F3RB:
That particular comment was in hindsight a tad emotive, I accept that. However, it feels to me (regardless of whether it is factually accurate or not, I readily accept that as I've never worked for BAe, any uneducated commetn by me is unlikely to be) as if, as another poster has said, there is an intention to divest the company of these assets and the capability to produce these assets once a particular order finishes and to become, so far as the British are concerned, a systems/components producer as against what they started with when they were floated. Was this BAe's intention all along?
I think if I were a Saab employee, I would be sweating over the future of my company once the Gripen's future is clearer and if no more of those can be sold. Is the same going to happen to them? Will BAe look to offload them once the prize assets have been stripped from that company too?
Again, I realise its not speaking from a position of great knowledge, but I cast an eye across the channel to Dassault: Not exactly the same, I know, doesnt have a throbbing export order book for Rafale, just like we dont for Typhoon, but I'm not aware of them closing down thier factories as soon as the orders are completed.
Someone earlier on mentioned sovereign capability. I suppose, yes, it does revolve around that. Yes, I accept that this is, regrettably in the current climate to be lost. And I accept that any private company shouldnt necessarily, unilaterally, be compelled to retain such a capability for sentimental reasons. it means that for any future requirements post-Typhoon that the orders are automatically going to go overseas, more than likely the US and that as another poster says, the Airships will get what they hankered after; off the shelf US made kit.
But, s**t, were we not good at this stuff once? To me, it feels like it is being p*ssed away and wasted. And, try as I might to be able to see it from the other end of the telescope, honestly I do, the company (again, I stress, what I see as being its strategic direction, not the actions of the workforce) must look to itself and see that in certain recent ventures that whilst it may have delivered shareholder value - which is all it is obliged to do - that it has not exactly covered itself in glory. Only so much of the blame can go in the direction of the MOD and the RAF. The way the MRA4 project was conducted from beginning to end, as with the AEW3, frankly, was an abomination. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I do not recall anything about the small print saying that the winner of the bid for MR2 replacement had to be "son of Nimrod" - in much the same way as some of us rightly chide the US for re-running their KC135 replacement programme until Boeing won it.
Like I say, I dont claim to be authoritative on any of this stuff, nor am I or have I ever been in any kind of position to influence or do anything about it.
I just get a suspicious, bad, regretful, gut feeling about it, thats all.
