Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by vvaannmmaann, Feb 13, 2012.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
BAE Systems may shift expertise overseas - Telegraph
Well, I suppose if they are only moving their 'expertise' then it wont be to expensive.
Ryan air will fly you Bristol to Bratislava for less than £20.
I think this, and the noises coming out about BAe's operation in Portsmouth, are an effort to scare the Govt into pushing more money towards BAe, which (because of Govt insistence, going back decades, on mergers orchestrated to salvage 'jobs' by saddling efficient firms with over-unionised dead-wood) is now a monopoly supplier for almost everything Defence needs in the way of hardware. The sad truth, of course, is that if BAe's order book dries up in any area it has no alternative but to shut down that activity. The effect of this can be seen in the cost impacts of skill loss in Barrow where, without a rolling submarine building programme to keep the skills hot, the Astute build has taken much longer and cost much more. Once the Astutes are completed the skills will all fade away again, with similar consequences relating to the delay on sorting out the Trident submarines' successors.
It's not about scaring the MoD; it's about pointing out that BAe are an international company now and that they will shut down their entire UK operation without a second thought should it stop making money. Then of course the MoD is royally screwed as they will have to stand cap in hand and beg the big boys to be allowed to buy downgraded export variants like every other banana republic outfit.
Which is why I don't understand why we DON'T have a rolling build. I can't remember when but I suggested years ago a system where we had a new Frigate sliding down the chute every 18 months. Giving us a full fleet of Frigates, with one in mothballs and another being commisioned.
Destroyers were 24 monthly, attack subs 18, bombers 3 years (IIRC).
Plus points, constant update of design for new equipment. 2 years max (inc design time) to bring something new in. constant skill use in the yards.
down points. i suppose each ship could be different. but class changes could be easily introduced. say after one complete cycle, the class is changed, unless 3 major or 18 minor changes occur in the meantime.
They get about half the revenue from the U.S. anyways..
Standard scare tactic from a company that is "British" in name only.
They routinely threaten to move parts of their business overseas and buy influence wherever they can.
Let them go and buy the best of what is available around the world.
Yes, 49%. The point being made is that they may have to outsource certain manufacturing to meet foreign, not domestic, contracts. That does not mean all manufacturing it just means some. Personally experience has shown that there can be quality issues with foreign manufactured goods. Does anyone remember when almost all (I think) 9mm was of Indian origin and there were duds and double taps galore?
If you are chasing an order from India then it makes sense to go for the lowest possible manufacturing costs (certainly of non-sensitive parts and equipment) and may even liven the pot if some of those jobs went to India. The overall profit would still go to BAE in the UK.
However, that does not address the problem of a shrinking UK BAE workforce and skills base. It's not just Pompey, Brough in Yorkshire will be closed as well with the loss of 800 jobs.
I'm surprised that BAE never went into the wind power rotor business or even the complete wind turbine business, it would require very similar skills and it's a growing industry.
I'm not really sure what that article's even saying. Offset programmes into countries that you're trying to sell to are nothing new - BAE have been investing in foreign businesses in return for major sales for years. It sounds like some journo had a discussion with BAE about Typhoon and didn't understand the message
I didnt get anything from that article either.
If the Government invests in UK defence, regardless of the 'waste' a large proportion of that investment will find its way back into UK funds, if it buys foreign cheaper, the money is gone and it is more expensive to the UK, you can offset expensive unemployment with investement in the UK defence industry but the savings are intangible to the tax payer.
I think thats what BAE or the Author are perhaps pointing out, you can get it cheaper abroad, if you are comparing buying a F/A 18z against a navalised Typhoon, but if you choose a foreign supplier and lay off 8'000 uk tax payers, the country has lost not just now, but for ever, saving the country a few billion today, but putting us on an engineering and self defence path to **** all.
Somethign like that anyway.
(i had something to say, but im wasted now)
The government has 'threatened' to buy kit from abroad - BAeE move production abroad, anyone surprised.
Separate names with a comma.