MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED BY INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS
OF THE THE ROYAL AERONAUTICAL SOCIETY (24 MAY 2000)
1. Decline in core funding from MOD.... Because
procurement process is geared to buying whole systems from industry
Not clear that the one follows from the other,
as systems complexity increases so too does the challenge for
retaining intelligent customer status over an ever widening field
of technology. Inference is that more research is being done in
industry, may be so but does not translate to a lessening of the
requirement for "strategic" research in Government.
Nonetheless the argument for increased access
to opportunities for commercial exploitation is well taken, the
question is will these opportunities fall to NewDERA at the expense
of a less favoured and already hard pressed UK aeronautics industry?
2. Activities to be retained include "integration
of world wide science and technology knowledge, the provision
of an in-house source of impartial advice and the responsibility
for the integration and management of the research programme and
international research programme"
What under these headings is to be retained
by the area of aerospace R&T? How many people and in what
specific areas of aerospace R&T, do they operate? Current
aerospace IRC exchanges hinge on direct lab to lab contacts between
active researchers rather than "integrators" (a less
polite term for which might be "management overhead")
What assessment has been made of the extent to which these direct
interactions can be maintained? What assurances in this respect
have been received from the UK's aerospace IRC partners?
3. Reliance vs Core Competence:
Not clear how core competence differs from "status
quo for retained DERA"(ie Trading Fund but with some additional
constraints). "Reliance for NewDERA". Would welcome
clarification together with indication as to the scope there will
be for a continuation of any of the current aerospace IRC relationships
supported by the aerospace elements in NewDERA. (Understand bulk
of DERA's aerospace capability will be in NewDERA).
Sir John certainly has "metamorphosed DERA".
He has established a "brand image" for the organisation
which has gone a long way to compensate for the loss of the "brand
image" of the aerospace establishments absorbed into DERA.
While many continue to regret that there is now no single UK Government
establishment readily and exclusively identifiable as a centre
of aerospace technological excellence, DERA is recognised by the
community as the single entity encompassing the UK's intramural
capability in this area. To which entity will the aerospace industry
and overseas aerospace R&T establishments now look for aerospace
R&T excellence and to team with as an aerospace R&T partner?
If "horses for courses", will not coherence, and thus
the value of the UK at an aerospace R&T partner diminish?
What strategy for maintaining a coherent and
influential UK presence among the more focused European and transatlantic
aerospace players and their councils has been developed in formulating
the Core Competence model? What impact is it assessed as likely
to have on the CARAD programme and on NATO aerospace R&T and
other collaborations.
4. 3,000 in RDERA, 9,000 in NewDERA
Given the list of organisations to be retained
it does appear that the bulk, if not all, of the aerospace R&T
resource contained within DERA will move into the private sector.
Aerospace (including military aerospace) is nonetheless a key
UK national strategic industry and export earner. To what extent
has the need to retain a credible "core competence"
in aerospace impacted on the numbers to be retained and what shape
will that "aerospace core competence" take? To what
extent will the aerospace industry continue to be able to rely
on existing partnering arrangements (for instance through extramural
air applied research contracted with an independent MOD centre
of excellence, through strategic alliances with "RDERA aerospace",
via CARAD)? Will "RDERA aerospace" have the critical
mass needed effectively to interact with and support the UK aerospace
industrial enterprise? In deciding what "aerospace core competence"
is to be retained what reference has been made to the national
priorities emerging from Foresight and Foreright Action?
5. Investment Opportunity in the Private
Sector
What analysis has been done of the investment
needs of both "RDERA aerospace" and "NewDERA aerospace".
What investment priorities have been identified and what level
of assurance has business planning in both instances provided
that, respectively, the defence vote and private investors will
be prepared to support these areas of activity?
National aerospace assets (engine test facilities,
ranges, EMC chambers, wind tunnels, anechoic and environmental
facilities etc) are high cost assets often supported overseas
on the basis that they are national strategic assets, providing
competitive advantage. What arrangements are being considered
to consult with industry and the profession on the retention of
such assets and the financing arrangements needed to safeguard
them?
6. Reference to NATS PPP
The issue of aviation safety has been at the
heart of concern in relation to the NATS PPP proposal. DERA contains
research and test and evaluation capabilities at the heart of
assuring military aviation safety. What assessment has been made
of the acceptability of moving these elements into the private
sector? What safeguards are proposed to ensure that these capabilities
are maintained and maintain their independence of supplier and
commercial interest? Given the public interest in all aspects
of aviation safety why are these areas seen to be less sensitive
than Defence Analysis or Chemical & Biological Defence?
7. Physical/Organisational Separation.
Aerospace technologies and design are inherently
systems undertakings. Technological advances, improvements in
systems performance and the maintenance of system integrity are
best served by the closest possible integration (both vertical
and horizontal). This is particularly evident in the aerospace
industry where these considerations have gained seriously in importance
as system complexity has grown. This, as well as market globalisation,
has driven consolidation in the aerospace industry. First the
separation of systems and technology activities, now the further
organisational separation of RDERA and NewDERA, seem to run precisely
counter to this trend? For aerospace in particular is not than
the Core Competence, further separating knowledge from systems
integrators and from the underlying technologies that they need
to develop, trade off and understand? Will not the now indirect
exposure of the leading edge researchers in NewDERA to overseas
leading edge defence aerospace developments (eg in NASA and the
USAF laboratories) substantially inhibit innovation.
8. Development of the "Rounded"
Aerospace Professional
Historically the aerospace profession in the
UK has benefited substantially from the very wide and deep expertise
of those working first in the MOD "National Laboratories",
more recently in DERA. This expertise has included substantial
direct exposure of these aerospace professionals to overseas classified
programmes and personnel throughout their careers. With this kind
of exposure now denied to most of the aerospace professionals
currently working in DERA will not the UK aerospace community
be the poorer?
| 
