“
The Last Word
Commentary from Professor Keith Hayward – RAeS Head of Research
Y
National aerospace planning — an
‘un-British’ approach to technology
ears ago, British industrialists
would envy the French for their
national aerospace plan. Gallic
technocrats would wipe the floor
with ‘muddling-through’ Brits when it came
to mobilising national resources for aerospace
activities. But publishing, and then following a
grand plan was not always straight forward —
the plan outlined in the 1970s assigned top
priority to Concorde and the Mercure, with
Airbus a poor third.
Planning British style
Yet, the UK has hardly been short of plans,
they just happened either to be secret or
unpublicised. At this point I have a confession
to make: I leaked a government aerospace
strategy paper. Before Special Plod gets too
interested, it was to a Parliamentary body and
I think that provides a reasonable defence
against Section Two of the Official Secrets
Act. The subject was the National Aerospace
Technology Strategy Plan, or NSTAP. This
was the product of an industry study group
set up under the aegis of the GovernmentIndustry Aerospace Committee.
The NSTAP came out of a debate in the
early 1990s about the decline in publicly
funded aeronautical R&D spending. All
would agree that this was a ‘bad thing’, and
push government to change policy. Given that
one new minister came to the committee and
asked us to come up with ideas, ‘that didn’t
cost the government anything’, you can guess
prospects were far from rosy.
NSTAP was a pretty good document; it
provided a solid diagnosis of needs and a
tentative strategy with some prioritisation.
But that would have been that but for the
coincidence of a House of Commons Select
Committee investigation into UK aerospace
and an opportunity to seed their deliberations.
Sadly, while there was an embarrassment for
the minister quizzed about what the government would do to implement the NSTAP
findings — in practice, not a lot was achieved.
Innovation and growth team
Flash forward nearly a decade and another
insider stint as part of the Aerospace
O
34
Innovation and Growth team exercise to map
This level of engagement will be even more
out — you guessed it — a strategy for UK important as austerity policies affect defence
aerospace. At its heart was another solid and other budgets. The outlook for defence
review of technology and the need for invest- technology acquisition, certainly in the areas
ment in technology acquisition. The AeIGT of greatest interest to aerospace, is not very
covered other important areas but the cri de promising. The latest statement on defence
coeur was the need to refill the UK’s technolog- technology strategy was empty of real
ical reservoir. The centrality of investment in content, and deficient in offering useful guidtechnology for future commercial gain would ance to industry.
also be a theme of the later Space Innovation
and Growth Team report.
And a future darkly
In the event, while not much new money
looked at
poured directly into aerospace R&D
following these reports, the industry was Lurking in the background is the outlook for
sufficiently well prepared to take advantage Repayable Launch Investment — the 50-year
of a subsequent shift in government policy old government industry partnership
towards more generic research. In short, supporting civil engine and airframe developaerospace had its act together ready to bid ment. Not all parts of the industry benefitted
directly from RLI — a
under a new set of rules
source of
frequent
and, as a result, obtained
grumbling from the
more support than it
equipment community
had under the old
... without continued
— but it has provided
sectoral
approach.
support for the
the core funding for
Combined with some
industry, the UK’s
projects. However, final
useful government seed
money devoted to
ability to stave off the confirmation of the
Trade
manufacturing process
new challengers from World
Organization’s (WTO)
improvement
and
the Far East will
deliberations may require
supply chain managesuffer.
significant changes in
ment, aerospace did
future
government
reasonably well into the
support for civil prod‘noughties’, or at least as
ucts — more generically
well as might be
expected from governfocused than projectments loathe to back activities that did not based perhaps? If this is the case, the need for
immediately create jobs.
a concerted, well planned industry-wide
approach would be even more vital to secure
national and European research and techStealth planning for
nology support.
aerospace
More bluntly, Jim Albaugh, ceo of Boeing
The Aerospace Growth Partnership (AGP), Commercial, has warned that, without
co-chaired by Mark Prisk, Minister of State continued support for the industry, the UK’s
for Business and Marcus Bryson, ceo of ability to stave off the new challengers from
GKN Aerospace, continues the quiet the Far East will suffer; a position reflected in
approach to public intervention in aerospace. Sir John Parker’s recent paper for the Royal
Perhaps lacking the drums and cymbals of the Academy.
IGT programme but it is still engaging offiBut quietly, and without ceremony, there is
cials and industry, working on priorities and still hope that the UK might have its ducks in
looking for ways of supporting aerospace in a a row, ready with a plan, or better yet a flexcost effective fashion. This comes on top of ible, agile approach to technology acquisition
£60m in support for an aerodynamics centre that can anticipate the technological needs of
for excellence.
the next couple of decades.
“
”
O
July 2012 Aerospace International
www.aerosociety.com