The news released earlier today at the Berlin Air Show about the possible merge of EADS and BAE Systems is both interesting and rather surprising but it could be excellent for both organisations, the merged organisation would (depending on regulatory approvals) be the largest defence aerospace vendor in the world and have feet planted firmly in the defence, security and civilian markets.
It does make things more complicated with regards to overlapping products, national agreements and existing or planned competitive ventures or developments but if the will is there, the wallet will follow, or is it the other way around!
The planned collaboration between Dassault and BAE on a Medium Altitude Long Endurance (MALE) Unmanned system might be looking a bit shaky given that EADS have the Talarion, despite their shareholdings in Dassault.
Have a wander through their websites…
http://www.eads.com/eads/int/en.html
The announcement about the talks are linked off their home pages.
Any crystal ball gazers out there who fancy a prediction?
UPDATE
Seems like the markets don’t like the news as BAE shares have taken a tumble this morning
I also thought it would be interesting to see who owns EADS shares, who will be responsible for 60% of the organisation that provides UK defence sovereignty, tens of thousands of jobs and the nuclear deterrent
That is a sobering thought
Merging two failing organisations just creates one, larger, failing organisation.
It will have big implications for BAE in US defence market, such a merger would put bae/eads the larger than lockheed martin and open more US market, this will not be acceptable to US. BAE might split there US segment to make the merger.
God no, no no no no. People moan about BAE dominance, we’ll end up with something similar. Then you got to add in the age old problem, European politics, what it does and who does what. BAE should instead look at expending in to to civilian sectors. Cassidian recently ditched it boss, one rummor was he wanted to spin it out as a German company. We could see us losing skills and ability, the politicians will do sod all. If things turn out bad we’re screwed because We may end up with basket cases Companies.
It seems out politicians are not good at this stuff, it let’s about growth and manufacturing by never backs it up.
For some reason why my tablet spell checker and keyboard are slightly duff.
I’d say stuff France and just go ahead without male UAV otherwise we end up with a fudge. I’m pro Europe but anti union, I just see this merger as an another part of a union fat, useless and doomed.
If it wasn’t bad enough already. We are already at the point where there’s very little competition for the procurement of military equipment this will kill it entirely. Also I highly doubt it would be a merger, more than likely a takeover and of the two EADS is substantial bigger.
A merger is unlikely to get a pass from German authorities under our anti-trust legislation,or a waiver from our minister of the interior.
A merger would create a monopoly and this time the customer who would get shafted would be the very government that would need to approve the merger.
It’s a bit disconcerting that the corporations did go public with the idea, though. That usually means that they think they have a chance.
Maybe a stupid question but to what extent are ESAD and BAe really in competition now?
ESAD from this distance appears to be largely aerospace and electronics. BAe is more diverse and the end result of an agregation process which contains all sorts of bits and pieces, but by luck or management has a much larger US presence.
May a shaken out European ‘prime’ have a much better chance against US corporations?
What prospect is there of BAe priming a new major aerospace project now?
The merger is on a 60.40 split basis with EADS taking the 60. BAE will retain independence in certain areas so it can maintain its US contracts. If I was a share holder of BAE or EADS I would be happy. However I think its a disaster for European defence industry knocking out the only two defence players.
The new company should be based in the UK for tax reasons however its likely to be based in Toulouse for political ones. Given the importance of BAE to the UK I think HMG must step in and us its golden share to say nine. However I am sure call me Dave has already backed this one not wanting to appear anti business or anti fat cat.
I also can’t see the US Government maintaining the status of BAE if its majority European owned.
Given that we are already a major Airbus manufacturing site I can’t see the UK getting any more work from EADS. BAE is a major supplier to Boeing of components for its airliners. I really can’t see that relationship last much longer either.
Interesting that they choose the Berlin air sow to announce this. HArdly a major aviation event. Me thinks some politics is at play here.
NO!! NOOO!!!! NOT!! NO WAY!! IMPOSSIBLE!!!! NO TO THE MERGER!!! EADS is Germany, Italy but not is GB, Why is possible this? England have problems for make good business with countries like Argentine, is not a good partner.
I insist NO!!
The odds of this going through as it stands must be very low. The two major hurdles are the US Government and the UK Public. In the UK this is political dynamite and many Tory MPs will be thinking Westland all over again and so will Labour MPs who will use it as an opportunity to dig the knife in.
The US will simply not allow a Tier 1 F35 partner to be taken over by the French. The Pentagon is BAE’s biggest customer and it is a huge risk for EADS, they may end up buying a company where half the sales disappear overnight. If EADS really wants BAE and allay Pentagon fears then it will have to become a UK company with a UK HQ or more radically a US company. Alternatively it may have to de-merge all the US operations but then what value is left?
BAE thought about merging a with EADS about 10/15 years ago but changed its mind and went on a US spending spree. My guess is that this is a story that is only on the first page, Lockheed Martin my want to counter-bid, fit is excellent for them and they then capture all the F35 rewards.
I cannot see this going through at all, like some people have pointed out there is just too much politics at stakte not to mention national security issues. The Americans won’t be happy at all and are highly likely to block the creation of such massive leviathan competitors to its own industries not to mention that BAE/EADS would be primarily European, and not British, operation. Obama might not be in favour of the special relationship but anyone who has worked in industry and government knows that it most certainly is. This merger could severely strain that relationship if the French/Germans/Spanish are calling the shots.
Yes, diversification is good for business, of course, but BAE ought to have had a little more faith in its Airbus shares which they sold of in 2006 (20%). They should sit out there storm. As cynical as it might seem, something on the world stage is likely to happen sooner or later which unfortunately will facilitate BAE making money of defence again.
“BAE thought about merging a with EADS about 10/15 years ago but changed its mind and went on a US spending spree. My guess is that this is a story that is only on the first page, Lockheed Martin my want to counter-bid, fit is excellent for them and they then capture all the F35 rewards.”
There is zero chance of the Government allowing a takeover of BAE by LM. That would be an even bigger disaster.
If BAE wants to diversify away from defence which is a sound idea it should look at re entering the civilian aircraft market. I would not suggest going head to head with Boeing or Airbus at the wide body end of the market but there is massive potential at the other end. Airlines in Asia can’t get enough of aircraft like the A320 and 737 at the moment. BAE is one of the few companies in the world that could build a competitive aircraft at this level. That being said maybe BAE has gotten too use to fat government contracts to go back into the commercial world.
Does anyone else think this is a bad idea
@TD: it’s appalling. Smells like a Euro political stitch up, since BAE would lose the US business which the shareholders are doubtless not too happy about.
Personally, I reckon we are way past the zenith of “large contractors are the only ones that make sense”. It’s noticeable that the one company the Pentagon seems fairly happy with is General Atomics, which didn’t exist as a defence contractor when the “last supper” was held at the end of the Cold War
You need to ask why would EADS be interested in the merger/takeover?
Are they eye-balling the US market?
- If so, they’ll consider such things as a move to the UK for the HQ.
- If not, we’re looking at the likes of a divestiture.
In the latter case, what’s the impact on the UK? Do we buy from BAE Systems US as well as from BEADS? Are we looking at a movement of work from the UK to the Continent?
If a move of HQ to the UK, are we looking at a greater manufacturing and/or design base coming to be based in the UK?
There are many splits possible, you guys have been grumbling about the monolithic BAE for some time.
Is EADS really interested in the Type 26?
“While the complex deal faces obstacles, U.S. government officials were not likely to block it, according to multiple sources close to the matter who were not authorized to speak publicly.
These sources said the companies have already held direct discussions with U.S. officials, though no formal proposal has been put forward yet.”
REUTERS
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/09/13/uk-bae-eads-idUKBRE88C03T20120913
i guess they had the same thoughts as you guys and laid some ground work early
This is all about short term shareholder value and profits, not about the longer term. I would not be surprised if BEADS were to subsequently sell its defence interests (F-35, Typhoon, UAVs) to Lockheed or Boeing, leaving the UK with only comparatively minor defence companies and specialised system providers. Incidentally what happens to the trumpeted BAES-Dassault linkage? Will Dassault be swallowed up too or will the French government insist they are kept independent? (I think we know the answer).
Having said that BAES, despite its dominant market position, has not performed particularly well – Astute, Nimrod MRA4, Terrier, FRES, Type 45, CVF all spring to mind – and the company has been very good at picking the UK taxpayers’ pockets with constant threats to government to ‘take out manufacturing base elsewhere’. As part owner of MBDA the company has been happy to let the French run the business for their own benefit (for example by not attempting to sell UK made missile systems in ‘French’ markets.
The good news is probably for companies like Boeing UK, Lockheed UK, Raytheon UK, General Dynamics and AgustaWestland, as without the ‘British’ link the London government will have much less compunction in placing orders with companies other than BEADS. Nonetheless we should recognise that combined with the SDSR defence cuts this really marks the point where the UK becomes a minor player in the defence field, on par with say Poland or Sweden. I do think it might be a good idea though if the British government insisted that the shipbuilding side were sold to a company capable of running it properly.
Phhh! Phhh…! Ah, there it is: Good, I thought I misplaced this document….
Ah, yes: British Aerospace Dynamics and GEneral Dynamic.
BADGED, by 2014?
NO!! NOOO!!!! NOT!! NO WAY!! IMPOSSIBLE!!!! NO TO THE MERGER!!! EADS is Germany, Italy but not is GB, Why is possible this? England have problems for make good business with countries like Argentine, is not a good partner.
I insist NO!!
i don’t think there’s hours in the day for me to pick this comment apart.
The Reuters article linked by jim72 certainly covers a lot of questions with regards structure: Umbrella group, primarily ring-fenced operations, etc.
I can’t help thinking there is more here to do with a bit of strong-arm negotiation posturing than a genuine desire to form a shining new company. What probability that communication between BAE board and HM Government has recently included not so subtle threats (veiled in mock sorrow) that unless BAE gets substantial MOD business and quick, it will be forced (with great regret of course) to abandon its independence and sell itself to Johnny Foreigner. HMG would then have two equally undesirable choices; give in to corporate arm-twisting, or risk the political storm of not resisting the sale of the huge corporation that sponged up much of the UK defence industry to offshore owners. To some degree its a shame the Monopoly and Merger Committee hasn’t the teeth to break BAE into smaller sector-focused businesses that better suit the scale of the UK business environment, although no doubt the smaller chunks would be easy pickings for bigger richer organisations in far away countries. For some reason our Governments (whichever side may be in power) don’t seem to see the value in retaining a national defence manufacturing capability.
I read recently that the manufacturing sector (all aspects of, including foreign owned but UK based) contributes more to the UK balance of payments than any other part of the economy. More than, for example, banking. And yet when the banks looked a bit flaky cash flooded from the Treasury whereas to help the struggle to keep Britain manufacturing for export, companies are offered ever so slightly easier access to bank loans. Doesn’t look particularly rational to me.
Should then the UK do as other nations and specifically protect and nurture the national defence manufacturing sector? The economists and accountants I am sure would say no. But then they won’t be in the trenches with Tommy Atkins when our foreign suppliers decide not to support UK defence operations
@ Yet One More Chris
HMG loves Europe. Call Me Dave will be as pleased as punch if BAE gets swallowed by EADS.
“I read recently that the manufacturing sector (all aspects of, including foreign owned but UK based) contributes more to the UK balance of payments than any other part of the economy.”
I’d seriously double-check your sources there. Services accounts for in the region of 75% of British GDP and Industry around the 20% mark.
That’s why HMG finds itself having to help out the Financial Sector, despite the Opposition finding it handy to suggest they are helping “chums” (have a look at the Shadow Chancellors own school days…).
Services in general helped Britain out of the 70′s fiscal problems but the pendulum swung too far. When New Labour came into power in ’97 there was an opportunity to rebalance the economy then, however there was a Gravy Train to be ridden and nobody wanted to risk looking like they were holding back a Good Thing(TM).
But this all dates back to how we used our Marshall Plan aid as a root cause.
Imagine a rebuilt modern industry from the 50s, and fully electrified railways before the tear-downs in the 60′s. We’d likely be looking at a less severe North-South divide (or a London-Elsewhere focus), fewer motorways and an economy which was a blend of Germany and our own today.
@ Chris – There is not a lot that BAE’s board can do in regards to HMG. The Government retains a golden share in BAE which gives it the ability to veto any deal with out the need for a legislative process. The new company having three golden shares from UK, France and Germany will be some what of a joke. Things should be left they way they are BAE and EADS are already big enough for either the domestic or international market.
@ Richard
NO!! NOOO!!!! NOT!! NO WAY!! IMPOSSIBLE!!!! NO TO THE MERGER!!! EADS is Germany, Italy but not is GB, Why is possible this? England have problems for make good business with countries like Argentine, is not a good partner.
I insist NO!!
What a load of bollocks. Argentina is hardly a prime export market is it. How many sales foreign sales have the Germans or Italians generated for Euro fighter? That’s right zero. Other than Airbus EADS has almost no business outside of Europe. BAE has prime spot in many of the worlds largest defence markets like the USA and Saudi Arabia.
While I am no fan of BAE as a business they have progressed way beyond what any one would have expected of a British Military Contractor 20 years ago. EADS is a failed institution with nothing in its stable but Airbus which was around long before EADS and has a major British contribution to it.
@Jim 72 _ I agree the US won’t block the merger it will just stop buying things from it. EADS is the world’s second biggest aerospace company and is only the 100th biggest US government contractor. There is a reason for that.
If there was to be consolidation, I personally think a BAE/Finmeccanica merger might be better. Both have a better relationship with the US, they work together with MBDA, there are future civil opportunities maybe even with Bombardier, and the only real overlap is OTO MELERA v MK45 and the M346 Master v the Hawk
@ TOC re Services
Are you saying we are a nation of shopkeepers?
You are right. HMG has basically done everything wrong since WW2, that includes both parties. I used to like at uni’ when the lecturers would spout rhubarb about Thatcher. They forget the decline was happening long before she came into office. I think I am right in saying manufacturing actually did better, that is declined less, under her government than under Blair and Brown.
What did for UK aerospace was Duncan Sandys, and the next decade all that custard about “White Heat of Technology” with that Wilson idiot. A decade that ended with us giving away our space technology to the French.
Another hobby horse of mine is doing away polytechnics instead of investing in the idea of the vocational technical degree as something of which to be proud. Blair’s 50% of teens to uni just basically pee’d uni’ funding up the wall so teens could get 2.1s in sociology, psychology, and other stupid fields. It has taken the heart of tertiary history.
@x
I’ll raise a glass to that.
Haven’t made my mind up on this yet. Can see lots of sell offs and consolidations. It you look at it can’t see any major new air land or sea developments for uk armed forces beyond what’s current in build for the next 20 years outside type 26 for bae systems.
As most here see them as a waste of space I’m surprised anyone that’s concerned if they go.
Martin
Would that be Eads the owner of Airbus the largest airframer in the world and eurocopter isn’t exactly just european
@x:
I do wonder how the political classes manage to screw it up so successfully time after time, when the solution seems blatantly obvious to people down at our level . . .
Oh, and I’m a proud product of the Plymouth Polytechnic Civil Engineering Dept. before it became University South West (Plymouth)! :-O
Re: Politicians
Don’t hate the players, hate the game.
The problem is a predominantly two party democratic process. The USA experiences the problem more acutely.
Essentially we have a system where we’ve given the control of incentives to a block of people who not only have no experience in running anything long-term or large-scale but who’s collective ability is below a level that we all regard as “high achievers”.
I’d rather the decision making was done by those far better than I.
However I:
a) Don’t have a better idea; and
b) Even if I did, I lack the charisma and popularity to pull off a change like that.
Within our current system, the House of Lords reform is the closest we can get to an opportunity for introducing a system I’d be happy with.
Instead of a second popularly elected chamber, I’d rather a second chamber that knew partially what they were talking about instead of being able to convince people to vote for them. A more meritocratic process, given nothing’s perfect.
My alternative House of Lords is appointing peerages based on a sector/profession/aspect of Britain. So if I were King (to reference @Chris.B.):
Lord Constabulary
Lord Admiralty
Lord General
Lord Marshal
Lord Accounting
Lord Banking
Lord Judiciary
Lord Artist
Lord Doctor
Lord Construction
Lord Farmer
Lord Bishop
Lord Islam
Lady Motherhood
Lord Fatherhood
Lord Physics
Lord Fisherman
Duke of Lancaster
Lady Ennis
etc
(Read Lord as Lord/Lady, etc)
The person holding these peerages would be put forward by a Chartered Institute or other suitably recognised body for that aspect of Britain.
Some Hereditary Peerages would be maintained and be an unelected representative of a Region to address both their geographical areas concerns and their traditions. Could be fired (stripped of provided lands and titles) if they didn’t want or couldn’t do their job.
e.g. Duke of Lancaster responsible for passing on concerns of Lancashire.
No reason why an area couldn’t insist their Duke (or whatnot) were elected to provide a blend or account for some Cities.
The House of Lords would retain it’s current role: essentially that of advising the commons on Bills.
Power is still focussed on the fully Elected House. We then have the Lords to advise, guide and steer comprised of experts in their field.
Peerages could also be awarded to a select number of people who embody or who work diligently for the Country (and who are willing to accept the responsibility of working in the House of Lords).
e.g.
Lady Ennis
Lord Berners-Lee
I’m sure you can think of your own aspects of Britain that could contribute with a Lord/Lady as a Peer of the House of Lords who not only earned the position but who would do a good job of looking out for the interests of that aspect of Britain.
@ TOC
As long as it is dandelion and burdock……
@ Dangerous Dave
You get what I am saying then don’t you? It is something that should have been built upon and not scrapped.
http://machinedesign.com/article/engineering-in-germany-1107
Not going to do politics; it is too complicated and not the right forum.
@ TOC
Lord Islam? Really? What about a Lord Humanist or Lord Post-Christian? Rhubarb……
Have to say TOC that you House of Lord’s reform is pretty much how I envisage it should work – a group of specialists peers plus some life peers (more for the fact that life peers are typically apolitical as they do not need to stand for relection). I wonder if that is how most normal people would like the House of Lords to work?
@x
Those suggestions work for me too
I admit hard part for me is working out which aspects to select and it wouldn’t be an ideal system.
For example, what if the Chartered Institute’s responsible for putting forward a Peer for their aspect got political? Would it be a problem? How would that be handled?
@Tubby
Looking at voting turn-out and apathy figures I would say that, for the most part, most people would be happy with folks who worked hard and knew their stuff helping to make the calls and thinking more than 4-5 years ahead.
Going by the 80/20 rule, 80% being happy in this system would probably be better than 50% voter turn-out with less than half that number actually voting for the controlling party/coalition.
But back to BAE and EADS – what would an apolitical HMG make of the move? Take away the “being voted in” incentive.
Jules Verne, Propellor Island: anyone seeking public office should automatically be excluded from holding it.
@ TOC
Their are many problems with Lords’ reform. The odd thing there were many hereditary peers who did sterling work who were advocates on behalf of all manner of causes. And did it for little or no cost to the public purse. But Labour did away with the vast majority of them. Blair, the supreme democrat, appointed more peers than any modern prime minister both to avoid using MPs as ministers and as “gifts” for those who supported his cause. The latter being little to do with cause of the British people. As the Commons can always pass legislation by using the Parliament Act the Lords isn’t really a threat to democracy. Further consider 80% of UK legislation has its source in the EU which isn’t the most democratic organisation and that the English do not have their own parliament (small p) but are subject to legislation voted on by all MPs then the democratic deficit of the Lords is small beer, or small dandelion burdock (which is an awful thought.)
With 20% VAT, business rates doubling while internet firms use tax havens to dodge their share of tax, we will not even be a nation of shopkeepers soon.
If we had a political/official elite that liked Britain, then I would argue we should keep sovereign control of BAE.
BAE makes a lot of good kit, but that is old in tooth. Where are the new projects leading to new kit in a decade? BAE will wither without new projects, so maybe a merger with EADS makes sense given our hopeless politicians, but what if Europes hopeless politicians fail to give new projects to EADS(BEADS) how is this an improvement?
The more I think of this, the more I dont like it.
Obviously a lot of projects would have to be ringfenced… such as F35, and our core areas…cant imagine any smiling faces if EADS had a hand in SSBN replacement? Astute?
“How many sales foreign sales have the Germans or Italians generated for Euro fighter? That’s right zero”
Indeed, the Luftwaffe has been learning from the RAF to really make use of their typhoons, sadly it was long before that Luftwaffe machines were trialed by the Indians – a ADF varient – if they had trialled with british machines…there may have been more brownie points for the Typhoon.
I think that odd comment was for fear of a export ban for Argentinas next FJ; they want Frances’ surplus Mirage C’s. Or Spain’s F1′s.
As with degrees, proud owner of a (physical) Geography and Nat Haz… x has a point though, and we should be encouraging apprenticeships way way more… I just ignore politics now, its one foul stink after another…
@x
I’ll certainly raise a glass of D&B to that
@John Hartley
Careful being sucked into the Milli-Balls brand of Tax Havens. Are you talking about the UK itself (which is a Tax Haven), the likes of Luxembourg (though Germany doesn’t want to acknowledge it either) or are you referring to the class of offshore centre such as our own Crown Dependencies?
Bearing in mind that the latter supply $330b a year to our Treasury, $40b is taxable, only a calculated $2b is “dodged”, and interestingly is known to be dodged due to the Crown Dependencies having a very good idea of fund flow – it’s not unmanageably large. The Treasury can’t match that that level of tracking or completeness of taxation in the UK itself.
The likes of Guernsey also helped prevent a number of UK institutions from going bankrupt at the start of the recession by providing access to liquidity.
Their expertise and licenses to do business for cross-jurisdiction transactions helps our own exports, which is applicable to our discussions here.
Milli-Balls and Jimmy Carr would have you believe otherwise, but given that the various Dependencies and Territories have no representation in the First Chamber, who’s going to defend them in the face of public opinion?
Would you have found out about Jimmy Carr’s financial arrangements if he’d have gone to Turks and Caicos?
Where would you rather have the worlds money flowing through? Friendly jurisdictions that are happy to cooperate, have recognised regulatory bodies and rank higher on the OECD whitelist or Transparency International’s CP Index than the USA or do you want that kind of business disappearing into a murkier web?
@ The Other Chris,
re; House of Lords reform. That’s… a bloody good idea I think.
I can just see this merger ending in tears for us. A much larger fish doesn’t roll over and let the smaller fish eat it. I can see the new company formed agreeing to multi-national projects for countries like Spain, Germany, Italy, France etc, and when we turn around and say “actually, that’s not for us, can you build something more to our specifications?” they tell us to call 0121-do one and ask for the customer service department.
Perhaps with another Euro treaty on the horizon and falling popularity Call me Dave may actually play the referendum card. And then HMG support for a BAE merger which put British jobs in the hands of continental bosses may not be well received by the people.
If the Swedes, Danes, and Finns left the EU too we may see a Europe whose geopolitical relations mirror those of the late Dark Ages. Where the British Isles and Scandinavia, collected around the North Sea shared more culturally and politically than with Continental Charlemagnic Frankish Europe.
Then the answer chris is I am afraid though luck. Because it has been the ministry of defence over decades that has drove this to the situation were in. There is next to no trust between industry and the MOD you can see that in the CVF construction contract. Repeatedly the mod have spec up every contract to the most complex and then asked (with complicity from the suppliers needing the work) for a ridiculously low price to get it past treasury minister only to find out that what anyone with half a brain new in the first instance couldnt be done for the price. MOD then leaves company carrying a project it no longer can afford and said company either goes bust or merges with another until we end up with one big company because thats about the only way said company is ever likely to survive.
Secondly this country is simply NOT willing to pay for the development of these products. Sure some say they want british products but as soon as the develop cost is put in be it ships planes or tanks its look i can get this in america for a fiver or lets farm it out to eastern europe or whatever excuse you like you cannot have it both ways so uk specific requirements goes. And so the reality is europe which isnt much better needs to consolidate in core specialties. Because america will shout from the roof tops about a fair crack at defence contracts UNLESS there US ones we saw the crying by boeing over the tanker aircraft. Perhaps a major alignment of 1 aerospace company 1 rotor craft company 1 shipbuilder and 1 tank builder let them design and build it where and how they like and see if you wish to buy it or not it is all europe is willing to pay for I may not like it but that I fear is the reality.
This is playing on BBC 4 this week.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01mqv45/The_Three_Rocketeers/
If HMG had any sense they would be throwing the oversea aid budget at this company. They won’t. Our allies will probably “acquire” the technology, make money from it, gain strategic advantage with it, and in forty years time the BBC will be making another programme on how we threw away another space programme.
The other Chris
My post had several threads.
One was that high VAT & business rates are killing the UK High St.
On tax havens, I have no problem with UK dependencies helping people/companies escaping excessive tax, as long as it does not bring the UK into disrepute, but there are too many scandals now. The cover up over the rape & murder of children in the Jersey orphanage. Laundering drug dealer/mafia/rogue regime money. Lack of oversight leading to fraud/ponzi schemes. Do we really want the UK tainted with this?
For the UK, cut VAT & business rates for UK business. Meanwhile tell the dependencies, we will leave them be if they police their financial sector, but if they trash the reputation of the UK with dodgy deals, we reserve the right to go in &investigate/prosecute.
“Secondly this country is simply NOT willing to pay for the development of these products”
Astute, Type 45, Type 26, Typhoon, FRES, Bowmans, CVF.
@Martin.
” Other than Airbus EADS has almost no business outside of Europe. BAE has prime spot in many of the worlds largest defence markets like the USA and Saudi Arabia”
Eurocopter, Astrium, Cassadian,plus stakes in Patria, MBDA etc….none of them have business outside of Europe?
I guess those Lakota helos the US army flies are imaginary?
@X
“This is playing on BBC 4 this week.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01mqv45/The_Three_Rocketeers/
If HMG had any sense they would be throwing the oversea aid budget at this company. They won’t. Our allies will probably “acquire” the technology, make money from it, gain strategic advantage with it, and in forty years time the BBC will be making another programme on how we threw away another space programme.”
Ironically one of the biggest booster of Skylon is the ESA…they have also put it forward to be part of the evaluation for ESA’s future launcher programme to compliment the traditional rocket projects.
Bannerman, welcome to TD
We had a very quick look at Reaction Engines here
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/07/reaction-engines-update/
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/05/interesting-engines-in-the-air/
Yes Chrisb and bleeting and crying and back bitting leaking and cutting of numbers has been a constant din since each one started and will not be continued in the future so no we not willing to develop thing.