Mendem:
If I may address each point in turn:
"1. We are the only Western Country who's government insists on competing away national capabilities."
Not sure I strictly agree, but I can see the broad thrust of what you're saying. When exactly has this happened? Tornado and Typhoon were collaborative projects; With the exception of the abomination that was AEW3, when have BAe ever bid for military aircraft manufacturing work against a foreign competitor and lost?
Or are you saying this in a wider industrial context, not just aircraft manufacturing?
2. We have an incompetent Civil Service who are trying to protect their backsides from redundancy caused by outsouring their roles to a far more efficient Industrial base.
Partly true, I can accept that to a degree, but in fairness, you look at the amount of such work that the company has bid for and won. Its not been the civil service who have lost out big time there, it has been the military themselves, being sold out by their higher-ups. And, FWIW, "more efficient" is not always better. Its not always just about "cheaper" or total cost of ownership.
"Hence every piece of 'government' news about our industry has an anti-industry bias (too-expensive, incompetent, late, the only way of 'saving' the armed forces is more civil servants blah blah blah)."
I cant speak for the last line. I personally dont recall that being said, but if anyone did, they are, IMHO absolutely wrong. It wouldnt surprise me if someone said it, but would disappoint me a hell of a lot more if someone in a position of authority actually fell for it.
"BAES, as the biggest, takes most flak - but RR are not far behind."
This is where I'm afraid, my sympathy is thinning out. Surely it has not been beyond the wit and imagination of the company to address the ballooning budgets, the constant slippage of delivery dates. Yes, I appreciate the goalposts nearly always move, but maybe the company could have taken some steps to push the blame back onto where it belongs - HMG - if this is truly the case. I know, asking for open honesty from a corporate is practically as naive as asking for it from a politician - but what are the rest of us meant to believe? Regardless of why, all we see is "late", "over-budget", "doesnt do what it is supposed to do".
3. We have an airforce whose most vocal members shout out that if it's not American it must be rubbish.
I cannot excuse that. Ironic that those who were probably the most vocal probably rose to prominence within the flying rank flying British kit...
4. We have a public who don't really want anything to do with defence - it's a bit like not wanting to know where meat comes from - and certainly don't see the need to preserve national capability (particularly when the civil service, government and operators all appear to proclaim industry's incompetence, poor cost effectiveness, shoddy products etc).
Yep, I dont dispute that. They see defence as being there primarily to provide jobs, not to produce what the nation needs for its defence, first and foremost.
5. As an industry we have been suffering a gradual decline for years, such that we are now only really competent as system suppliers (rather than a complete weapon system).
But this is one of the things I'm getting at. Why is this the case? Where did it all start to go so badly pear shaped considering the company when it was floated was effectively handed a nationalised monopoly? What happened to this competence? Did it just walk out the door never to be replaced?
"We do not have enough throughput, nor any indictaion of any future orders, to warrant 'investing for the future' by maintaining empty sites."
See above. Dont you ever wonder why?
Whilst I don't always agree with the level of emotion put across by MancC, nor necessarily his targets, in this case he is spot on. This is the end of an era - the UK no longer has the capability to design and develop large military systems aircraft. This is entirely down to lack of demand/political will to continue to pay for that privilege, which is an argument for the politicians and if this is the direction the country wants to take then we who work in the industry will just have to accept it.
Paying for the privilege though, should not, by the same token mean an open cheque book and permanent rights to consistently deliver late, derivative products that do not do what they said on the tin. I accept the aspects about political will, I accept the lack of demand, I find it hard to accept that if the company truly believes that it is making a best of breed product, that it can not compete successfully against other manufacturers, not necessarily just in the US, but also the Russians, Dassault, Embraer, et al. Or is it good enough for us, but not good enough for any of them?
Against such a backdrop, why oh why do you think any Company should be expected to maintain capability and capacity out of the goodness of their shareholders hearts?
I dont necessarily expect the company do maintain the capability. I'm just disturbed by how fast they seem to want to run away from having had any such capability. Almost as if it was something they never wanted in the first place and couldnt get shot of quick enough.
And, like I said to F3RB, I'm not basing any of what I feel on having worked for Bae, because I havent. I have no particular axe to grind against anyone. Lord knows there are enough other contributors who have seen a lot more than me from both sides of the fence and who'se contributions can be a lot more authoritative. Mine is just bad, suspicious gut feeling, thats all.