our beers.
Seriously, Boeing is the fucking EA of the aerospace industry, buying up all the competition and ruining it.
yep
@@Eboreg2 There is an old joke amongst Boeing employees and it goes like this: McDonnell Douglas bought Boeing with Boeing's money....
The 737 Max says "Hi". (Too many beers?)
@@Eboreg2 EA atleast does not try to get the government to not allow imports of foreign games.
Don’t forget that greed, corruption and mismanagement had a hand as well.
Arms dealing is great
@@MrSimonw58 "Nothing to see here, its all above board and consistent with international laws"!.......Ish......
Amerca's development of and support of managed greed and corruption is tough to beat!
Government incompetence far outshadows any corporate greed.
@@luism5514 Bollocks, the British Aircraft industry shot itself in the foot by producing crap aircraft which were on the whole very late into service and way over budget.
Whittle had patented the turbofan and 'reheat' or afterburning specifically for his supersonic engine to power the Miles M52 aircraft. It was to be flown by Winkle Brown, the amazing test pilot who's record of aviation firsts and number of types flown (from memory over 2000) will never be beaten - surely an impossible goal for anyone to reach.. Winkle Brown was utterly heartbroken by the cancelation, as were the rest of the team. Whittle, I guess was used to it.
De Havilland built the worlds first triplex aircraft, in the DH121 Trident and it was the first passenger aircraft with auto land. When everything else in Europe was fogged in only the Trident could be seen completing journeys. It also had a remarkable feature that allowed extremely rapid descents and the reverse thrusters could be operated in flight. Many british built passenger aircraft missed the boat in sales because of receiving the wrong specifications from BEA and BOAC. The VC10 was built for 'hot and high' difficult airports on the commonwealth routes that could not be serviced by jets like the 707, unfortunately this added weight and cost and efficiency was hit. A VC10 could be at 5000ft before a 707 had got half way down the runway. Hence only 50 or 60 were made. Cost per passenger seat in fuel - even in those days was a major consideration. The Trident didn't carry enough passengers in early forms. Anyone know why else the Trident didn't sell in big numbers??
The Concorde was an engineering tour de force never likely to be repeated. The only real Brabazon success was the Vickers Viscount which was the first turboprop airliner and quite a marvelous one too.
Between the M52 and TSR2 was dealt a deadly blow. Competing in certain areas we may be, yet the opportunity to compete in the commercial and military aircraft industry and producing what could have been the finest aircraft in the world was bonked on the head.
Many stories here and each could have a film made about it....
The take home message is at the end. British aerospace is at the cutting edge of new tech in flight systems with a thriving motor industry.
Exactly what I took away from it lol.
I love videos about UK aviation, but God are they depressing in hindsight, particularly as a Brit!
I like how all of the ministers' portraits are of them sitting at their desks holding pens. How apropos.
Greg41982 Yes, Minister.
In the U.s. they all smile like Cheshire cats in publicity photos.
Government: cancelling funding on projects and giving itself a pat on the back for 'cutting down costs.'
Everyone else: Why are you such jerks?
I'd love to see this format on other european aerospace industries, like French, Italian, German or Swedish, it would be very interesting
Paul, I love absolutely everything you create. I will was that as an American (don't hate me lol) I really appreciate the videos that tell British stories. The way things have gone down in history is so much different than what we are taught here so keep the Royal Refreshers coming. I really appreciate it.
LABOUR PARTY IS ALWAYS A DISASTER IN THE UK HISTORY
@@solomonsolomon9782
A Daily Mail reader here.
The lesson: Keep Government out of Business & Business out of Government.
To late for UK. They turned to socialism shortly after WW2. The government then claimed that the only way to rebuild UK was for the government to takeover all industry.
You can either keep government out of business or business out of government. You cannot have both.
@@wills8288 yet socialist countries have some of the best standards of living and continually top the happiness indexes.....how's your healthcare btw?
if it wasn't for government these plane companies would never had the orders to make a go of it to begin with, or money for all that R&D. And they went bust exactly because the government didn't sustain them. The 'market' alone couldn't sustain them, ever. Do you think all those American companies, or Dassault, or SAAB, or anyone else, would have lasted without massive amounts of Government money & contracts & support? You're taking completely the wrong lesson. Either an American or someone who read too much American business propaganda...
@@grathapilot LOL, And you sound extremely Chinese. Whether the market might or might not have been able to sustain that many Companies is debatable, but being a major Customer didn't give the Government the moral right or insight to dramatically change Businesses. No non-communist County has meddled as much with Private Industry as the UK and the Burocrats wise plans made things worse every time.
When I started working at BAE SYSTEMS (GEC-Avionics in those days) in the late '80s we won every HUD/HDD/MFD contract out there and had 4,500 personnel at the Rochester UK site. When I left 20 years later the headcount was down to 1,250 and we were losing contracts by being undercut by companies of the likes of Elbit of Israel. The unique and comfortable lead we once had was no longer there, our HUDs were no longer a niche market and it seemed anyone bidding for such contracts was beating us on costs. Add to that how our American "colleagues" had come and taken over and in doing so and spent (by that I do of course mean wasted) a fortune by employing the likes of KPMG to "streamline" our UK operations and I could see exactly why and how our great British aviation and avionics empire died a painful death. A very sad affair, yet I remain proud to have been able to work in said industry and deliver some awesome solutions and technology.
'BAE Acquired Armor Holdings'
We should've had it renamed 'Armour Holdings' and at least corrected one of the many historical wrongs detailed here.
@Simon England Shakespear couldn't spell for toffee. But interesting to hear there spelling may be closer to the original, I've heard American accents are closer to those of the 17th ish century.
1,000,000 subscribers! Congratulations!
Like British shipbuilding, it was betrayed from within and overtaken from without; plummeting in a post-industrial and post-imperial paradigm, where continental rivals on three continents undercut dwindling British industries; from the USA to Japan, from Germany to South Korea (in terms of shipbuilding especially) It is a terrible shame what happened.
We couldn't modernise our industrial infrastructure fast enough, with antiquated shipyard machinery and a shrinking defence budget putting our aviation industry under terrible pressure. British aviation was the gold standard for a glorious time in the blossoming jet age. Trade unions were also very problematic, stalling British industry and making it worse, while others surged forward. A distinct confidence crisis. A tragic decline.
Britain lost so much - but now we're slowly rebuilding a respectable industry.
How are we rebuilding it exactly?
@@subscribeorsus6862 Well, like the video points out, Britain is developing it's own 6th gen fighter (for 2035-2040 debut onward I think) BAE Systems Tempest, named for the Hawker Tempest which itself followed another Typhoon (Hawker Typhoon) BAE Systems Tempest is designed to follow and replace the Eurofighter Typhoon :)
I agree it is a bit hard to say it's being rebuilt anywhere near as much as it once was. But BAE Systems being the 3rd biggest aerospace company in the world behind only the two massive US giants (Boeing and Lockheed Martin) is pretty damned impressive in it's own right.
You'd think Japan or Germany (being bigger economically) might be bigger and better at this. But they are more powerhouses in cars etc. And they also have healthier shares of the global shipbuilding trade, too.
Basically, Britain ain't doing bad at all. But fair enough, it's not rebuilt as such.
Contributing 20% of every F-35 built by components via BAE Systems is a great thing too, and the UK was always the leading member of the Eurofighter Typhoon project, with the UK building the most parts and having the biggest fleet.
@@soulsphere9242 I didn't say it was ''strictly'' British. Stop putting words there I didn't say :/ It's *majority* British. Italian Leonardo and the Swedish will be contributing to the program, and the UK has already had talks with India about the Tempest project. But the point is, it is a British led program, a British design with £2.5 billion initial UK investment from *our* Defence budget. Is Italy giving £2.5 billion initial investment? No. Leonardo does electronics mainly if I remember correctly.
The UK will supply the vast majority of the aircraft's parts and this includes the Rolls-Royce engines, obviously. The 2.5 billion initial development contract will take it to 2025 (not much by fighter development, I know, but that is for initial R+D alone)
Who knows what it will be by 2035-2040. For instance, the four strong class of the new Strategic Missile submarines which will replace the Vanguard-class (also 4 in class), the up and coming Dreadnought-class (the new HMS Dreadnought, already under construction) will cost over £38 billion for the four boats collectively.
Of course, it is cheaper to build a fighter than a submarine - but of course, there'll be dozens and dozens of fighters, not just four :P
So the costs of the Tempest are still up in the air. If things go according to whatever they are planning (the Farnborough Airshow July 2018 preliminary concept mock up made of fibre glass and finished to give an idea of what it'll be like, is very likely not quite how it'll look in the end - with major developments in planning likely)
Once the project gets so far in that cancelling or turning back wouldn't be possible or excusable, then you'll see a full commitment (probably post-2025)
For the time being it's basically slow-cooking and just getting ready to move into the more serious phases.
Basically, ''watch this space'' says BAE Systems, or so it looks to be anyway. They seem pretty proud of this new project. Doubt they'll shelve it.
It the UK can invest 38 billion pounds into the Dreadnought-class and updating it's nuclear weapons, then it can also afford to develop this fighter.
The RAF and potentially even the RN FAA (Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm) will be deploying the Tempest or some variants of it, I should hope (just my speculation; otherwise it is probably just going to be the RAF from land bases, like how there is no Eurofighter Typhoon model at sea)
It is unclear if there will be a VTOL model of the Tempest, but I think the RAF and RN are quite happy with it at the moment in testing on HMS Queen Elizabeth!
If Tempest is to be done properly it'll probably cost dozens of billions and absorb large proportions of the annual defence budget. However, considering the UK Defence Budget is slowly rising and is currently at 2.3% GDP per annum up from 2.1% previously, it is not looking too bad. I think that over the next 20 years there is going to be more than enough money to develop Tempest.
I did not at any point claim it was a solo UK project but it IS our project. Having a bit of help from Italy and Sweden doesn't suddenly make it not majority British and it'll always be a British idea by conception. It has a British naming convention name (named after the Hawker Typhoon directly) and it is primarily intended for the RAF and for British aerospace sales to other countries. It is trying to angle itself to be a new benchmark for European aviation. It is really ambitious and who knows what'll succeed.
I've seen plenty of cynicism in online comments about the amount they are currently spending, and the way it seems a drop in the ocean compared to the costs run up by say, the F-35 program.
But I think attitudes to this need to change because using one metric of how much is typically spent and by whom, isn't fair - the USA routinely goes grotesquely over budget on Defence programs. I can't think of any major ones recently that have been on target. e.g. the Ford-class carriers are overbudget, F-35 is insanely overbudget, the Zumwalt-class Destroyers/Stealth Destroyers are wildly overpriced thanks to their numbers being limited to just 3 and becoming something of a white elephant test-bed and in general US missile programs and other military programs, do tend to go overbudget.
It's common across many military powers for their projects and programs to be pricier than desired. A scaling problem.
The UK's Queen Elizabeth-class carriers also went overbudget, let's be fair - but comparatively in small change terms compared to how overbudget the US carriers did/and continue to be with most not even underway.
So yes, I doubt 2.5 billion will even scratch the surface of the final spend. But lets say the British manage to lead the project (well over 80% of it I'd estimate) and basically produce a better aircraft than the F-35 and Eurofighter (or even the F-22A Raptor)
Would be a bit of a coup for British aviation.
Marketing it to Canada, Australia, India and others, might help make the UK a lot of money - because manufacture will almost certainly be UK based.
It will be the new flagship for BAE.
I knew people who worked on the Eurofighter and they were sad when the Eurofighter had it's final production tranche.
So if they ain't building anymore of those, lets believe that Tempest is on the way. BAE will be looking after and upgrading the Eurofighters and F-35's the RAF and RN have, but they'll want something more, solid for the future, so to speak.
Tempest can work. I thoroughly believe in it. The entire point in believing in Tempest, is believing in British aviation industries.
If the 3rd largest aerospace company in the world, being UK based, can't lead a project with two smaller European partners to produce a British designed Gen 6, then how could France and Germany make one on their own while Germany is struggling to even maintain it's Eurofighters? (they are planning their own Franco-German Gen 6 fighter)
Basically, the UK *will* commit to this because it kind of has to now.
The USA, Russia, China, Japan, Germany+France all have Gen 6 ambitions.
So it makes sense the UK makes moves towards hammering out the Tempest in the next 15 years or so. It'll be expensive but very interesting, competing with the Franco-German designs most likely (for sales especially)
It'll be a big test for the future of UK aviation industries if the UK pulls off a convincing, popular and widely sold Gen 6. Maybe the USA will make a better Gen 6, but the point is, we might just get away with a crazy value for money gem of an aircraft based on developing Gen 5 technologies already being mastered in the West. Western Gen 5 aircraft are the best in the world. The UK's familiarity and closeness with the F-35 program will help it a lot when leading a Gen 6 program.
Will there be roadblocks? Probably. Will it be at risk of becoming bogged down in some political argument? Most likely. But will it be necessary if British aviation industries want a flagship production aircraft that will see them right for the next 50 years? I'm guessing so. After all, the F-35 is fully intended to be flying from British carriers and bases for the next 40 plus years, with the carriers expected to serve for over 50 years each.
The last Commanding Officer and Captain of HMS Queen Elizabeth, have not been born yet. Think about that...crazy really.
Good thing these ships are modular, deliberately designed for being upgraded (having compartments stripped and replaced with new computers and fittings etc when required) The British have made them to be future proof.
I'm sure there'll be a lot of problems on the road and I'll be keeping an ear out to hear if there are any problems with Tempest in the news etc. Like say politicians get pissy about the costs of the program, well, that kind of thing.
HMS Prince of Wales nearly got axed in 2015's SDR (Strategic Defence Review) but survived because it was over 2/3 complete and would cost more to cancel and scrap at that point so far into construction and development even by 2015.
4 years down the line there are still folks claiming it'll get mothballed or sold off -.-
I don't think so!
People are so quick to doubt the UK. It needs to stop. Sick and tired of the negativity from some people out there. Self-confidence in the UK's ability to achieve these engineering feats, is vital. Too often negativity is the order of the day. How about positivity?
I fully respect the Swedish Saab and Italian Leonardo. I'm aware they are already cooperating on Tempest.
I knew that already. I do keep an eye on these things.
But yeah, it's still British dominated and a British idea. It's ours as much as the F-35 is American in spite of it having multi-national partners (none more so important than the UK - whom is the only Tier 1 partner on the F-35 program and contributes 1/5 of the parts, plus a huge input through British engineers and aviation specialists) The US and UK are really, really close allies, and work together on a lot these days.
The alliance is very strong (and amen to that)
The initial rise of British industry was built on colonial plunder. When that dried up of course it was going to fail... It was built unsustainably on the assumption that other countries would be looted and pillaged to produce cheap resources for these industries to profit from, so the moment the prize of loot dried up, it became uncompetitive.
The current industrial base of Britain is more sustainable and capable, but you guys still have a long way to go.
@@xmlthegreat British science and aviation pioneers allowed the rise of this, and WWI forced Britain to develop a massive aviation industry. It was WWI. Not colonialism. UK based British factories produced the aircraft of that time. Britain went from nearly no aircraft to the biggest air force in the world by the end of WWI. It was industrialised warfare not colonialism that instigated Britain's aerospace rise. Stop blaming colonialism for all your sour grapes about Britain. Get over it.
A lot of British investment went to the USA after WW2
Everything else went towards the interests of the USSR.
Anne Isopod what? Why would yo be so racist?
@@tommytmt Nope, Lend Lease payments went on long after that.
The last payment was made on 29 December 2006 .
A Brit - Hmm, I did not know that.
@@KanyeTheGayFish69 American is not a race you moron. At worst it would be xenophobia. But he is 100% correct, the British trusted the Americans and got shafted. Fact. They also trusted the Russians with things like Rolls Royce Jet engines. And got shafted for that as well. Britain and post war naivety. Name a more iconic duo.
Ur channel is definitely one of the best.. no irritating pauses.. everything read clearly and explained at the perfect speed.. all the other channels always have some annoying habits
You've got to love that thumbnail.
Well played, sir!
That Miles M52 looks suspiciously like Thunderbird one. Fantastic!
Exactly what I thought!
@Michael Sharp Fine; Thunderbird 1 looks uncannily like the Miles M52
@Michael Sharp Jerry Adams? As in Gerry the Irish guy. I think you mean Gerry Anderson! He's a legend, so many great kids TV shows
Excellent potted history of British aerospace history. Well done for mentioning the British Miles M.52: the real first supersonic design, and the origins of the Bell X1 (you're welcome, America). Few know of the Lancastrian, the TSR-2 (which became the Tornado, ultimately), or the British Aerospace EAP experimental aircraft on which the Eurofighter was based (you're welcome, Europe).
I love how the U.S.A. and Great Britain still bicker about things. We're like siblings still competing with one another time and again. Cheers to our British brothers and sisters from the U.S.A.!
Yeah it's bit like giving your younger brother a wedgie when he is heavyweight champion of the world. Don't hit me or I'll tell mum. UK+USA+Canada+Australia+NZ=Family
usa and uk are not like siblings. after ww2, usa hasn't been a friend either. there's direct and indirect role of usa behind the erosion of uk's industries. (look at how usa sabotaged uk's rocket program. the video is right here in this channel. and it's not the only example). of course bureaucrats have to take significant blame but only blaming it on them is a mistake. france for example, has significant bureaucracy, so does china and japan and yet their industries are in much better shape.
You're our children. We are your parents. You are the teenager, who thinks it knows better.
@@jameswatsonatheistgamer In some ways you're quite right. In others, I'm not so sure. I'd fight for England's survival if need be and I think that most in England would fight for ours if need be. That's the bond that joins us. Both our nations are made better for it.
@@JaleelJohanson62 I have no issues with the Americans, who don't spout shit/slag my country off. It's the minority, amongst your fellow country men and women. I would fight for and alongside you lot. You are our cousin's afterall. Bound in blood and honour.
The Commet is one of the best looking Airliners ever designed, up there with the DC-3 and the 747.
@dustisdeadbodies85 What aircraft from that era were so great looking? I'm not seeing it.
DC-9 and Tu-114 are also pretty nice looking
Concorde is the best looking airliner ever
I was lucky enough to fly to spain on a 4C when i was a kid....beautiful!!
I flew on the Nimrod, military version of the Comet, 4 times. They used them for maritime patrols which included photographing fishing boats which they did with the plane rolled 90 degrees and a window open at an altitude of under 1,000 feet and a camera on a tripod bolted to the floor inside the window....I kid you not!
Some engineers that worked on the Miles project joined Avro in Canada to work on the Arrow, only to have the same thing happen again.
Miles Aircraft went bankrupt after the M.52 scandal broke... the company and key employees were charged by the Crown with 24 counts of fraud and embezzlement.
The Avro Arrow was too expensive for Canada and there was zero interest from foreign buyers.. it would have been obsolete by the time it entered service.. the program was doomed to failure.
Can you put English subtiles (due my disabled - profound deaf) as I often enjoy your show.
Keep up good work ;-)
click on CC for subs
@@MisterPatel no available cc on this clip unfortunately.
@dustisdeadbodies85 thanks for translation, your awesome ;-)
@dustisdeadbodies85 it is very helpful thanks you
I read all grammar is looking fine to me anyway.
@dustisdeadbodies85
I'm not deaf, but I admire and respect a genuinely bloody thoughtful act when I'm witness it..
If there was more people like you out there, then the world would be a much kinder place.
Props to you sir 👍
The BAE 146 was an awesome little four engined high wing airliner! Smoothest landing airliner out there. PSA flew them in California, etc. For business trips, it was my favorite.
The Brabazon Committee was a committee set up by the British government in 1942 to investigate the future needs of the British Empire's civilian airliner market following World War II.[1] The study was an attempt at defining, in broad overview, the impact of projected advances in aviation technology and to forecast the global needs of the post war British Empire (in South Asia, Africa, the Near and Far East) and Commonwealth (Australia, Canada, New Zealand) in the area of air transport, for passengers, mail, and cargo.[1]
Thank you for your piece on the Miles M52. A lot of people either don't know about it, or choose to ignore it (because it doesn't suit their narrative) I'm suprised that you didn't mention the TSR-2 (cancelled by Dennis Healey.) That was the second traversty.
The super expensive TSR2 (echoes of HS2 trains) was not needed as the nuclear deterrent had been passed over to the Royal Navy. The technology was passed over to Concorde with many of the engineers snapped up by the Americans.
Lets hope Doris Johnson can learn lessons from the past, invest in British industry, ship building and not in Korean shipyards.
Just subscribed, your editing, integration of source material and narration style are all top class.
None dare call it treason.
It should be called treason.
Too many good(strong in morals and values) died in too many wars. The big problem with all of Europe.
Now it is Americans problem with the current generation being ball-less.
To have a value, it most have a cost. Freedom's value comes from loss ie death, and pain. Too many here in the U.S.A. have no sense of the value of freedom.
Lockspeiser was a known communist and watched by MI5. Sandys was a Europhile ...... enough said? /-)
Trees dare call it no, son.
The only reason MPs allow the squaddies from the NI conflict to be victims of witch hunts is because if they stopped it the heat would be on them. After all who sends the soldiers into war? So who is to blame?
I wonder why the Harrier Jump Jet is not mentioned at all?!
It was sub sonic. Still, a very innovative piece of British engineering.
@@sshep86 It still is subsonic, and still in front line service. With the USMC, whose jets today were all built in St. Louis, Missouri. The UK even abandons its most successful programs.
@@RCAvhstape Not sure we do. The Rolls-Royce V-STOL system is the one used on the F-35B. Technology not forgotten.
@@alastairbarkley6572 The F-35B does not use a Pegasus engine; it uses a geared lift fan. Not sure who builds the engine, might be RR. I remember there was a political battle to make sure two builders were contracted to make sure supply wouldn't stop if one were grounded, but I don't think that ever got through.
The Harrier is a cool thing, but at the same time its like one of those products you hear about being the one doing things like "doing what apple did, but just doing it too soon" (Apple is almost notorious for having made a massive business on things and concepts that failed a even few years earlier). The Harrier's main issue is that you can't really use its VTOL capability during normal use except when landing. Using it to take off requires you to lighten the aircraft too much (i.e. carrying fewer weapons, and/or outright taking off with less than full fuel, which itself is an issue as VTOL takes a lot more fuel for the Harrier than normal take-off does).
Hell, the tech STILL isn't really there yet. The F-35 can't just VTOL perfectly either. It just took the approach of making use of the system in a way that lets it do a STOL instead with a reasonable load being carried. And this is the bloated budget-mess that is the F-35 that we are talking about. Its a fine plane to be sure, with the primary issue being its range (and perhaps being too ambitious in being designed with what the "future of air combat" is supposedly going to be in mind). The range is the big thing brought up every time someone wants to talk about the F-22 being better. And well they have a point. The F-35 is shorter range and effectively suited to being used by carriers or friendly locations closer to any enemy they might face. And their long-range stand-off combat future-philosophy is something that would only remain effective for as long as long range missiles continue to be effective.
Great stuff as usual. I would add a bit of info though on the M52. I believe that Whittle was part of that program too and suffered yet again from cancellations. But there may be another force behind such mysterious decisions. And there were many! The US wanted the prestige of breaking the sound barrier first and used their influence to ensure that.
We have a Comet-4 in one of the local museums undergoing restoration. It's by far one of the most beautiful large jet aircraft I've ever seen. I love that aircraft.
Look at the history of the Avro Arrow and the history of corruption.
As I lived through much of this, and my father was a designer for Rolls Royce in Derby, I found this presentation to be spot-on. Many thanks and congrats on your youtube channel. Consistently brilliant.
Usual story where UK (govt) gives knowledge to US and gets nothing back. Same happened with jet engines/aircraft, computers, internet, nuclear technology, supersonic flight etc. etc.
... and the US adopted German rocket technology and scientists, despite the fact that those German scientists should have been on trial for the indiscriminate bombing of British civilians.
Wrong, go and look in the files of the National Archives and you will find that the information flow between the USA and UK on defence tech was very much two way.
Richard Vernon - The burden of proof is on you, mate. I'm not digging through a website when you should provide direct links that support your argument. Wipe your own bum.
Yea, ok
This whole thing has the aire of a UK whitewash of history. Tell me then my cross Atlantic friends, if the UK was truly at the leading edge of all technology why do they still TO THIS DAY lag behind the Americans in their technological advancement?!
Do not confuse a few small trade ideas with the birthing of an entire industry. Sounds like you may need to learn to wipe your ass period before spewing your shit.
So consolidation into huge business conglomerates that cordon the whole market and make the government pay what they will, no real competition whatsoever. System is failing, needs reboot.
The same thing is happening in the u.s.
As an American I tire somewhat of the repeated blame of the US for the collapse of British aerospace in the 50s and 60s. This is a repeated theme in British aerospace documentaries and essentially implies that the UK wasn’t a free nation able to make free decisions. The UK has never been a puppet of the US and should take responsibility for its own success and failures. Looking at the US as the cause for various aerospace failures is a great way of avoiding learning from Britain’s own mistakes.
Kier Riemersma
I don’t know what you were watching but I didn’t hear anyone “blame” the US. The demise of our aircraft industry was clearly down to the incompetence of our own politicians. You cannot take the credit for that.
with the amount of debt owed to the US, I'm sure that helped the politicians in the decision to can and sell off these projects. No blaming America, just shrude business sense on their part :)
If only they'd made the windows of the Comet round perhaps it would have been a totally different story.
@ the rockerator your point is dead on the bullseye. your statement of truth makes most of the brits' comments on here very juvenile in comparison. it's very sad that a lot of brits blame the usa for almost EVERYTHING bad that's happened to them and their country. it's as though they've never gotten over losing the revolutionary war against the colonists. note to britain: grow up and look in the mirror for the culprit responsible for your country's problems.you are not alone in this regard.
@@bobwhite5440 See now I don't take things that way at all being an American..... Britain and the U.S.A. will be allies till the bitter end. We're like siblings with our sibling rivalries is all....
With the greatest respect, no one in the UK gives a crap about the revolutionary war against the colonialists. You guys seem to spout that old chestnut all the time lol . We are close allies that share a common language and democratic values. The fact that BAE systems have a foot in the door of the pentagon exemplifies this perfectly. Enough of the rhetoric now guys!
@@bobwhite5440 Don't flatter yourself into thinking that this is our outlook. We view you as our strongest allies and we rely on each other for groundbreaking research and production, so get off your high horse and get real, I'm glad not all Americans are as immature as you are.
@@bobwhite5440 Your comment started off well, but rapidly destroyed any respect I had for your opinion. First off, we don't care about pulling out of America, and it wasn't even your Taliban tactics that forced us out. It was not worth the money to stay in America and since only a small portion of our military was over there, the terrorist style war the traitors fought was becoming inconvenient considering what else was going on in the world. Trust me, there were way bigger and more important things happening in Europe than America, it really wasn't that big of a tragedy.
Also, we actually can blame a lot on America as a country. Yeah our politicians started giving our territory away for no reason, but America had been working to destroy the Empire since WWII. I would direct you to the Suez Crisis for an example.
The whole problem of information and research sharing is cropping up quite a lot in history with America. Britain and America work together to develop something, then America refuses to give Britain anything to do with it afterwards. Cough cough nuclear bomb and also the example he gave in this video.
You call most of us juvenile, yet you managed to easily jump from 'the Americans didn't share our own work with us, again' to 'Yeah we're all salty about the revolutionary war that happened hundreds of years ago.'
Yeah pal some of our houses are older than your country you mug, and the War of Independence was just an average day for the British Empire. Stop sucking yanky doodle dick.
Ariane project(space rocket) was officially agreed at the end of 1973 after negotiations between France, Germany and the UK.
UK and Germany pulled out of the project later on due to US government pressures.
France went on alone despite the US government opposition and launched Ariane to the space on June 14, 1988.
US president Richard Nixon said: "Britons can go to the space in our rockets. They don't need to make them"
Vive la France 🇫🇷 !
Love your videos, keep up the great work!
Recently read James Patterson "Empire of the Clouds." Highly recommended.
Cautionary tale against increased government and red tape
13:37 that is cool. Rival engine companies products connected to each other! P&W main engine and RR lift fan! Great video as always Paul thank you!
Thanks for the insight David, I have met few Brits trying to make a life in the US. Understandable. The US needs more folks that come here for the right reasons. They often appreciate and don't take for granted the opportunities available. They often understand the foundations better than folks born here. God Bless em. America is rooted in British Liberty. Limiting the rights of Kings started it from what I understand. The wife and I are caught up in just about all the Brits historical drama...The Crown, Victoria, Poldark, Outlander (Scots Irish), The Tudors, and more. The world cannot afford for one of, if not, "the" major cornerstones of western civilization to disappear into the socialist abyss. After thought on just finishing the 3rd season of the Crown. Not sure if it is entirely accurate, but it may have gave me a "now I get it" moment on why you folks stick with your royal family.
Another chapter in the "what could have been great" book currently being written by UK politicians
CIVIL AVIATION
HC Deb 17 December 1942 vol 385 cc2118-542118
Mr. Perkins (Stroud) Before the war we had a number of debates on civil aviation. Those debates took place because there was in this House a large body of opinion that all was not well with civil aviation.
Eerily similar to what happened to the Turkish aircraft industry. After WWI Turkey started developing aircrafts. We managed to produce an airliner and even sold 10 of them to Danmark(?). Shortly after, the USA came with a deal. They'd sell us an aircraft of similar capability to 1/10th of the price it took to build one ourselves. Only if we agreed to stop our own airplane production programme.
Our shortsighted politicians agreed. They shut down the factory and the R&D offices and asked the USA to send the aircraft. Only to be told that the deal was off the table and if we wanted to buy that plane, we'd have to pay what everyone else was paying. During that period they also poached all of the aircraft engineers and trained personal too. That was the end of the Turkish aircraft industry.
Seems ministerial short sightedness has become standard operating procedure.
Speaking as a proud American it is humbling, heartwarming, and inspiring to see y’all “Make Britain Great Again!” Props from across the pond in Florida!
Recovering New Yorker? Hi! Thanks for that! I noticed that you identify yourself as a 'proud American'. That 'proud' label is definitely not something an English person would ever consider using. A Scotsman might, but then the Scots have always been a funny lot.
National pride (to us) is a bad thing. Very bad. Does more harm than good. [Pride is for lions!] Pride in humans comes just before a fall, as I recall...
I posted another much longer Comment in this section which might help to explain why.
In the meantime, would you like me to send you some lovely British weather out there in sunny Florida? It's bitterly cold and pouring with rain and blowing a gale and raining and dank and grey and foggy in the morning and raining and miserable and gloomy and raining and -
Oh, what the heck. MERRY CHRISTMAS! ;-)
It's hard to believe that we, the Brits are the only nation retarded enough to scrap an amazing orbital class rocket. We have a good nack for engineering but sometimes we lack common sense. Props back to you guys. Your space program in the 60s was inspiring.
Elli P Happy Channuka!
@@EleanorPeterson Well, we used to be proud and we've certainly fallen, but our days of greatness were in the days when we were proud. Now we have very little to be proud of.
just the same as at what happened to your ATF fighter Lockheed won the contract but it its plane was not as good as Northrop's simply Lockheed had better salesmen same as our tech today you simply have bigger companies and more better paid salesmen.
I always wondered why the UK military perdomently flies American aircraft.
It's not like you guys don't know how to build some damn fine planes.
Unfortunately our politicians seem to love the US more than their own country. They have been stripping us of anything British for decades and selling us out to move everything American in. Pretty much they want us to be another state.
I don't mean any offence to Americans here but I hope you can understand it's a piss take when my own countries politicians are always trying to ruin my countries prosperity, potential and identity.
Predominantly is a little far fetched. Most our fixed wing aircraft are British made. The typhoon which we have 157 of were built in UK. All our hawk training jets are british and the BA 146 and Pumas. In fact, if you look at it on paper, it is currently predominantly British made. As for a few rotor wings and large boeings and yes the new f35s, they are US made, but far from predominant.
Cost. American producers have the scale to recoup the huge R&D spending on modern aircraft. The UK doesn’t, unless it co-operates with other countries like in Airbus & Eurofighter.
@@L3gionMusic Maybe you should go beyond Brexit and just apply for statehood in the USA. At least then you'd get congressional representation and maybe Lockheed or Boeing will build a factory there and get you back in the manufacturing business. (edit to add: this was a JOKE, don't @ me)
Simple: the right people were slipped the right bribes (or threats) to kill the right projects to ensure the USA had no competition. There's no real secret that the USA had this as national policy. It did the same to the Canadian aviation industry too.
First rule of keeping vassal states: keep them technologically inferior and dependant on buying your technology - someone forgot to give USA business that memo in the 1980s.
Your Channel is Phenomenal and sad, I come from Nottinghamshire and the Harrier Jump Jet/Flying Bedstead and the JET ENGINE was made and Designed here!
My youngest son is Training to be a technology and design teacher at Sheffield uni and I have educated him about the Jet engine and the area he grew up as as it has a rich history in aviation:)
Thank you for your video.
12:07 Where shall we put that latest jet fighter to show it off?
Erm...slap it underneath that lamp post.
It's so stealthy it can hide behind lampposts to sneak up on the enemy
We need a new Concorde, did he even mention Concorde?
Anyways Concorde 2 a new hope!
Who's up for it?
We would 😁. Would compete with Musk's ridiculous "rocket transportation" idea.
Concorde episode V: The British aviation industry strikes back
@@Menaceblue3 Don't forget that it was a cooperation with the French.
Luc Fauvarque Musk’s idea is no more ridiculous than “Concorde 2”.
Only if it makes commercial sense. It was a technological marvel but also a colossal white elephant
Now that was really interesting
It’s well known that lack understanding by politicians kill the British aircraft industry
But the success of BAE and Rolls Royce today is hardly known at all
A little like Formula one technology in the Oxfordshire area
I take it that because you’re site is scientific and researched properly using fact as opposed to speculation that it’s all true
The media would have us believe that science, technology and industry is dead in this country
I’m really encouraged by your articles
Thank you 👍😊
So we're now strategically dependant on a constant demand for arms & military equipment, and as a result the continuance of global warfare in general. Anyone else see a big problem with this long term? 🙄
Same as the rest of British history
They should leased of sell the queen and finance the military that way.
Certainly recent history. The last 50 years have been dire for Britain. It is as though it's own politicians have done everything thay can to ensure Britain fails. Future is bleak indeed.
British politicians have always been inept, it's just that before 1950 they had an empire that they could loot and plunder to prevent their own economy from being ruined, using that as a cushion to prevent their own suffering and inflicting it instead on those they were ruling.
Eg. The Bengal famine in 1943 occurred because the British government diverted all the rice to supply the war effort, and it led to the death of millions. Churchill, when told of the casualties remarked that it was a shame Gandhi hadn't died.
@Benghali In Platforms "mass immigration"
this is the payback for your wicked colonial past
@@user-gu1hl2kx2k Why are you here watching a video about the British aviation industry if you hate Britain so much?
Several of the prototypes from the last days of the dying UK aircraft industry (including TSR2, Bristol 188 and SR153) can be found in the Cosford Aerospace Museum. I found a visit there both inspiring and rather sad.
Usual storey of very clever lions led by inept donkeys!
Almost reassuring to know this was even happening in the 1940's on the political stage.
I've always been a fanboy of Rolls Royce jet engines.
RR, who scuttled Lockheed's best civilian airliner... trijet... and almost bankrupted Lockheed (RR did bankrupt).
Thank you for an excellent documentary
A major factor that has been overlooked
B.O.A.C - the forerunner of BA - BOAC = Bpeing Only Aircraft
Not only had the UK Ministry of Defence abandon the British aircraft industry but the commercial (non Government) sector effectively walked away from it but setting silly specification requirements which would render the planes unviable from an export industry perspective - but worse, they then got subsidies from the UK government to FLY them - on the basis that the extra cost) over and above that of American planes) should be paid by the UK citizens
Brixit has also been overlooked - a complex issue, that should have major cost implications for their European customers particularly Airbus etc
As an American, I want the old powerful UK back. The special relationship is a thing. I don't believe most Americans want the UK to be a subservient virtual 51st state. Britain is our mother country, and seeing it in its current state is like seeing your once proud matriarch fall to Alzheimer's.
Everything wrong with the UK is down to government. Particularly when it came to making the same dumb decisions that kept us losing our colonies over and over again.
Did you see the video? You yanks fucked us by not giving us the research
I have a feeling Disney's lawyers will be calling you about the thumbnail.
And by "calling" you mean "breaking his kneecaps with a tire iron"
No joke he might have a problem
Indeed. Empire Brewing got in hot water with its "Empire Strikes Bock". The title of this video is an even more exact copy of the films title.
Fcuk Disney they ruined star wars. They went woke now they'll go broke.
Brilliant analysis as ever!! Never seen it put like that before. Overall though there is still a large deficit in jobs, particularly in the North, Scotland and even around London. The closure of the Avro works at Woodford and Chadderton in Greater Manchester in 2012 being a good example where many thousands of highly skilled workers were once employed.
We need a Sopwith Camel New Engine Option...
Sopwith Camel with a General Electric F110
Turbo Camel?
There were 6 engine options on the Sopwith Camel of varying power, the main improvement being the carrier version with a 15% increase in power compared to baseline, though there was also another engine that was 23% more powerful.
So strap a Rolls Royce Jet Engines onto a biplane...
Nice
There's a couple of good BBC documentaries on this subject.
Cold War, Hot Jets & Jet! When Britain Ruled the Skies.
Britain only ruled the skies in 1917-18. With the exception of some of the Jet Engines, by 1945 the USA was miles ahead. They were miles ahead in the 1930's as well.
You know the video will be good when the thumbnail already has you dying
"world leader by proxy" idk how i feel about that.
This dude looks and sounds like a Bond villain.
Nah.....for that you want Simon from Top Tenz :-)
_"Stranger" is his Middle Name._
@@diceman199 that guy just looks like a bald spastic, he has nothing on the glory that is Curious Droid
He needs a white furry cat. Tho’
He was expecting us.
Fantastic video! Love these in depth yet short history lessons of Industry!
Nationalisation destroyed British global competitiveness, alongside the fall of the pound (or the sterling block) as a global currency of reserve (or trade).
Currency convertibility into gold was forcible imposes on the British by the USA, which rapidly bankrupted Britain even further, until it was scrapped.
One must remember that during the Golden Age of Economic growth, Britain’s focus was full employment and housing building. (See 13 wasted years, of the Conservative Government). Germany in this time period focused on low inflation, and stringent monetary policy which essentially saw West Germany (which had lost in excess of 25%! of its industrial capacity and was forbidden from engaging in arms/aerospace manufacture, with a drastically diminished workforce and a huge brain drain to both the west and the east, still grew faster than Britain over this period!)
Both Labour and Conservatives are to blame, the failure can simply be attested to the fact that Britain became great, NOT because of government policy but in spite of government policy prior to 1945.
After 1939 Britain became entirely controlled by the State, if you research this, the British people had far more controls imposed by the government than Nazi Germany ever had imposed on its people. Rationing continued for a decade after the war for example.
Britain was destroyed by terrible economic and social policy post 1945, both aerospace and computing we where leading globally, yet within a couple of decades had limited capacity to provide, and now where we have no domestic producers!
Odd thing I've noted: for France, it's been the other way around. Nationalisation brought success, and subsequent privatisation started to throw everything under the bus. Food for thought 🤔.
Luc Fauvarque - 100% correct, it’s relativity long and complex economic and political history, however France in the 1950s pursued a “marginalist approach” driven by economists. Where by the state would intervene to provide the high fixed start up costs for public work schemes, then subsequent pricing would be based on the marginal cost of running and maintaining of those public schemes, infrastructure or organisations.
The French during this period really should be the model for all future public intervention in the market.
if you are interested (and can read french), this paper
The Green Tariff of the Electricite de France
by Marcel Boiteux
is a great example of french nationalisation and pricing policy for their domestic electricity industry.
@@TheBenchPressMan Of course I read French, that's my mother tongue. Thanks for the read suggestion 😉.
@@lucofparis4819 because French are commies.
@@LawrenceTimme No, because French are Statists. And realists. They *know* privatizing public services is a shitty idea. Do you know how? Easy, they looked at your NHS and trains 😀. Feel the burn.
This shit happens when there's no leader and everyone is taking decision
Are you referring to Brexit?
Excellent program, Sirs.
The USA went through a similar consolidation of its aircraft industries after WWII.
Good video! As usual politicians are detrimental to progress. I support all aviation research and development. Nice job. 🇬🇧🇺🇸
Again: Wow! and thank you. Incomparable coverage of aerospace topics. Thank you!
Who would have thought that politicians would be capable of knackering something they know nothing about?
Ermm everybody?
Gag Halfrunt
Brexit anyone???
Classic example: The VC10
Built under orders of the Air Ministry to provide Empire service to service hot and high airports - short takeoff capabilities. Hugely expensive (which the government didn't pay for) and intended to be bought by BOAC - who didn't want them.
About the same time as they entered service, the airports in question all lengthened their runways, so 707s could land there without problems - total cost at all airports about the same as ONE VC10, let alone the R&D costs.
Who'da thunk that the answer to runways being too short would be to make them longer?
Atleast in the US our politicans are publicly ridiculed if anything of the sort happens.
British and german aircraft industry dipped after the war
Italian as well,
The war caused a great deal of damage in very subtle ways....
@@knutdergroe9757 it's really a shame, seeing the innovations they brought forth
A very thorough, well presented and interesting short documentary. Bravo!
British engineers in shed: I have this great and innovative idea
British politicians: hold my lager
The government needs to be supporting the next generation of Barnes Wallis, the 'mad inventors' who think outside the box and come up with truly unique solutions to problems
The Labour Gov. misused the Marshall Aid, of which, the UK had the largest share!
Yessss, miserable lack of foresight in favour of handouts.