Originally Posted by
Phil_R
I was thinking of the things I mentioned above. The carriers, MRA4, Type 45, Astute class submarines, all beset by gigantic problems, years late, so overbudget that I barely know how how to describe it without resorting to Edvard Munch.
Indeed, but the causes of these do not lie uniquely, largely or (in one of these cases) even "at all" with BAES. The carriers (fregsample) were the subject of continuous and major requirements change up to and beyond the point where keels were laid and metal was cut. The repeated switches between STOVL, Cat/Trap and STOBAR opt6ions are things whose implications are not minor, and these were not BAES decisions.
...but the destroyers are the topical example. They don't even work as oceangoing vehicles, let alone as warfighting machines.
AIUI the specifications and the final choices of the propulsion systems for these ships were owned by the MOD, and those choices were made (again AIUI) against the technical advice of BAES.
My understanding is that they are or soon will be effectively unarmed against any target other than (radar-observable) aircraft or stationary targets on land.
The choice of, and funding of, air defence weapons on these ships is an MOD decision - BAES has no control over them.
As far as I know once Harpoon goes out of service, the UK will have no ability to attack enemy shipping other than bombing it, which rather assumes a lack of anti-aircraft capability on the part of the enemy, or or torpedoing it.
Failure to address this obsolescence issue is an MOD (not BAES) responsibility.
And there are only seven attack submarines in the navy.
Indeed, and whose decisions led to that? Orders were not placed in a timescale that permitted it to be otherwise.
I honestly don't want to come off as an unqualified whiner, but when this is the case, and the government attitude is constantly "no problem, BAE, have another couple of hundred million," questions have to be asked.
I honestly cannot remember any time when that attitude was displayed. BAES accepted its share of the responsibility for the MRA4 and Astute over-runs, and took an £800m hit for it. The MOD also accepted their share responsibility for both of these and they also took an £800m hit.
Have Boeing yet paid up for the Chinnook FADEC issue? Have the Chinnook IPT staff paid for their incompetence in taking in the DA and TA roles and then procuring a helicopter which could not be certified for use in the UK? Have LM paid any compensation for slips in the F35 programme?
I'm not sure there is much actual evidence to support your position!
PDR