I have trouble with the notion of maintaining a "sovereign defence industry". If BAES cannot reliably and quickly deliver hi-tech projects in peacetime, why should we rely on them to do it when the sh*t hits the fan? We are told time and again that BAES' first duty is to its shareholders - presumably that would not change in an all-out war?
Would we suddenly nationalise them and find that they majestically transform into a superb, selfless powerhouse of defence design and production? There is no incentive for BAES shareholders to allow preparation for such a contingency by training 'spare' designers and technicians...
If our defence budget continues to dwindle then I can't see the point in pretending we can keep building leading-edge aircraft in sufficient quantity to matter. Ten F-35 might be able to deter an air force of 100 old Migs - but change the maths to one F-35 versus 10 old Migs and suddenly you probably wish that we had a few dumbed-down platforms instead. Equally, a second-hand P3 beats a non-existent MRA4.
My belief is that the "sovereign defence industry" is all about jobs and nothing to do with capability. If we keep trying to build bleeding-edge platforms in quantities compatible with the UK defence budget, we will end up with tiny numbers of platforms (if we're not already there....) Decision time is surely approaching - bin the sovereign 'capability' and jobs, buy off-the-shelf US kit as most of NATO does, and retain the US/UK intelligence and technology-sharing agreements; OR commit forever to European industrial collaboration (saving most of the British jobs in the process) and accept that we might not remain at the bleeding edge with the Americans. Time to get off the fence.
(Edit - if we do perceive that the threat posed by rival nations warrants bleeding-edge platforms in useful quantities, there is a third option - increase the defence budget. I didn't include that in my original post as I thought it was too "blue-sky" to be credible!)
Last edited by Easy Street; 19th Mar 2011 at 21:01.