Should we buy British?

[ShotOne]

As has been highlighted by today's news from Portsmouth BAe shipyard, certain industries are designated as strategic and the UK military are legally required to "buy British". Is this the right course? What if relaxing this enabled us to afford lots more ships/aircraft?

[NutLoose]

You are then dependant to the whims of other countries, same with fighters, buying into the F35 is all well and good until it degrades your ability to build fighters yourself, once you become reliant on foreign built assets you then lose the ability as staff and the knowledge base are lost. Trouble is reduce the demand by shrinking the Navy etc, you then cannot justify holding the capacity to build them.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

ShotOne, this should cheer you up; https://www.gov.uk/government/news/mod-to-order-four-new-rfa-tankers . Old news now but they are still being built in South Korea. This is good value for the MoD but arguably not that good for UK PLC. Unless we have some reciprocal trade agreement with the South Koreans, all the money leaves the Country. Buying British would most probably cost more but much of the money would stay in our home economy. The brains trust in the Treasury doesn't allow the MoD a buy British bonus, though. Funny old world.

[Avtur]

So we bought Nimrod MRA 4. Question answered..?

[Brian Abraham]

Trouble with buying foreign is that country can dictate use, or non use, as the case may be, by denying spares etc. As Australia has found out in the past.

[thunderbird7]

BAe. The company that has single handedly destroyed Britain's defence industry. Aeroplanes, ships....

[500N]

Brian

Agree re found out in past, at least now most seems to come from the US,
not sure if that is good or bad !!!

[dervish]

I heard this said on radio yesterday by Lord West, saying he would take all MoD contracts away from Scotland if they voted Yes. He said development, production etc should always be in England (hastily changed to include Wales and NI.)

Rivet Joint?

[500N]

Why wouldn't you ?

If Scotland leaves the UK, it would be like having them built in India !

[dervish]

It is moments like that when politicians, especially inexperienced ones like West, reveal their true colours. You could understand your average politician blurting it out, as he is unlikely to be aware of anything related to Defence, but for a retired Admiral to say it just shows you the inner thinking of both MoD and government.

[A and C]

BAe has over the years used the buy British policy of Govenments of both party's to ramp up the price and deliver late, they just took the Govenments and tax payers for a ride.

The first time they got a message that this should not continue was when they so overpriced the Buldog refurbishment that they lost the contract to the Grob 115.

But undaunted by this they continued to rip off The tax payer with the Nimrod MR4 that as usual was late and over budget .............. The only way to show the con artists at the top of BAe that the UK tax payer had had enough of their antics was to chop up the project outside their office windows.

[Wensleydale]

So we bought Nimrod MRA 4. Question answered..?


Not forgetting that the AEW 3 was only conceived as a concept to keep the Unions quiet when UK bought the Boeing...it was not anticipated that an early general Election would bring a union dominated Labour party to power and we would actually buy it! Political, rather than capability/value decisions cost a lot of money in the long run.

[Eclectic]

In 1988, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces told the UK House of Commons that the European Fighter Aircraft would "be a major project, costing the United Kingdom about £7 billion"
In 2011 the National Audit Office estimated the UK's "total programme cost [would] eventually hit £37 billion", for less aircraft.

This is typical. Our MoD and defence contractors produce often inferior kit, usually very late and at many times the original budget. Which might explain why we buy so much off the shelf from America. That way we get better kit a lot cheaper.

What we need is competition, a second British defence contractor able to take on major contracts and bring some efficiency to the market. An amalgam of Meggitt, Marshall, Qinteq etc might get there with some good management.

And maybe banning BAE from all new contracts until they get their act together.

There was a time when we made good kit at a good price and countries from all over the world bought their ships and aircraft from us. Unfortunately the power of the unions and weak management meant that potential productivity improvements were not implemented. So the rest of the world became more competitive and the UK lost the orders and the jobs. The main effect of union power is unemployment.

[t43562]

We pay tax and invest it in the armed forces as an insurance scheme - surely we should be looking at the technological and industrial elements of that insurance as being at least as important as the others?

Perhaps the problem is that in order to create something stable, a lot of companies have been squashed into a few huge ones and with that goes the customer's ability to bargain or change suppliers.

[handysnaks]

What if relaxing this enabled us to afford lots more ships/aircraft?

Then we would leave all those ships/aircraft parked in ports and airfields empty, because we can't afford the sailors or airmen to fill them (apparently)!.......

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

the European Fighter Aircraft would "be a major project, costing the United Kingdom about £7 billion"
In 2011 the National Audit Office estimated the UK's "total programme cost [would] eventually hit £37 billion", for less aircraft.


Assuming you mean fewer aircraft rather than less of an aircraft (as we nearly achieved both), are you allowing for the Germans buggering about with the RADAR fit, our lot sodding about with the gun fit, everyone sodding about with the final buy number and corresponding work-share and our lot sodding about again with the buy number and the production and delivery timetable?

t43562; you make a fair point. It reminds me of the "rationalisation" of the aircraft and missile industry in the late '50s. At least then, HSA could compete with BAC (and dear old Fred HP tried to compete with everybody) and nobody was daft enough to lump shipbuilders in with the deal.

[dervish]

Does anyone know where a list of our strategic assets can be found? The point I made above (badly) was that I thought Nimrod R and now Rivet Joint was one.

[Pontius Navigator]

Not forgetting that the AEW 3 was only conceived as a concept to keep the Unions quiet when UK bought the Boeing...it was not anticipated that an early general Election would bring a union dominated Labour party to power and we would actually buy it! Political, rather than capability/value decisions cost a lot of money in the long run.

How do you figure that one out? The AEW3 was bought because NATO couldn't make its mind up and the Shack, well . . .

Then of course NATO bought the E3 after we committed to the AEW3.

[Party Animal]

Dervish,

Google is your friend. Just type in RAF or RN as a starting point and you will eventually get to everything you could want to know about our strategic assets. Nimrod R is in the process of being replaced by Rivet Joint. Two totally different aircraft but with the same mission.

[Parson]

It ultimately depends on whether we are producing what is needed and can be purchased at a reasonble cost (compared to products elsewhere).

It's not that long ago that Plod had to purchase British cars but that was untenable once the industry went down the tubes. Same could happen to the military.

Should BAE have been so quick to quit the civil market?

[Pontius Navigator]

Is dispersed construction with bits being assembled in far flung parts as economical as all in one place?

I know small things like cars are assembled from components brought in, but flying aircraft fuselages, wings, etc or building large parts of a warship and towing it to an assembly yard with the attendant costs of towage does not seem to make financial sense.

It seems it is more a question of economics spreading the little pork in the barrel around more factories or countries. "Made in Britain" seems increasingly unlikely.

[Party Animal]

I suggest 'Buy British' when you can is a good policy providing manufacturers are capable of providing a product in a reasonable time and cost.

However, the UK (or should I say BAe Systems) has proved on many occasions that we are just not capable of doing either. Nimrod AEW3 and MRA4 are 2 perfect examples. If the UK decides to procure a new Maritime Patrol Aircraft in the future, there really is no other realistic option other than buying from overseas. Similarly, C-17, Reaper, Rivet Joint etc..

Bottom line is that there needs to be a balance if you want the capability.

[Wensleydale]

How do you figure that one out? The AEW3 was bought because NATO couldn't make its mind up and the Shack, well . . .

Then of course NATO bought the E3 after we committed to the AEW3.

Do get a grip PN!

NATO (including UK) was going to buy 24 E-3A to be based in the UK (location TBD - probably Fairford or Brize) but the nations could not agree the proportion of funding leading to delays. The UK pulled out of the program (as we needed AEW ASAP to cover the fleet due to the cancellation of the aircraft carriers) and was going to independently buy 6 x E-3A as the UK contribution to the AEW Force. In the meantime, the other Nations signed up and the base went to West Germany with 18 E-3A. At the time, the Unions thought that they ruled the UK and so the Government put a few pounds around UK companies for their proposals for an AEW to show the Unions that there was not a viable UK alternative to the E-3. GEC rolled out their test-bed Comet which was being used for antenna trials for the Tornado F2 Radar and clamed it could be made into an AEW platform - the rest of the disaster is well known.

[t43562]

Making new things requires that one make mistakes. If you want no mistakes then simply buy old stuff.

One question might be: should one make lots of small mistakes or a few big ones.

To imagine that you can have cutting edge technology without a huge failure rate is naive.

To put it another way: anything you have that works, no matter how shiny it is, is old news technologically speaking.

[kbrockman]

The problem with military contracts and projects is that everyone is expecting, and more seriously, accepting substantial timing slips, huge cost overruns and sometimes even serious performance shortfalls.

Defense departments in most parts of the world are run like old school European style state companies (postal services, public transport and archaic airlines) whereby nobody is ultimately responsible for the fiascos achieved and the state willingly ponies up the checks.

the Defense sector is, contrary to popular believe, not like all other sectors in the western styled economies, there is no normal client-supplier relationship and with the merger of big contractors in the past ,both in Europe and the US, into oversized monopolizing mogols thing s have gone from bad to worse.

Many times there is only 1 serious supplier for 1 , or a limited amount of client-states, if you kill competition you also kill the incentive to innovate with a limited budget, the JSF, A400M and many other projects are the epitome of these policies.

Companies like SAAB, Agusta Westland and to a lesser extent DASSAULT are a breath of fresh air but it remains to be seen how long they can hold the fort

[ShotOne]

Interesting responses; clearly there are two sides to this debate and I don't have an axe to grind either way. Where I do, is in procurement of air trooping and freighting. Rightly or wrongly we rely heavily on civil carriers for this. Yet even the PM used an Angolan carrier to visit Japan!! All too often these contracts are being placed with overseas airlines. That may well come home to roost in a much more immediate way; if we lose the capacity to build fighters, that's a problem in fifteen years. If we can't deploy our forces, that might be a serious problem tomorrow.

[kaitakbowler]

quote.
Not forgetting that the AEW 3 was only conceived as a concept to keep the Unions quiet when UK bought the Boeing...it was not anticipated that an early general Election would bring a union dominated Labour party to power and we would actually buy it! Political, rather than capability/value decisions cost a lot of money in the long run.

I was at "drinks with the Minister", dear old Fred (Sleepy) Mulley, and he reckoned the only time all sides of the house cheered him was when he announced the Nimrod AEW order. Talk about sods law.

PM

[NutLoose]

Didn't I read somewhere that half of the problem was the way the contacts had been written for the AEW 3, one Major problem they had was getting all the software to run on a minuscule hard drive where the simply and expedient cure was to upgrade the capacity of the hard drive, but with a infinite budget they continued to spend millions trying to get the software to fit on the drive.

[Wensleydale]

Didn't I read somewhere that half of the problem was the way the contacts had been written for the AEW 3, one Major problem they had was getting all the software to run on a minuscule hard drive where the simply and expedient cure was to upgrade the capacity of the hard drive, but with a infinite budget they continued to spend millions trying to get the software to fit on the drive.


Not just the computer... virtually the whole concept of the aircraft, from the troubled radar with its appalling aerials to the slow and laboured hierarchal input HMI, was flawed. However, with the cost-plus contact given to GEC which paid all the company's research costs plus an extra (10%?) profit, then the more they got it wrong, the more money they made!

[racedo]

Question is with software done for every piece of kit then who knows what lovebomb has been planted by supplier at a point in time to suit their agenda.

[Easy Street]

Should BAE have been so quick to quit the civil market?

Nope. That will turn out to be one of the most spectacular errors a British business will make in our lifetimes!

[Saintsman]

One of the biggest issues that result in budget over-runs is scope creep. The design process is not cheap, but you often find that someone changes their mind and they have to start again. A lot of the previous design is wasted.

Of course, BAES are masters at encouraging this as its just money in the bank for them :hmm:

[dragartist]

We all know about the AEW Nimrod and loads of other programmes listed above but can anyone give any recent good examples of when we have bought British and it worked out well?

I am having great difficulty. We bought some minor kit from Meggitt <£5M that was a good example for me but that became spoilt when another UK company incorporated the same Meggitt kit in a higher order assembly and marked the Meggitt bits up double. They even tried to hide behind some design rights issue when it came to support (PDS and repairs). I know our Contracts Branch was very weak over the issue. Some of my most fiercest battles were with our own CB. They chose the path of least resistance at detriment to the public purse all too often IMHO.

So how did the AEW Nimrod programme adversely affect me and my team? When they [Waste of Space] lost the job the politicians were keen to back fill with something to keep Woodford going. They took work from us (Andover EMk3 for 115 Sqn) We; being an In House unit did not need to make a profit and in my mind were very effective (Cost Time and Performance). Sadly there is no going back.

Supporting inefficient industries leads to the loss of British jobs. In the end it just goes offshore. I don't know if there is a magic wand.

People on here must know of some good examples where we [Great Britain] are getting it right. Can we try and throw some positive light on the subject rather than just list the disasters.

(No I did not go and work for Meggitt or any other Defence Contractor when I left)

[Donkey497]

Quote:
Should BAE have been so quick to quit the civil market? Nope. That will turn out to be one of the most spectacular errors a British business will make in our lifetimes!

I think they should have been a damn sight quicker to quit the civil market, especially in shipbuilding because it seems their yards weren't all that good at it. It appears from what I've heard that they were too used to military standards, materials and practices, that commercial stuff was too much of a culture change for them to be successful.

As an example, my father still curses the day when as chief marine engineer for a major UK oil company he took charge of one of their new product carriers, fresh out of a mainly military shipbuilding yard that at one time formed part of the BAE empire. Six months after handover he was chiselling nuts off of flanges because they had seized/galled into a solid mass on lines that had to be taken out for cleaning twice a year. Non-(civilian)-standard flanges, bolt sizes etc. except at port interfaces made the lives of his engine room team & the Mate's deck crew hell and made getting spares and replacements expensive, slow and frustrating....... "Sorry, we can't tell you who to buy a replacement for that failed part from as it's use is covered by the Official Secrets Act" was apparently one response when they went hunting for a spare cooling pump.

The ships didn't last long. I believe one of the class only stayed with the company for a bare 5 years instead of a typical 20-25 and all were gone before their second survey was due.

You tick to what you are good at, and you try to do it better. When politics or commercial or legal constraints force you outside what you do well, It's never going to be pretty.

Let the commercial guys do the commercial stuff & the military guys supply the military stuff. The problems arise because the civil service can't grasp the difference between the two.

edited for premature post..........

[Wensleydale]

One of the biggest issues that result in budget over-runs is scope creep. The design process is not cheap, but you often find that someone changes their mind and they have to start again. A lot of the previous design is wasted.



In my experience it is caused when, having completed and submitted the requirement for tender and having received the costings from industry, the been counters in the treasury insist on cutting the price by half. This then leads to a new less capable requirement that meets the original industry cost figures but again the treasury wants it even cheaper. By the time that you have finally agreed a price, the contractor then has to raise the costs again because he has to allow for his expenses in keeping his specialist team together during the 2 years it takes the treasury to make up their minds. (And then HMRC decide that they will charge VAT on the final price despite advising you in the beginning that they would not and the whole process starts again).

[esa-aardvark]

I remember that the British computer used was the GEC4080
a not very powerful thing usually used for process control. The
AEW radar was Synthetic Aperture which necessitates quite a computational effort.
Also quite a lot of processing was needed to remove Ground Clutter.
It was obvious at the time that the 4080 was not powerful enough.
Other sufficiently powerful but non-british computers were available, but not made in-house.

So indeed buy British, but only if good enough.

Please correct me if you know differently.

[dervish]

Define "British" in an era when companies routinely don't pay their taxes here! Designed and built here? Or designed abroad and built here? Or designed and built abroad, but assembled here? Successive governments have spun the last as "British" when all its provided are minimum wage short term un/semi-skilled jobs. And these are usually accompanied by huge government grants and tax breaks to build the assembly plant. Reading, Basingstoke and Blackwood come to mind on one major Army job. It would have been cheaper just to import the assembled product. I'm thinking of BOWMAN, our Army equivalent of MRA4.

Seem to remember insufficient radar cooling was a big factor on AEW.

[NutLoose]

So how did the AEW Nimrod programme adversely affect me and my team? When they [Waste of Space] lost the job the politicians were keen to back fill with something to keep Woodford going. They took work from us (Andover EMk3 for 115 Sqn) We; being an In House unit did not need to make a profit and in my mind were very effective (Cost Time and Performance). Sadly there is no going back.

And even that wasn't the right aircraft to buy, the Andover was foisted upon the RAF despite being more expensive and inferior to the opposition in the contract, simply because Handley Page wouldn't play ball and merge into what would become BAe..

The Andover had to have expensive and major work involving the kneeling undercarriage etc where the Herald was a cheap redesign that involved the fitting of a rear ramp giving you in effect a twin engined Herc, and trials proved it was far superior to the Andover off piste.

http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1961/1961%20-%201862.PDF

As for BAe and their megga expensive programmes and parts... VC Ten Squash Balls anyone?

[Wensleydale]

The
AEW radar was Synthetic Aperture which necessitates quite a computational effort.
Also quite a lot of processing was needed to remove Ground Clutter.
It was obvious at the time that the 4080 was not powerful enough.
Other sufficiently powerful but non-british computers were available, but not made in-house.

So indeed buy British, but only if good enough.

Please correct me if you know differently.

The main radar was a PD radar but the choice of medium (rather than high) PRF led to repeated clutter notch holes throughout the velocity spectrum. To counter this, the radar had a very small clutter notch. Unfortunately the really large sidelobes caused by the poor antennae put ground clutter into the system at a velocity outside the clutter notch and processing these spurious noise returns caused the underpowered computer to crash within seconds - we could not point the radar at land within about 120 nmi otherwise down went the computer (hence the oversea only use at the time - the company claimed that this noise was caused by detecting lorries). The company's final gambit was to really open the clutter notch, but this gave more frequency spectrum blanked than open (due to the repeated notch caused by the too low PRF). The noise problem was solved, but very few aircraft were detected. (The aircraft was cancelled shortly after).

Seem to remember insufficient radar cooling was a big factor on AEW.

Indeed! The mission system generated too much heat and so aircraft fuel in one of the tanks was used as a heat sink. This meant that the tank had to remain filled and the aircraft could spend only limited time airborne without AAR, otherwise the system had to be shut down due to no heat sink fuel available.

[Easy Street]

Donkey 497

When I referred to BAE's spectacular error in quitting the civil market, I was referring to the sale of its stake in Airbus. Why would they possibly want to sell a reliably profitable business at Broughton and Filton, turning out the world's most advanced airliner wings?

[t43562]

To me the radar problems sound like pretty typical software programmes - pretending that experimental designs are the finished product and not being willing to accept the true cost of developing something to the point where it is practically useful.

My limited experience is that time and competition solve problems. Competition solves the problems of lack of imagination and of excuses. Time lets people learn and work through the problems.

I have often thought to myself that having 2 teams to develop any software might be more efficient in the end - continual pressure for each team to live up to the standard and thereby be finally selected.

[NutLoose]

Quick buck for the shareholders.

Same thing was the death knell for the BAe146/ ATP ?... The sales department was transferred to France I believe where the ATR was also being flogged, unfortunately if what I read was correct, the sales staff were being paid a commission on the ATR, and not on the BAe aircraft, common sense dictates if you are paid more to sell one product, you sell that product.

[peter we]

It is moments like that when politicians, especially inexperienced ones like West, reveal their true colours. You could understand your average politician blurting it out, as he is unlikely to be aware of anything related to Defence, but for a retired Admiral to say it just shows you the inner thinking of both MoD and government.

There is no a choice, its EU law. The UK can only choose a UK company is there is no tendering process, if it goes to tender it will be to the lowest bidder.
That won't be in the UK.

MARS went to Korea becuase there was nowhere in the UK with the capacity to build it as they were all busy, so they didn't bid.

The main reason to 'Buy British' is financial. Its basically free if the the work is done in the UK as its returned at VAT, income tax and all other taxes down the spending tree.

[Party Animal]

Originally posted by peter we
The UK can only choose a UK company is there is no tendering process, if it goes to tender it will be to the lowest bidder.
That won't be in the UK.




Not the full story though Peter. I speak as someone close to the Nimrod MRA4. I'm not sure how the politics really works at the highest level but I suspect that foreign competition bids are revealed to British companies before the decision is made, giving the British company the opportunity to undercut the competition.

That way, our politicians can stand up and gloat that the contract has gone to 'BAE Systems' because they are not only the best but also the cheapest etc... We then stand back and watch the game begin.

In the case of the MRA4, the original cost of £2bn for 21 aircraft on the front-line in 6 years was seen by many as absolute bullsh1t. Knowing former Nimrod guys working for foreign competition, they all knew it was totally unachievable and to be honest, my granny could have scrutinised the bid and laughed at the offer.

Then reality kicked in. Within 2 years, it was demonstratably obvious that it was never going to happen. In the end, it became £4bn for 9 aircraft after 15 years and the rest is history. Or is it? the 2 carriers have exactly the same scenario - now coming in at twice the price and twice the time from the original 2007 plan.

So the bottom line here is that it's the game the UK plays. I just wonder why politicians seem outraged at delays and cost overruns when it's no surprise at all. If 4 companies bid for a major project and 3 of them (from overseas) all come in with similar figures and timescales, does no-one look closely at the BAES bid which is half of the above and say Mmmm?

Anyway, it's Friday. No point in getting wound up!

[dervish]

but I suspect that foreign competition bids are revealed to British companies before the decision is made, giving the British company the opportunity to undercut the competition.


Not sure how common this is but I know of examples. What I said above. Define "British".


if it goes to tender it will be to the lowest bidder.

Same again. A procurer could possibly comment but the need for an absolutely perfect, watertight requirement crosses my mind. Surely this should be something like "lowest bidder who is compliant with a valid requirement."

[Pontius Navigator]

Surely this should be something like "lowest bidder who is compliant with a valid requirement."

Ah! Therein lies the rub. If a desirable option is for a cloak of invisibility and only one company out of many can offer that requirement but you know that your preferred choice would be more expensive than all the other companies that can't offer that cloak of invisibility, then you simply write that in to the SOR as an essential criteria - simple.

And don't think that doesn't happen.

Now in one contract only 3 years ago that company thought it had the game sewn up. It relaxed its offer in some other areas and lost out to a competitor on grounds of risk. Even though it was a lower tender the contract went to the next bidder.

[tornadoken]

When Hoon was Minister he stated that as BAES' Shareholders' Register showed >50% registered outside UK, it would not be considered to be British by patrimony, and would have no preferential claim to business. Best value open bids, best man wins.

When Wedgie Benn was Minister of Technology from 1965, he was responsible for automatic data processing, where UK had consolidated into ICL. Honeywell had won the mainframe for UK's first digital flight simulator (Redifon Air Trainers Ltd. RN Buccaneer) and ICL screamed. He carried in Cabinet a 25% Buy British premium for mainframes bought on public sector account. So if the offshore kit was £100, ICL would win at £124.99 and Treasury would uplift Project approved funds by that increment. ICL lapsed into fat, dumb privilege, was Nationalised, but soon expired.

The point about money staying within UK when home-sourced, so free, is rejected by Treasury whenever it is presented as the case for discarding a lower-priced import. Anywhere, not just in Aero. They require each line item of spend to be at best value. Greater minds than ours (e.g: theirs) attend to the Exchanges. If Treasury were to accept, say Plod's motors will be home-grown, then every public Buyer would be required to Protect the local firm, who would become...fat and dumb. We believe in Free Trade. Unlike, say US, we also (try to) do it. Do you remember a We're Backing Britain campaign in the 1960s, targetting private cars. A consequence was Austin Allegro, Morris Marina and the death of the UK mass-market car.

[Flap Track 6]

... Old news now but they are still being built in South Korea. This is good value for the MoD but arguably not that good for UK PLC. Unless we have some reciprocal trade agreement with the South Koreans, all the money leaves the Country.

My employer, a FTSE 100 Engineering company in the Defence field is curently working on a major multi million pound contract for the South Korean MoD. The technology, research and development work in this contract is a damned sight more relevant than welding a few bits of steel plate together and then painting it grey.

[pontifex]

I had some knowledge of the AEW3 when I was at BD. To be fair to BAE, they were handed a poison chalice with that political animal. It was too small for the job and was forced to fly with the well known bulges. To be fair to the company it flew reasonably well but the main problem was the radar which its manufacturer knew full well from the start would be unable to cut the mustard. But "Hay Ho" it was a cost plus job wasn't it? Unfortunately it was a joint contract; had BAE had the lead on a sole contract they might have been able to kick some @rse and either had it cancelled earlier or produced a semi workable solution.

[Pontius Navigator]

tornadoken, good point well put. You convinced me.

In many other cases I see things done differently and better overseas but rejected in UK as 'not the way we do things.' I also see other things that we see 'originating' in UK turn out to be identical to practises elsewhere but never admitted - personal award of air miles in UK is dealt with in an identical manner, with a better twist, in the US.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Flap Track 6, you seem to remake the Hesaltine and Clarke verdict on the value of metal bashing quite succinctly. You didn't mention, though, if the work your Firm is doing for the Koreans offsets or exceedes the value of the the work they are doing for us on the MARS ships.

Isn't it odd that nobody seems to care much about the Balance of Payment figures anymore. Perhaps that explains why the UK is up to its a**e in debt.

[Flap Track 6]

Golf Bravo Zulu, it appears that the spend in Korea on the MARS program is circa 300 million.
I don't think the value of the contract awarded to Babcock to design and build the Weapon Handling and Launch System for the Korean Jangbogo-III class submarines has been publicly stated, but it is a big portion of the spend in Korea.

[DozyWannabe]

Defense departments in most parts of the world are run like old school European style state companies (postal services, public transport and archaic airlines) whereby nobody is ultimately responsible for the fiascos achieved and the state willingly ponies up the checks.

Now now, let's be careful with the generalisations here. It's much the same in the private sector. Sure, if a project fails you'll see people being "held responsible" and let go - but invariably it's never the people at or near the top (who made the mistake in the first place) to whom that happens.

Do you remember a We're Backing Britain campaign in the 1960s, targetting private cars. A consequence was Austin Allegro, Morris Marina and the death of the UK mass-market car.

While it makes for an entertaining story, the above isn't true. For one thing, in the '60s and well into the '70s, even foreign-owned marques like Ford and Vauxhall were still designing and building models specifically for the UK market - it wasn't until the late '70s that they started shipping their German designs over.

What happened to BMC (later British Leyland) was that the consortium was pulled together without rationalising the number of managers. Consequently, every management head felt he had to stick his oar in lest he and his staff be considered surplus to requirements.

To illustrate the point, I give you Harris Mann's original 1968 concept drawing for the Austin Allegro:

http://www.aronline.co.uk/images/ado67dev_06.jpg

Rather different from the end product, is it not?

Lest you think BAE Systems an aberration, it's worth remembering that US "defense" contractors are p***ing away sums that boggle the mind routinely - but because the budget is considered sacrosanct in Congress, they will never be called on it in the same way.