Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jets/Light Fighters

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    CRIKEY!!!!!!!!!If they don't buy their own and buy Italys it will cost them more in the long run.People out of work is one problem.No other british company will try for any type of government contract.It is only britain after all,no worries but we have bought the hawk as well.
    Hanno
    Hanno

    Comment


    • #77
      Rover of FIAT!!!!!! either way we need CJ to do a deal with the Brits and relieve them of some of their older Hawks.... a bit like the deal he did with HMS Swift & Swallow!!

      Comment


      • #78
        Should be...

        Rover OR FIAT!!!!!! either way we need CJ to do a deal with the Brits and relieve them of some of their older Hawks.... a bit like the deal he did with HMS Swift & Swallow!!

        Comment


        • #79
          "TONY Blair will this week make a decision on buying new RAF jets - and it could wreck part of Britain’s defence industry."

          Where on earth did this article come from? Impartial journalism it is not. In fact its so bad, its like BAe's own press team wrote it. All thats happening here is another part of the long struggle between the British Govt (not just Blairs admin either) and BAe. Just cos they're the only major British defence firm left, BAe think they have the government over a barrel regarding cost cos they reckon the British government will always buy British.

          After fluffing the decision on the new carriers (they split the contract between BAe and Thales), the MOD have to come down hard on BAe in some way and send them a serious message. And here it is. Its a bluff on the part of the MOD, but they might well be serious because everyone knows the commonly held view within some circles that if Italian jets were bought, it just might shake BAe up a bit. So its just a matter of seeing who crumbles first really.

          And theres no way on earth we should go near any of the RAF's older Hawks. They've all been bounced and flown so much that all of them are on at least their second set of wings. Apparently Valley has a very impressive airframe graveyard which is a regular source of parts. No thanks.

          Comment


          • #80
            http://www.military.cz/usa/air/post_war/f5/f5_en.htm Some F-5 info
            "Everyone's for a free Tibet, but no one's for freeing Tibet." -Mark Steyn. What an IMO-centric quote, eh?

            Comment


            • #81
              from defence-aerospace.com

              Britain to award BAE Systems multi-billion Hawk jet contract: paper

              LONDON, July 12 (AFP) - 11:25 GMT - The British government will next week announce it is awarding a multi-billion-pound contract for 30 Hawk trainer jets to British aeronautics and defence company BAE Systems, the Guardian newspaper said on Saturday.
              BAE Systems won the contract over Italian rival Aermacchi M346, the paper said.

              It did not give the value of the contract.

              The British defence ministry told AFP the report was "speculative".

              "The decision has yet to be taken. It's still under consideration," a ministry spokesman said.

              The choice of the Hawk, which is already used by the Royal Air Force, was recommended by Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon and Industry Secretary Patricia Hewitt and other key ministers "who argued that the credibility ofthe government's defence industry policy was at stake", the paper said.

              "The policy makes manufacturing capability and jobs crucial criteria for awarding military contracts and would be seen as worthless if the jet trainer contract went overseas," the paper said, adding that awarding the contract to BAE Systems would save up to 2,000 jobs at the company's Brough plant in northern England.

              It said the two-seater Hawk was to be used to train pilots who will fly the Eurofighter Typoon, a fighter jet developed by Britain, Germany, Italy and Spain.

              BAE Systems made an initial bid for the contract in March that was one billion pounds (1.5 billion euros, 1.6 billion dollars) higher than the estimate made by the Treasury, the British finance ministry. It subsequently agreed to accept a lower price, the Guardian said.

              Comment


              • #82
                Completly unrelated, but, according to this morning's F.T, Bae are saying that they are unable to build the two carriers to specification for the agreed price, 2.8 billion, and instead are suggesting four as a more realistic price. Perhaps Balir will order M-346 to scare them? .

                Comment


                • #83
                  Yeah the use Thales techolgy, and the brits cover some of their rish on the project and now they want an extra 1.2 billion, what bullshit

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Jesus tapdancing Christ! they have some neck, even that combat 18 loving twit Littlejohn couldn't justify that.
                    "It is a general popular error to imagine that loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for it's welfare" Edmund Burke

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      The simple fact is that defence expenditure in real terms is non-productive, therefore governments, where practible, tend to spend defence money within their own countries to boost their own economies, and secondly, to keep things ticking over in case they are needed again, hence why arms is an export based business and why competition is so cut troat and the use of bribes is normal. Arms producers know this and they all have their own governments over a barrell. Bae and Dassault are the most obvious examples. Read Anthony Sampson's "the Arms bazzar", its dated but very intresting, especially when he cmes to the macinations behind the sale of F-16 to Europe in the late 1970's and the arming of the Shah of Iran, not to mention the F-104 Starfighter saga in European service.


                      littlejohn, with whom you have a curious facination, would hate it if the U.K carriers were built by those cheese munching surrender money's the frogs, or it british pilots were trained by planes built by the wops, even if they were 25% cheeper than the British bid. Indeed the british don't call the FN MAG a MAG, rather they pretend that its one of their own weapons by calling it an L-7 and in all those british fire arms books, the SLR gets its own entry, suggesting that is was radically different, when it was merely a slightly modified FN-FAL.

                      national pride is an important part of arms deals. You could ask whether or not britain even needs these carriers, I for one think that rationally the money would be far better spent on other areas. These carriers will carry 40 aircraft, but they'll also need 2 subs and 4 escorts along with a fleet train, and in a situation where precision guides weapons, air to air refuling, etc are long established, and UAV are evolving, not really that necessary, and a carrier is a vunerable target for a well trained diesel sub crew, a la Falkland islands. But its about Britain having two carriers. Same with Rafale, its no better or different than Eurofighter, would have been a lot cheeper to join that project, France could even have developed a navalised version in conjunction with the British and Italians and the Spanish, both of whom may have opted for larger hulls for their next generation of carriers, but then french pilots would not fly French planes.


                      Same applies to those who suggest that we should have fighters.
                      Last edited by paul g; 17 July 2003, 15:45.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        My personal dislike for Littlejohn is focused on the time he described the bloody sunday enquiry as a waste of taxpayers money to appease the IRA.
                        I guess its quite like the Italians and Der Spiegel.
                        In an england where the only parties that push defence as an issue are irrelevant I can't imagine it being too much for Tony to wield a kind of skewed Thatcherite axe on Bae.
                        "It is a general popular error to imagine that loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for it's welfare" Edmund Burke

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          In an england where the only parties that push defence as an issue are irrelevant I can't imagine it being too much for Tony to wield a kind of skewed Thatcherite axe on Bae. [/B][/QUOTE]


                          Are you serious or just badly informed.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            "The simple fact is that defence expenditure in real terms is non-productive, therefore governments, where practible, tend to spend defence money within their own countries to boost their own economies"

                            Funny how successive Irish Governments never got this message 120+ French, Finish, Swiss built APCs, 13 Irish built APCs!


                            IAS

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Well apart from the non labour like part of labour, I don't see the conservatives as much of a threat I reakise that thr Tabloids would have a field day, and nationalist sentiment would swell, but all he'd really be doing is moving defense industry jobs into offset investments, making John J Foreigners equipment in dear old Blighty, the difference apart from Bae's losing influence is realistically negligible.
                              "It is a general popular error to imagine that loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for it's welfare" Edmund Burke

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                the only thing is that defence contractors tend to only build their factories in marginal constituties. Large scale job losses as visible, whilst offset money tends to be invisible, and is mostly going to be spent in the economy anyway. national pride is a major thing, those who propose jets never listen to the rational larguements about why they are not a real priority, they want jets for the sake of having jets.

                                As for the political dimensions does anybody believe that Bliar can survive after murdering Dr kelly ? if the tories can get rid of Iain Duncan Smith and get Clarke, Portillo or Michael Howard in, they've got a really goood chance at the next election.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X