Britain moves to protect its defence industry

[ORAC]

https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/11/12/britain-moves-to-protect-its-defense-industry-from-foreign-influence/

Britain moves to protect its defense industry from foreign influence

LONDON – Defense and space industries are among nearly twenty sectors named by the British government in the introduction of new legislation Nov. 11 aimed at tightening regulations allowing it to block potentially hostile direct foreign investment.

The government said the National Security and Investment Bill will strengthen its ability to investigate and intervene in mergers, acquisitions and other types of deals potentially posing a threat to British national security. Artificial intelligence, robotics, military or dual-use technologies, satellite and space technologies, defense and critical suppliers to the government were among 17 industry sectors included in the new legislation. The new powers allow the government to act against investors from any country, including the United States.

“Under the National Security and Investment Bill, the government will be taking a targeted, proportionate approach to ensure it can scrutinize, impose conditions on or, as a last resort, block a deal in any sector where there is an unacceptable risk to national security,” said the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial strategy in a statement.

The acquisition of sensitive assets and intellectual property, as well as the acquisition of companies is covered by the legislation.....

Reporting of deals in the sectors covered by the legislation will be mandatory and companies could face heavy fines and the transactions made void if they fail to get approval from the Business department.

Britain’s effort to shut the door on unwelcome investors like the Chinese (https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2020/09/01/china-planning-to-double-nuclear-arsenal-pentagon-says/) is part of a growing trend among Western nations.

Earlier this year the United States introduced mandatory notification requirements for transactions concerning specified types of businesses as part of a broader program of reform. The Australian government have also introduced legislation requiring foreign investors to seek approval to acquire a direct interest in sensitive national security businesses.

The powers pending before parliament are similar to those already in place with allies like France, Germany and Italy, said the government.....

[Asturias56]

" impose conditions on" - ah yes - we all remember how well that's worked in the past.... Cadbury's anyone?

[Not_a_boffin]

" impose conditions on" - ah yes - we all remember how well that's worked in the past.... Cadbury's anyone?

Not sure a bar of Dairy Milk represents "an unacceptable risk to national security" however unpleasant our better halves may get in the event of a shortage.

[Less Hair]

Is anybody hostile trying to take over someone British? Like RR maybe?

[Not_a_boffin]

I think HMG may still retain the proverbial Golden share in RR. This is more likely a response to Cobham - or the chip design house recently taken over by a US company?

[BVRAAM]

Great work by the Government - I fully support this. :ok:

[NutLoose]

The cynic in me says, 50 years to late,

[BVRAAM]

The cynic in me says, 50 years to late,


You are right, but it's better late than never.

Given the events of 2020, I'm taking this as the first of what I hope will be many steps in sticking it to the CCP, for what they have done to us. We don't want them having an easy ride to getting our good kit....

[OmegaV6]

and I always thought it was "defence" .......... :) obviously Mrs Fairclough, of the blue rinse/grey hair and unerring board rubber thrower extraordinaire, taught me something incorrectly in the 1960's .......

[Asturias56]

" for what they have done to us" - which is what exactly? Sounds a bit like "life of Brian"

We sell them cars, TV shows, "financial services", design - they sell cheap clothes, TV's and mobile phones............... the UK hasn't sold any defense gear to China since 1945 and they've had nothing worth buying

Sure they spy on us and the Americans spy on us and the Chinese and we spy on........................

[unmanned_droid]

Great work by the Government - I fully support this. :ok:

Yes, excellent work closing the stable door after the stables have been continually raided for decades. Just excellent.

[Easy Street]

Yes, it is a bit late for many ‘legacy’ industries, but not for those which will emerge in coming years as AI, directed energy, cyber, biotech, etc etc take an increasingly prominent role in our national security and a greater share of Defence expenditure. Cobham is a ‘red herring’ here. ARM, however...

I’m pleased that the government is finally taking action.

[NutLoose]

" for what they have done to us" - which is what exactly? Sounds a bit like "life of Brian"

... the UK hasn't sold any defense gear to China since 1945 and they've had nothing worth buying

well they did want our old illustrious class carriers to convert into ahem.... schools.

[QEC]

"Defense"? Is that the Queen's English?

[OmegaV6]

"Defense"? Is that the Queen's English?

post #9 ???

[tucumseh]

"

the UK hasn't sold any defense gear to China since 1945 and they've had nothing worth buying



Not entirely accurate, although the two programmes I was involved didn't give them the full UK spec.

[Asturias56]

"Defense"? Is that the Queen's English?
no -its what happens when you type into a small phone when sitting in the back of a car.....................


Fixed. It gave me the irrits, too!

Senior Pilot

[Asturias56]

"Let's support our National Industry - but they really do need to compete on a level field and not sit on entertainment allowances that push them into realms of fiscal stupidity"

It s very hard for a country of 65 million people, devoted to buying houses and low taxes, to finance a modern fast jet programme on it's own. Even the largest states can't afford all the kit they'd like - it comes down to the desire to have the absolute best , state o the art. UK industry could probably design and build a Hunter-type replacement , which without all the bells and whistles on an F-35, would be cost effective. But would any air force order them?

[NutLoose]

Like I’ve always said, buy in and you destroy your home grown industry that has no option but to contract, losing both the skills in design and the ability to build the next generation of aircraft, they then continue to flog designs that are no longer relevant.
Hawk as good as it is has been, has been passed by in both design and operating efficiency by modern types from other Countries.
It amazes me that we end up having to build joint aircraft these days which will always be a compromise on what the U.K. wants as it has to meet the other countries requirements as well, when the likes of Sweden can produce in house some cracking aircraft that meet their countries requirements.

[Easy Street]

It amazes me that we end up having to build joint aircraft these days which will always be a compromise on what the U.K. wants as it has to meet the other countries requirements as well, when the likes of Sweden can produce in house some cracking aircraft that meet their countries requirements.

We don't have to... as I've written in another recent thread, it is a choice which suits industry (by making cancellation much harder) and suits the Whitehall establishment (some of whom see international collaboration as an end in itself, and others gladly share R&D costs for short term budgetary reasons). Michael Heseltine was reported to have said in relation to Eurofighter something along the lines of 'I don't care what you build, so long as it's a collaboration'. Military capability comes a distant third place and even when it does secure an occasional 'win' as with JSF, the industry/Whitehall machine fights back over time, as seen in the ongoing debate over whether we will get our intended 138 F-35s or plough money into an internationalised Tempest instead. The phrase 'military-industrial complex' does not accurately describe the dynamic in the UK, IMHO; it overstates the military's influence.

[Less Hair]

It's good to have an eye on who else owns shares and gains strategic influence. However new and future programs tend to become more and more costly now that software and networking get so important. Going the national route means to not be able to pay for many features as they are too expensive to fund on a national base. And then you end up with just one or two formula one cars finally for budget reasons instead of a fleet needed.

[radeng]

But is it wise to buy F35s when the US refuses to allow access to the source code on the software? Plus a fair number of the integrated circuits come from Taiwan, so if the PRC got cobby with Taiwan, spares could suddenly be a problem unless the tapes for the layouts and test programmes were available. Plus there are very few semiconductor plants outside Taiwan and the PRC with capability of handling 12 inch wafers and sub 0.18 micron technology - and none in the UK, although the US still has a few.

[Less Hair]

Exactly my point. So you want to fund a new semiconductor industry in the UK now? For future fighter chip hardware? How costly is this intended to become? There will be not much money left to buy some of those airplanes and operate them to keep their crews current.

[Asturias56]

"But is it wise to buy F35s when the US refuses to allow access to the source code on the software?"

as everyone says - it's a matter of cost - if you want to have access to the software you either build it yourself or in a genuine joint build like Tornado

You then have to be willing to pay all the extra taxes .... IIRC income taxes ran up to 98% in the 50's & 60's

[tucumseh]

More fundamental is, has the policy changed whereby one cannot proceed without having access to source code? Or is just ignored? Or continually waived? Either way, it isn't necessarily lack of access that's the problem, but falure to assess the implications of not having it, and making sufficient materiel and financial provision to cope. The policy exists in the first instance to force those responsible to do the assessment. If they don't, the scrutineer has to play the red card.

[fitliker]

I wonder what code the J 20 is using ?

[skylon]

Not entirely accurate, although the two programmes I was involved didn't give them the full UK spec.
The UK handed over jet engine technology to Stalin for free. They reverse engineered and created the MİG 15 which attacked allies bombers in Korea and killed many pilots until the F86 came and kicked their butts.. Britain very reliable ally..

[fitliker]

The early Rolls Royce engines used on the first migs were shared with our allies , who had just helped liberate Europe from the Evil of the National Socialist Party . Those allies were responsible for inflicting 80 percent of the casualties against the invaders and aggressors .
How long do you think Swiss neutrality would have been respected By the aggressors if the Allies were defeated ? One week or Two ?

[pr00ne]

I think HMG may still retain the proverbial Golden share in RR. This is more likely a response to Cobham - or the chip design house recently taken over by a US company?


ARM was sold to a Japanese company years ago, and it is the current Japanese owners who have sold it to a US company. Nothing that the UK Government could have done about that.

This is a two way street, most existing UK defence and aerospace companies have a substantial presence overseas, especially in the US, all from UK companies buying up US defence and Aerospace companies, some very large indeed, as in the Allinson Engine Company.

[NutLoose]

The early Rolls Royce engines used on the first migs were shared with our allies , who had just helped liberate Europe from the Evil of the National Socialist Party . Those allies were responsible for inflicting 80 percent of the casualties against the invaders and aggressors .
How long do you think Swiss neutrality would have been respected By the aggressors if the Allies were defeated ? One week or Two ?

Even Stalin was surprised we handed them over apparently, we naively believed they wouldn't be able to reverse engineer them.. they also invited the Russians to visit Rolls Royce and see what we were doing and each Russian was given new shoes by the KGB with super sticky soles on them and told to walk through as much swarf as possible thus allowing the Russians to learn about the make up of some of the secret metallurgy technology RR were employing.

[radeng]

We did have 0.18 micron capability, but when GEC was split up, it eventually disappeared. Partly because the Taiwanese and PRC governments subsidised suitable foundries and could produce more cheaply. So we managed to lose a strategically important industry, and even the bits that were kept were eventually canned on the grounds that it was cheaper to buy from Taiwan and PRC. Sounds very like Dilbert….. Back in the 1980s, there wasn't major US military electronics program without a Plessey Semiconductors IC in it somewhere. Then management said there was no growth in military semiconductors, wanting to sell 50,000 pieces at a profit of 1 cent each instead of 1000 pieces at $5 profit each, and failing in both areas....That plant in Swindon is now a heavily chemically contaminated area of weeds - and successive governments let it happen.

Tecumseh in #25 makes the point well about source code....

[WE Branch Fanatic]

All defence contractors depend on smaller companies to supply them with things such as structural conponents, machined parts, hydraulic systems, electrical components, PCBs, electronic assemblies, waveguides...

I am thinking of the suppliers of the British parts in the Swedish Grippen and the Korean jet that prevented Argentina from acquiring those aircraft.

Will Government protect them? Aside from defence, I am thinking about things like:

Medical Equipment
Civil Aerospace
Civil Marine
Power Generation and Distribution
Industrial Machinery
Construction Equipment
Telecommunications and other Communications

[pr00ne]

WEBF,

Of course it won't! It is a capitalist free trade party and most of the suppliers in most supply chains are multi-national and based all over the planet. We live in a global age and even the French are finding that to protect all of your industry is, in the end, self defeating.

Brexit is a far larger threat to all of the sectors you mention, and some of them have no real UK owned players left, Civil Aerospace and Telecommunications to name just two.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

I was talking about building supply chain resilience and protecting intellectual property.

[Asturias56]

You can do it but it comes at a cost - you miss out on all the latest and more efficient kit and ideas for a start - anyone for British Leyland?

[falcon900]

Difficult to argue with much of what has already been written, but I keep coming back to it being better late than never. Just how effective it will be remains to be seen, and overlooks the more insidious ways of influencing company direction and policy. Many "Brirish" public companies are owned by shareholders whose ultimate nationality is unknown, but likely not British. Who is behind the various private equity houses and hedge funds who control and influence so much of what companies can do? If I was an unfriendly state determined to infiltrate or influence a British company, I doubt I would plan on rolling up with a takeover bid from one of my countries companies. Far too public and expensive.

[Cat Techie]

End of the day. The rot happened 60 years ago. Not when Maggie the job snatcher came in but the 50s and 60s. We had technology but our leaders were as thick and ignorant then as they are now. Investment is a dirty word as it costs. Whatever colour you wear. The interesting question is how many people on this thread have driven commerical projects to make a profit and fit the task in time and in budget? Someone sold this country away. Both colours but one colour does it more obviously than the other. I do have the question for this thread. Whom on here actually makes thinks of value for the UK to add in the coffers? Whom takes a wage bill? I work now in a service sector that did used to do the former. Furlough is the latter i will have to pay off. I have had pay cuts to help my employer survive. I bet no one on the public purse would ever consider working for 80% pay.

[Asturias56]

Some truth in that Cat - but it wasn't just "the leaders". Since about 1890 anytime someone in the UK starts to make a fortune they immediately start thinking of how to sell out, buy a country estate and (maybe) a title. Occasionally you get a Jim Radcliffe ort a Dyson but they're rare - and you can bet that their kids will want to live on the proceeds rather than continue expanding.

The British don't like "pushy", "greedy" or "driven" people - and as for getting your hands dirty or industry.... Look at N Sea oil - how many people who made it all happen were even given a knighthood? Compared to the Wizards of Finance???

[Cat Techie]

Some truth in that Cat - but it wasn't just "the leaders". Since about 1890 anytime someone in the UK starts to make a fortune they immediately start thinking of how to sell out, buy a country estate and (maybe) a title. Occasionally you get a Jim Radcliffe ort a Dyson but they're rare - and you can bet that their kids will want to live on the proceeds rather than continue expanding.

The British don't like "pushy", "greedy" or "driven" people - and as for getting your hands dirty or industry.... Look at N Sea oil - how many people who made it all happen were even given a knighthood? Compared to the Wizards of Finance???
No idea why you mentioned Dyson? He took the manufacturing away to the far east. My Grandfather was an example of the 50s. Company of his making tooling for the recovery of the UK. Old machines and little investment. Father forced hands into using the tools to press manufacture the items wishing to be made. NCN machinery coming in, Grandfather was more bothered about the golf course. No investment in new machines or practices. Good staff sodded off. Death was the deconstruction of engineering industries in the early 80s. I saw it. Reason the RAF was a bright star. The businesses my grandfather supported sodded off from the UK. They never came back. North Sea Oil? Answer is what the Norwiegens did compared to the UK. They didn't sell out their assets for a pitance. BTW I do not argue with your general points. Radcliffe stands alone in his support of the flag. Needs to pay for Bloodhound now mind.

[Asturias56]

" He took the manufacturing away to the far east. " - that's the point "making" vacume cleaners isn't exactly hi-tech. You want the design and marketing and financing in the UK but sticking little bits of plastic together (or watching a robot do it) isn't protecting industry - its investing in a dead end

Regretfully the story of your grandfather is replicated in a branch of our family but a generation earlier in the '30s - too busy gentrifying themselves and took their eye off the ball big time

[microlighttp]

Cat Techie. I very rarely post anything on here. However you mention Jim Radcliffe as being different from Dyson in some way. He isn’t. He is worse! Do a little research in to his Ineos Grenadier for instance.Supposedly to be built in South Wales, now to be built in France, due to French Gov. incentives.Radcliffe is a staunch Brexiteer yet he does not support the UK.
Look in to his dealings and you will see, he is in no way a patriot!

Rant over.
​​​​​​.

[Cat Techie]

Cat Techie. I very rarely post anything on here. However you mention Jim Radcliffe as being different from Dyson in some way. He isn’t. He is worse! Do a little research in to his Ineos Grenadier for instance.Supposedly to be built in South Wales, now to be built in France, due to French Gov. incentives.Radcliffe is a staunch Brexiteer yet he does not support the UK.
Look in to his dealings and you will see, he is in no way a patriot!

Rant over.
​​​​​​.
Thanks for correcting me.

[salad-dodger]

No idea why you mentioned Dyson? He took the manufacturing away to the far east. My Grandfather was an example of the 50s. Company of his making tooling for the recovery of the UK. Old machines and little investment. Father forced hands into using the tools to press manufacture the items wishing to be made. NCN machinery coming in, Grandfather was more bothered about the golf course. No investment in new machines or practices. Good staff sodded off. Death was the deconstruction of engineering industries in the early 80s. I saw it. Reason the RAF was a bright star. The businesses my grandfather supported sodded off from the UK. They never came back. North Sea Oil? Answer is what the Norwiegens did compared to the UK. They didn't sell out their assets for a pitance. BTW I do not argue with your general points. Radcliffe stands alone in his support of the flag. Needs to pay for Bloodhound now mind.
Wondering what all that guff was about, then wondered if you posted it the same night as your crazed Tornado rantings, but no.

[salad-dodger]

But is it wise to buy F35s when the US refuses to allow access to the source code on the software? Plus a fair number of the integrated circuits come from Taiwan, so if the PRC got cobby with Taiwan, spares could suddenly be a problem unless the tapes for the layouts and test programmes were available. Plus there are very few semiconductor plants outside Taiwan and the PRC with capability of handling 12 inch wafers and sub 0.18 micron technology - and none in the UK, although the US still has a few.
There’s always someone who bangs on about access to source code in these sort of discussions. Oooh, we’ve secured access to the source code. Great, now what?

Do you have any idea what else is required to maintain this sort of complex software and everything else that is needed beyond the source code to be able to do it?

It is what is often referred to as ‘non-trivial’. The effing understatement to understate all understatements!

[t43562]

There’s always someone who bangs on about access to source code in these sort of discussions. Oooh, we’ve secured access to the source code. Great, now what?

Do you have any idea what else is required to maintain this sort of complex software and everything else that is needed beyond the source code to be able to do it?

It is what is often referred to as ‘non-trivial’. The effing understatement to understate all understatements!
Taking on the software is no joke but Huawei bought the source code of my former company some years ago and ..... surprise...... it looks like it was a smart move for them. Maintaining it is similar to any other effort - you have to train people and they have to practice doing it. It's not free of course but it can be done. At the very least you can work out what's going on when you have some problem by reading the code and should you need to reverse engineer it you start from a position where its potentially better than designing a new aircraft.

Most importantly though, if you feel that is all paranoia, you get to fix the bugs that matter to you - that your allies look like they aren't getting around to yet.

[tucumseh]

As said in a previous post, there's policy, and there's reality. The Huawais of the world can amortise the cost of a 'software support facility' for want of a better term over millions of sales. It's a small sum under 'miscellaneous' in the investment appraisal. If you have a fleet of a dozen aircraft, not enough crews, maintainers, and all the other resources you need, a honking great % of your budget on an SSF, where you can't guarantee retention, or expertise in the first place, is madness. The rules are that you must continue to have the Design Authority under contract anyway, so you're paying double. There are exceptions of course, but as S-D says the subject needs careful thought and assessment.

The last time I managed a programme where the Service wanted a SSF, the decision was easy as they hadn't bothered costing it or including it in the endorsed requirement. On another occasion I inherited one where 3rd Line had set up a SSF. The first time a Fault Investigation was sought, the company fell about laughing. You've been faffing around with the design, the fault is in a build standard we dont recognise, and aren't contracted to support.

[salad-dodger]

Taking on the software is no joke but Huawei bought the source code of my former company some years ago and ..... surprise...... it looks like it was a smart move for them. Maintaining it is similar to any other effort - you have to train people and they have to practice doing it. It's not free of course but it can be done. At the very least you can work out what's going on when you have some problem by reading the code and should you need to reverse engineer it you start from a position where its potentially better than designing a new aircraft.

Most importantly though, if you feel that is all paranoia, you get to fix the bugs that matter to you - that your allies look like they aren't getting around to yet.
Interesting that you think your Huawei example is even remotely comparable to a combat aircraft like the F35. What did they buy the rights too, a Switch, Router or some such piece of comm’s kit that probably gets sold by the thousands or even tens of thousands. Kind of makes it more worthwhile to produce everything else needed to make something viable. And this is a Chinese company we are talking about with a long history of reverse engineering (stealing) the IPR of other companies, organisations, nations.

Now think about maintaining F35 software. And by maintaining I mean fixing, adapting, modifying etc. So, the source code, requirements and design documentation are needed. Then we need to understand it all. Then we need the development and test environment, including all the test harnesses and systems to simulate or emulate all of the interfaces, in genuine real time. Then we will need some sort of test rig to test the software in as close to its intended environment as possible. Finally, it will be tested on the real thing, the F35.

Then we will need to ensure that all of our documentation is kept up to date. We will need to do all of this every time we make a change. We will need to do it for everything our software interfaces with, eg weapons, kit we have no knowledge of – eg genuine black boxes – we may get the interface spec. Also everything external to the aircraft that we interface with to remain interoperable.

We have a long history of being able to do this. We did it to an extent for F3, GR1/4, Jag, MR2, R1, GR/3/5/7/9. We also have a long history of ******* it up.

Oh yes, and would we really do this for our fleet of 48 or so aircraft, whatever we end up with, and render our fleet non-interoperable and divergent from everyone else’s development?

[rattman]

There’s always someone who bangs on about access to source code in these sort of discussions. Oooh, we’ve secured access to the source code. Great, now what?

Do you have any idea what else is required to maintain this sort of complex software and everything else that is needed beyond the source code to be able to do it?

It is what is often referred to as ‘non-trivial’. The effing understatement to understate all understatements!

Israel asked/demanded access and they have it, due to their known skills and security they were granted access to source code and permission for weapon and systems integration on the aircraft

[salad-dodger]

Israel asked/demanded access and they have it, due to their known skills and security they were granted access to source code and permission for weapon and systems integration on the aircraft
How about expanding on just what access Israel has been given and the integration they will be able to do. Perhaps with a link or two to support that.

[Bonkey]

Shares of Eaton Corp. ETN, +2.21% (https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/ETN?mod=MW_story_quote) edged up 0.3% in premarket trading Monday, after the power management company announced an agreement to buy air-to-air refueling systems company Cobham Mission Systems in a deal valued at $2.83 billion. The deal is expected to close in the second half of 2021. Eaton said the deal's value includes a tax benefit of $130 million. "Cobham Mission Systems' highly complementary products and strong position on growing defense platforms will enhance our fuel systems business and position our Aerospace business for future growth," said Heath Monesmith, president of industrial sector at Eaton. The stock rose 13.4% over the past three months through Friday, while the S&P 500 SPX, +1.43% (https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/index/SPX?mod=MW_story_quote) advanced 13.6%.

What happened to the cast iron guarantee that Advent gave to the UK Trade and Industry Minister just under a year ago that it was not buying the Cobham Group to break up and sell off?? Cobham Aviation has already gone, now the jewel in the crown of Cobham's core division. I think quite a few others have been sold too.

Or was it our UK government cosying up to Trump back then to try and secure a post-Brexit trade deal that allowed the original sale to Advent to be waived through despite many legitimate concerns?

[BirdmanBerry]

Another has gone Bonkey but I don't believe they were all profitable.

[mopardave]

Shares of Eaton Corp. ETN, +2.21% (https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/ETN?mod=MW_story_quote) edged up 0.3% in premarket trading Monday, after the power management company announced an agreement to buy air-to-air refueling systems company Cobham Mission Systems in a deal valued at $2.83 billion. The deal is expected to close in the second half of 2021. Eaton said the deal's value includes a tax benefit of $130 million. "Cobham Mission Systems' highly complementary products and strong position on growing defense platforms will enhance our fuel systems business and position our Aerospace business for future growth," said Heath Monesmith, president of industrial sector at Eaton. The stock rose 13.4% over the past three months through Friday, while the S&P 500 SPX, +1.43% (https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/index/SPX?mod=MW_story_quote) advanced 13.6%.

What happened to the cast iron guarantee that Advent gave to the UK Trade and Industry Minister just under a year ago that it was not buying the Cobham Group to break up and sell off?? Cobham Aviation has already gone, now the jewel in the crown of Cobham's core division. I think quite a few others have been sold too.

Or was it our UK government cosying up to Trump back then to try and secure a post-Brexit trade deal that allowed the original sale to Advent to be waived through despite many legitimate concerns?
I for one, was bitterly disappointed when my Cobham shares were sold from under me..........even though I made a profit. It felt like Cadbury's all over again.......empty promises by corporate raiders that ultimately aren't worth the paper they're written on. Give it a few years and the same thing will happen at Rolls Royce. We seem to fall for it every time.

[ORAC]

With systems being built by US, Russian, Chinese, Israeli and other companies, what are the unique classified aspects which mean the government should step in? Are they afraid they won’t sell them to the RAF, sorry AirTanker, any more?

What would be the justification for intervention?

[Saintsman]

I can't say that I am really surprised at this. After all, Advent are 'Private Equity Investors'. They are there to break up companies and extract as much value from them as they can. They don't give a damn about the companies they buy as long as they turn a profit.

[pr00ne]

I say again, a division of Cobham has been sold by one US company to another US company. What is the issue here?

[Easy Street]

Air refuelling equipment is hardly an area where a domestic industrial capacity is needed to protect a national technological ‘edge’, as might be considered the case for radars or weapons or stealth technologies. It is just about the most straightforwardly functional, internationally-standardised bit of kit I can think of. As such I have no idea why anyone is remotely concerned about Cobham’s sale.

[Asturias56]

having a National Capability in one part of the Weapon System isn't worth a lot TBH e.g RR engines - fine - but if you can't afford the airframe what do really gain in "control"?

Probably SSN's are the only system the UK has that is more or less all built at home

[Easy Street]

having a National Capability in one part of the Weapon System isn't worth a lot TBH e.g RR engines - fine - but if you can't afford the airframe what do really gain in "control"?

Probably SSN's are the only system the UK has that is more or less all built at home

I shan’t get dragged into what is a highly sensitive subject, but suffice to say that there are a multitude of areas in which national technical capabilities are exploited to significant benefit without entire platforms having to be “sovereign”. The underlying policy, National Security Through Technology, is available to read here (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/27390/cm8278.pdf) although I suspect it will be updated or subsumed into the impending Defence and Security Industrial Strategy.

[Asturias56]

I expect so Easy - but the fact remains that everyone in UK industry will be banging the patriotic drum and have their hands out - it has to be doable, meaningful and affordable..............

[Non Linear Gear]

Anyone on here tecnincally qualifed to design and build a 5th generation weapons platform? A simple and answerable question. An intergated system than does not fall flat? All aspects?

[pr00ne]

When Cobham was a sovereign UK company it purchased its main rival in the AAR game, Sargent Fletcher, and ran that company, along with a whole host of other US companies that it had bought/taken over, as an integral part of the US arm of Cobham for many years. Don't recall any wailing and gnashing of teeth about that, from either side of the pond.

[ORAC]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nvidias-40bn-arm-takeover-in-doubt-amid-national-security-fears-7xwnwdzww

Nvidia’s $40bn Arm takeover in doubt amid national security fears

The $40 billion takeover of Britain’s most valuable technology business was thrown into doubt last night amid speculation that the government is thinking of blocking the deal on national security grounds.

Last September it was announced that Arm, the Cambridge-based microchip designer (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/chipmaker-arm-stuck-in-the-mud-says-nvidia-in-fight-for-takeover-lksc0qdzf), was being sold to Nvidia (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/it-would-be-a-tragedy-if-arm-did-not-move-into-the-new-era-says-nvidia-boss-jensen-huang-7fp2qgxvv) as part of the American chipmaker’s push to capitalise on the booming market for semiconductors.

The sale (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nvidias-swoop-on-40bn-arm-wins-over-chip-titans-bl0xdlvmm) would net a healthy return for Arm’s current owner. SoftBank, the Japanese conglomerate, took the company private in 2016 for $34 billion.

However, the Competition and Markets Authority, at the request of Oliver Dowden, the culture secretary, has been scrutinising the proposed takeover (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/uk-national-security-concerns-prompt-inquiry-into-nvidias-40bn-arm-takeover-h9d0csrgl) since April. The regulator was asked to identify any competition issues and to pull together a summary of national security concerns raised by third parties.

That report was delivered within the past two weeks and contains “worrying implications for national security”, Bloomberg said, citing someone familiar with the government discussions.

Another source claimed that the UK was likely to carry out a more in-depth review of the merger because of national security worries, although it was not immediately clear what those concerns might be.

A spokesman for Nvidia said: “We continue to work through the regulatory process with the UK government. We look forward to their questions and expect to resolve any issues they may have.” The Department for Digital, Culture, Media amd Sport could not be reached for comment.….

[t43562]

https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/11/12/britain-moves-to-protect-its-defense-industry-from-foreign-influence/
Britain’s effort to shut the door on unwelcome investors like the Chinese (https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2020/09/01/china-planning-to-double-nuclear-arsenal-pentagon-says/) is part of a growing trend among Western nations.


It would be interesting to see if they do anything about Imagination Technologies and the AI capable chips they develop. From what I have read they seem to be owned indirectly by the Chinese government.

[ORAC]

Just as an aside - and a warning…..

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/military-drones-company-illegally-bought-by-china-say-italian-police-mqkml2gnf

Military drones company illegally bought by China, say Italian police

An Italy-based defence manufacturer that supplies the Italian special forces with high-tech drones has been raided by police amid suspicions that it was illegally purchased by China.

Alpi Aviation, based in Pordenone in northern Italy, is being investigated after a Hong Kong company allegedly paid a inflated price for the company in 2018 — triggering Italian investigators’ suspicions.

While investigating the Hong Kong company, they discovered it was a based on a web of corporate holdings that were traced back to “two important government-owned companies in the People’s Republic of China”, a statement from Italy’s tax police said.

A complex cross-ownership diagram issued by police showed 15 Chinese companies allegedly involved in shielding the true ownership of the company.

Police said the Italian company had been bought not as an investment but “exclusively for the acquisition of its technological and production know-how, including military”, with plans reportedly under way to shift production facilities to the eastern Chinese city of Wuxi.

The sale to overseas buyers of strategic Italian companies without first obtaining the permission of the Italian government is outlawed by the country’s “golden power” law.

“The law covers firms which sell to Italy’s defence ministry and Alpi Aviation is on the MoD’s list as a supplier and covered by the law,” said Colonel Stefano Commentucci of Italy’s tax police.

The company also allegedly broke Italian law by failing to inform the government when it temporarily exported a drone for display at a 2019 Shanghai trade fair.

“When it was exported it was declared as a model aircraft, which was clearly not the case,” said Colonel Commentucci.

Alpi Aviation produces the Strix drone, which has been used by Italy’s air force in Afghanistan. Weighing 10kg, with a three-metre wingspan and taking just eight minutes to set up, the drone can be launched by catapult and has a parachute for landing.

Suitable for roving special forces missions and also used by the Italian navy, the drone can relay video and infrared imagery in real time. A police source estimated that a set of two drones cost around €100,000.

The company also undertakes joint research into military drones with Leonardo, the Italian state-controlled defence company.

Three Italian and three Chinese managers at the company are now under investigation over the alleged Chinese purchase.

Lawyers representing Alpi Aviation denied the allegations made by police, stating the sale was “transparent”, did not violate Italian legislation and reflected the “real value of the company”.

[Asturias56]

"A complex cross-ownership diagram issued by police showed 15 Chinese companies allegedly involved in shielding the true ownership of the company."

Another brilliant Western idea stolen by the Chinese!!!!