As stated in the article the guy who took charge of Nokia declared the company a "burning platform" and then proceeded to make decisions that destroyed Nokia, resulting in chunks of it it being sold off to Microsoft (his former employer) for a pittance. A commonly held position at the time was that this could only be explained as deliberate corporate sabotage."History never repeats itself, but it does often rhyme." - Mark TwainDo we think RR is going to replicate Nokia's tailspin into obscurity, followed by an undignified death of a thousand cuts?
Quote from: JCRM on 01/27/2023 09:45 amhttps://pbs.twimg.com/media/FnbkMVYXkAItMlS?format=jpg&name=largeI wonder what effect the change of management at Rolls-Royce is going to have.As stated in the article the guy who took charge of Nokia declared the company a "burning platform" and then proceeded to make decisions that destroyed Nokia, resulting in chunks of it it being sold off to Microsoft (his former employer) for a pittance. A commonly held position at the time was that this could only be explained as deliberate corporate sabotage."History never repeats itself, but it does often rhyme." - Mark TwainDo we think RR is going to replicate Nokia's tailspin into obscurity, followed by an undignified death of a thousand cuts?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FnbkMVYXkAItMlS?format=jpg&name=largeI wonder what effect the change of management at Rolls-Royce is going to have.
Hence I don't know how you get out of it. Apple did, I suppose. For Reaction Engines I'd say it was goodbye RR - no freebies and a sale of the investment at the first chance. It's just not core and might never make money......unless..... someone at REL has worked out how to make a more efficient jet engine or cheaper jet engine in some category that's got growth.
Quote from: oddbodd on 01/27/2023 11:36 pmAs stated in the article the guy who took charge of Nokia declared the company a "burning platform" and then proceeded to make decisions that destroyed Nokia, resulting in chunks of it it being sold off to Microsoft (his former employer) for a pittance. A commonly held position at the time was that this could only be explained as deliberate corporate sabotage."History never repeats itself, but it does often rhyme." - Mark TwainDo we think RR is going to replicate Nokia's tailspin into obscurity, followed by an undignified death of a thousand cuts?Depends. In Nokia's case hiring a person from a business that could be viewed as a major competitor, which had a history of anti-competitive behaviour seemed a bit dumb. This guy spent 20 years at a major oil company and then something called "Global Asset Partners" but he's both a BSc and an MA in Economics and an MBA. On that basis his former employers would want a viable RR building more engines to use their products, but you have to wonder would be be looking to sell it off to one of their competitors instead? I hope not but time will tell as we see what his "cunning plan" turns out to be.
If they are aiming for an acquisition or merger would the UK government allow them to be purchased by anyone other than BAE Systems? The security restrictions are going to be onerous for anyone else.
Quote from: lkm on 01/30/2023 08:20 pmIf they are aiming for an acquisition or merger would the UK government allow them to be purchased by anyone other than BAE Systems? The security restrictions are going to be onerous for anyone else.A competent Government, or the current one?They let ARM be bought by the Chinese.
?ARM was bought by Softbank, which is Japanese. So given we're building Tempest with them they better be an ally.
Rolls is an integral part of the UK nuclear deterrent but also through RR America would have a US government veto over ownership. I would imagine.
Compared to GE and P&W, RR is the only one not owned by a substantially larger conglomerate and so when it comes to investment it must have a higher cost of money and be at a substantial disadvantage so a merger could make sense given the large investments needed for the energy transition in the next decade. The question is, is the UK interested in having an industrial policy?
Quote from: lkm on 01/31/2023 12:28 pm?ARM was bought by Softbank, which is Japanese. So given we're building Tempest with them they better be an ally.True, but it misses the overall point. Basicall the UK Govt has never (with the sole exception of BAE) ever cared who ownes British industry. A significant difference with other countries in Europe, as well as Japan and the US.
Quote from: lkm on 01/31/2023 12:28 pmRolls is an integral part of the UK nuclear deterrent but also through RR America would have a US government veto over ownership. I would imagine.RR America does own various parts of the US aerospace industry but I was unaware that it mfgs any of the US Navy's nuclear reactors. I thought they mostly came from Babcock & Wilcox (part of why they got a lot of the DoD NTR project work).
Quote from: lkm on 01/30/2023 08:20 pmCompared to GE and P&W, RR is the only one not owned by a substantially larger conglomerate and so when it comes to investment it must have a higher cost of money and be at a substantial disadvantage so a merger could make sense given the large investments needed for the energy transition in the next decade. The question is, is the UK interested in having an industrial policy?That's a very good point, but I think P&W were independent for quite a lot of their history. RR sybolises the UK industrial history of centres-of-excellence but no network either as a parent or as a subsidary, of companies that can draw on it, or it can draw on not just for finance but also specialist skills for complext problem solving.
Quote from: JCRM on 01/31/2023 10:50 amQuote from: lkm on 01/30/2023 08:20 pmIf they are aiming for an acquisition or merger would the UK government allow them to be purchased by anyone other than BAE Systems? The security restrictions are going to be onerous for anyone else.A competent Government, or the current one?They let ARM be bought by the Chinese.?ARM was bought by Softbank, which is Japanese. So given we're building Tempest with them they better be an ally.
Quote from: john smith 19 on 02/01/2023 05:58 amQuote from: lkm on 01/31/2023 12:28 pm?ARM was bought by Softbank, which is Japanese. So given we're building Tempest with them they better be an ally.True, but it misses the overall point. Basicall the UK Govt has never (with the sole exception of BAE) ever cared who ownes British industry. A significant difference with other countries in Europe, as well as Japan and the US. I think it's fairer to say it periodically cares, every couple of decades maybe, and the question is will this be one of those times.Quote from: john smith 19 on 02/01/2023 05:58 amQuote from: lkm on 01/31/2023 12:28 pmRolls is an integral part of the UK nuclear deterrent but also through RR America would have a US government veto over ownership. I would imagine.RR America does own various parts of the US aerospace industry but I was unaware that it mfgs any of the US Navy's nuclear reactors. I thought they mostly came from Babcock & Wilcox (part of why they got a lot of the DoD NTR project work). I wasn't thinking specifically of US nuclear work, although it does do some (https://www.bwxt.com/news/2022/06/09/BWXT-to-Build-First-Advanced-Microreactor-in-United-States), but LibertyWorks is involved clasified projects, hypersonics, directed energy etc. Beyond that RR is a key supplier to the F-35 etc. Quote from: john smith 19 on 02/01/2023 06:02 amQuote from: lkm on 01/30/2023 08:20 pmCompared to GE and P&W, RR is the only one not owned by a substantially larger conglomerate and so when it comes to investment it must have a higher cost of money and be at a substantial disadvantage so a merger could make sense given the large investments needed for the energy transition in the next decade. The question is, is the UK interested in having an industrial policy?That's a very good point, but I think P&W were independent for quite a lot of their history. RR sybolises the UK industrial history of centres-of-excellence but no network either as a parent or as a subsidary, of companies that can draw on it, or it can draw on not just for finance but also specialist skills for complext problem solving. Surprisingly I don't think P&W has ever been really been independent. It went PWMT, UTAC then UAC, UTC and now Raytheon. It's always had a parent with a checkbook.If the UK cares then BAE could merge with RR and GKN (also in need of rescue from PE) and become a $50 billion aerospace company a decade before everyone has to buy new planes. If it doesn't care Safran might be an interesting fit.
Quote from: lkm on 02/01/2023 11:47 amQuote from: john smith 19 on 02/01/2023 05:58 amQuote from: lkm on 01/31/2023 12:28 pm?ARM was bought by Softbank, which is Japanese. So given we're building Tempest with them they better be an ally.True, but it misses the overall point. Basicall the UK Govt has never (with the sole exception of BAE) ever cared who ownes British industry. A significant difference with other countries in Europe, as well as Japan and the US. I think it's fairer to say it periodically cares, every couple of decades maybe, and the question is will this be one of those times.Quote from: john smith 19 on 02/01/2023 05:58 amQuote from: lkm on 01/31/2023 12:28 pmRolls is an integral part of the UK nuclear deterrent but also through RR America would have a US government veto over ownership. I would imagine.RR America does own various parts of the US aerospace industry but I was unaware that it mfgs any of the US Navy's nuclear reactors. I thought they mostly came from Babcock & Wilcox (part of why they got a lot of the DoD NTR project work). I wasn't thinking specifically of US nuclear work, although it does do some (https://www.bwxt.com/news/2022/06/09/BWXT-to-Build-First-Advanced-Microreactor-in-United-States), but LibertyWorks is involved clasified projects, hypersonics, directed energy etc. Beyond that RR is a key supplier to the F-35 etc. Quote from: john smith 19 on 02/01/2023 06:02 amQuote from: lkm on 01/30/2023 08:20 pmCompared to GE and P&W, RR is the only one not owned by a substantially larger conglomerate and so when it comes to investment it must have a higher cost of money and be at a substantial disadvantage so a merger could make sense given the large investments needed for the energy transition in the next decade. The question is, is the UK interested in having an industrial policy?That's a very good point, but I think P&W were independent for quite a lot of their history. RR sybolises the UK industrial history of centres-of-excellence but no network either as a parent or as a subsidary, of companies that can draw on it, or it can draw on not just for finance but also specialist skills for complext problem solving. Surprisingly I don't think P&W has ever been really been independent. It went PWMT, UTAC then UAC, UTC and now Raytheon. It's always had a parent with a checkbook.If the UK cares then BAE could merge with RR and GKN (also in need of rescue from PE) and become a $50 billion aerospace company a decade before everyone has to buy new planes. If it doesn't care Safran might be an interesting fit.Rolls merging with Safran is an interesting idea. Rolls is doing Ultrafan work, while Safran is active in propfan work. Couple this with upcoming Tempest and FCAS development, it would solidify a lot of engine work into a EU powerhouse. (plus the implication EU can really only support one major engine manufacturer now on cost basis). Even with an expected large amount of military development in the wake of equipment replacement from Ukraine donations and redefinition of military force structures leading to new vehicle purchases, it's still a tough economic environment.But that puts a large focus on subsonic/low sonic engine work. Euro hypersonic work is sadly not as large as the US, which means added burdens to develop SABRE. With ESA facing commercial realities for Vega and Ariane 6, europe is at a crossroads in major space vehicle development. If ESA does slip towards preferring something like "Le Starship" (something small-ish like Maiaspace, or something big like EHLL), funding SABRE work or Skylon is basically over for Rolls at least.
Rolls merging with Safran is an interesting idea.
Quote from: Asteroza on 02/01/2023 11:18 pmRolls merging with Safran is an interesting idea. It is an interesting idea, but one to which the pro-Brexit faction that currently rules the English government would almost certainly 'Just Say No'. The idea that Rolls Royce, or even the jet/gas turbine engine division if the nuclear bits were separated, might become a minor subsidiary of a French company would almost certainly make them choke on the Full English Breakfast.
But that puts a large focus on subsonic/low sonic engine work. Euro hypersonic work is sadly not as large as the US, which means added burdens to develop SABRE. With ESA facing commercial realities for Vega and Ariane 6, europe is at a crossroads in major space vehicle development. If ESA does slip towards preferring something like "Le Starship" (something small-ish like Maiaspace, or something big like EHLL), funding SABRE work or Skylon is basically over for Rolls at least.
Well the implication of the report is that RE have been working with ArianeGroup since 2018, so Safran already has a relationship there. As I understand it RE would be outsourcing the rocket and turbines from SABRE so if Safran bought RR they would most likely become the main partner on the engine. On top of that with Airbus as the airframer then it would rapidly become le Skylon which is perhaps why CNES has been studying it.
Apparently (https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/01/european-launch-chief-insists-there-be-no-competition-with-ariane-rockets/) at the https://spaceconference.eu/ Arianespace chief executive Stéphane Israël said:"We need a reusable heavy launcher," Israël said. "Full stop. This is what we need. And I do not believe that Europe can afford two, three, or four big or heavy, reusable launchers. It will, for sure, [require] a lot of public money, industrial excellency, and I am more confident than ever that it will [require] solidarity in Europe to make it happen."That to my optimistic Skylon loving ear sounds like a plan to spend a lot of money on building Skylon in a big Concorde like project.
Quote from: Asteroza on 02/01/2023 11:18 pmBut that puts a large focus on subsonic/low sonic engine work. Euro hypersonic work is sadly not as large as the US, which means added burdens to develop SABRE. With ESA facing commercial realities for Vega and Ariane 6, europe is at a crossroads in major space vehicle development. If ESA does slip towards preferring something like "Le Starship" (something small-ish like Maiaspace, or something big like EHLL), funding SABRE work or Skylon is basically over for Rolls at least.There is nothing "small-ish" about Starship.