Reply to thread

Perhaps our MoS bureaucrat should have noticed the tendency for major British airframers to drift off into also designing/making powerplants, major systems, missiles, and such. A simpler way to rationalise the British aircraft industry might have been to financially support airframers separately from engine-makers, weapons-makers, black-boxes-that-go-fzzt, etc.


A civil example could be the Bristol Britannia. In the RW, it is perfectly understandable why Bristol Aeroplane wanted to stick with its own Bristol Aero Engines turboprop - even if Proteus' reverse-flow made anti-icing a nightmare. But the Canadair CL-44 showed that the Britannia airframe was a fine design ... once powered by Rolls-Royce Tynes. If our bureaucrat can't separate airframers from their in-house engine makers, maybe the MoS should restrict financial support to airframes with 'outside' engine back-up options?


A similar approach could be take to manufacturers of missiles and their powerplants, guidance systems, etc.


Back
Top Bottom