To me the radar problems sound like pretty typical software programmes - pretending that experimental designs are the finished product and not being willing to accept the true cost of developing something to the point where it is practically useful.

My limited experience is that time and competition solve problems. Competition solves the problems of lack of imagination and of excuses. Time lets people learn and work through the problems.

I have often thought to myself that having 2 teams to develop any software might be more efficient in the end - continual pressure for each team to live up to the standard and thereby be finally selected.

Quick buck for the shareholders.

Same thing was the death knell for the BAe146/ ATP ?... The sales department was transferred to France I believe where the ATR was also being flogged, unfortunately if what I read was correct, the sales staff were being paid a commission on the ATR, and not on the BAe aircraft, common sense dictates if you are paid more to sell one product, you sell that product.

There is no a choice, its EU law. The UK can only choose a UK company is there is no tendering process, if it goes to tender it will be to the lowest bidder.
That won't be in the UK.

MARS went to Korea becuase there was nowhere in the UK with the capacity to build it as they were all busy, so they didn't bid.

The main reason to 'Buy British' is financial. Its basically free if the the work is done in the UK as its returned at VAT, income tax and all other taxes down the spending tree.

Not the full story though Peter. I speak as someone close to the Nimrod MRA4. I'm not sure how the politics really works at the highest level but I suspect that foreign competition bids are revealed to British companies before the decision is made, giving the British company the opportunity to undercut the competition.

That way, our politicians can stand up and gloat that the contract has gone to 'BAE Systems' because they are not only the best but also the cheapest etc... We then stand back and watch the game begin.

In the case of the MRA4, the original cost of £2bn for 21 aircraft on the front-line in 6 years was seen by many as absolute bullsh1t. Knowing former Nimrod guys working for foreign competition, they all knew it was totally unachievable and to be honest, my granny could have scrutinised the bid and laughed at the offer.

Then reality kicked in. Within 2 years, it was demonstratably obvious that it was never going to happen. In the end, it became £4bn for 9 aircraft after 15 years and the rest is history. Or is it? the 2 carriers have exactly the same scenario - now coming in at twice the price and twice the time from the original 2007 plan.

So the bottom line here is that it's the game the UK plays. I just wonder why politicians seem outraged at delays and cost overruns when it's no surprise at all. If 4 companies bid for a major project and 3 of them (from overseas) all come in with similar figures and timescales, does no-one look closely at the BAES bid which is half of the above and say Mmmm?

Anyway, it's Friday. No point in getting wound up!

Not sure how common this is but I know of examples. What I said above. Define "British".


Same again. A procurer could possibly comment but the need for an absolutely perfect, watertight requirement crosses my mind. Surely this should be something like "lowest bidder who is compliant with a valid requirement."

Ah! Therein lies the rub. If a desirable option is for a cloak of invisibility and only one company out of many can offer that requirement but you know that your preferred choice would be more expensive than all the other companies that can't offer that cloak of invisibility, then you simply write that in to the SOR as an essential criteria - simple.

And don't think that doesn't happen.

Now in one contract only 3 years ago that company thought it had the game sewn up. It relaxed its offer in some other areas and lost out to a competitor on grounds of risk. Even though it was a lower tender the contract went to the next bidder.

When Hoon was Minister he stated that as BAES' Shareholders' Register showed >50% registered outside UK, it would not be considered to be British by patrimony, and would have no preferential claim to business. Best value open bids, best man wins.

When Wedgie Benn was Minister of Technology from 1965, he was responsible for automatic data processing, where UK had consolidated into ICL. Honeywell had won the mainframe for UK's first digital flight simulator (Redifon Air Trainers Ltd. RN Buccaneer) and ICL screamed. He carried in Cabinet a 25% Buy British premium for mainframes bought on public sector account. So if the offshore kit was £100, ICL would win at £124.99 and Treasury would uplift Project approved funds by that increment. ICL lapsed into fat, dumb privilege, was Nationalised, but soon expired.

The point about money staying within UK when home-sourced, so free, is rejected by Treasury whenever it is presented as the case for discarding a lower-priced import. Anywhere, not just in Aero. They require each line item of spend to be at best value. Greater minds than ours (e.g: theirs) attend to the Exchanges. If Treasury were to accept, say Plod's motors will be home-grown, then every public Buyer would be required to Protect the local firm, who would become...fat and dumb. We believe in Free Trade. Unlike, say US, we also (try to) do it. Do you remember a We're Backing Britain campaign in the 1960s, targetting private cars. A consequence was Austin Allegro, Morris Marina and the death of the UK mass-market car.

... Old news now but they are still being built in South Korea. This is good value for the MoD but arguably not that good for UK PLC. Unless we have some reciprocal trade agreement with the South Koreans, all the money leaves the Country.

My employer, a FTSE 100 Engineering company in the Defence field is curently working on a major multi million pound contract for the South Korean MoD. The technology, research and development work in this contract is a damned sight more relevant than welding a few bits of steel plate together and then painting it grey.

I had some knowledge of the AEW3 when I was at BD. To be fair to BAE, they were handed a poison chalice with that political animal. It was too small for the job and was forced to fly with the well known bulges. To be fair to the company it flew reasonably well but the main problem was the radar which its manufacturer knew full well from the start would be unable to cut the mustard. But "Hay Ho" it was a cost plus job wasn't it? Unfortunately it was a joint contract; had BAE had the lead on a sole contract they might have been able to kick some @rse and either had it cancelled earlier or produced a semi workable solution.

tornadoken, good point well put. You convinced me.

In many other cases I see things done differently and better overseas but rejected in UK as 'not the way we do things.' I also see other things that we see 'originating' in UK turn out to be identical to practises elsewhere but never admitted - personal award of air miles in UK is dealt with in an identical manner, with a better twist, in the US.

Flap Track 6, you seem to remake the Hesaltine and Clarke verdict on the value of metal bashing quite succinctly. You didn't mention, though, if the work your Firm is doing for the Koreans offsets or exceedes the value of the the work they are doing for us on the MARS ships.

Isn't it odd that nobody seems to care much about the Balance of Payment figures anymore. Perhaps that explains why the UK is up to its a**e in debt.

Golf Bravo Zulu, it appears that the spend in Korea on the MARS program is circa 300 million.
I don't think the value of the contract awarded to Babcock to design and build the Weapon Handling and Launch System for the Korean Jangbogo-III class submarines has been publicly stated, but it is a big portion of the spend in Korea.

Now now, let's be careful with the generalisations here. It's much the same in the private sector. Sure, if a project fails you'll see people being "held responsible" and let go - but invariably it's never the people at or near the top (who made the mistake in the first place) to whom that happens.

While it makes for an entertaining story, the above isn't true. For one thing, in the '60s and well into the '70s, even foreign-owned marques like Ford and Vauxhall were still designing and building models specifically for the UK market - it wasn't until the late '70s that they started shipping their German designs over.

What happened to BMC (later British Leyland) was that the consortium was pulled together without rationalising the number of managers. Consequently, every management head felt he had to stick his oar in lest he and his staff be considered surplus to requirements.

To illustrate the point, I give you Harris Mann's original 1968 concept drawing for the Austin Allegro:

http://www.aronline.co.uk/images/ado67dev_06.jpg

Rather different from the end product, is it not?

Lest you think BAE Systems an aberration, it's worth remembering that US "defense" contractors are p***ing away sums that boggle the mind routinely - but because the budget is considered sacrosanct in Congress, they will never be called on it in the same way.