Trout

iTrader: (1)

This pretty much sums up the arms trade for me - Government funded, Government backed and when it all goes wrong it stays private in the 'interests of national security'!

And I bet these guys get pretty fat bonuses too!

BAe off the hook

JonMc

iTrader: (51)

It is an antiquated view that we need to develop national defence industries so that we are self-sufficient in a nation-on-nation war. Given that it is extremelyt unlikely that we will ever go it alone again it is about time that we dropped BAe, Westlands and other defence crooks and started shopping around to get better value for the tax-payer.

Trout

iTrader: (1)

I am just imagining the 'entertainment' budget for lobbyists around the Trident replacement. It will make bankers bonuses look like chickenfeed!

JonMc

iTrader: (51)

Lets see what this year's defence review says as the next government (whichever flavour) tries to get public spending back under control

Will we still have 2 carriers and a nuclear deterent????

David Lock

What do you mean Govt funded? This was just a private business getting contracts to the benefit of the UK. Payments like this are a bit larger than usual but common business practice in that region.

Fining BAE will just make them a bit more careful in the future and it certainly won't stop them doing the same again. If HMG or the Yanks really want to stop it (and lose business) then they need to sling a few key people in jail and they may think twice next time.

Remember every single oil sale from Africa reeks of corruption with a few dollars per barrel going into someone's pocket usually at ministerial or Presidential level.

I don't really care but do object to poor countries being ripped off like the Tanzanian deal. And remember that recent case where the UK guy sold dodgy "Bomb Detectors" to Iraq and obviously paid a lot to close the deal. He should be sent down for a long time IMHO.

How do you think that odious Mark Thatcher made his millions?

dl

Leslie

Thats a short sighted view and if we had not had a defence industry and a viable defence force in the past then we woulsd be a lot worse off now.

The Labour government discovered a good many years ago when they got into power as well that they needed a nuclear ability to be able to get their feet under the international conference tables. Its surprising how swiftly they adopted that idea in spite of all the anti nuclear marches they attended before getting into power.

Les

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Doesn't really suprise me, the defence trade is a bit like the drugs trade; Shady dealings with corrupt individuals/countries.

I bet the hands of some of the US's defence contractors are equally if not more dirty.

serega

So BAe bribed a few Saudi royals to get the deal go in their favour big woop, worse things happend, especially where those two-faced Americans are involved.

They've been trying to cover that for awhile now but when you fu** with America's interests its not so easy it seems and this whole charade is only about that.

CrisPDuk

All this has only been investigated because BAe had the nerve to win a couple of big contracts that the American military contractors believed were theirs by rights

Although it wasn't actually the bribes that sealed the contracts concerned anyway, BAe won the deal because the US govt of the time insisted that any aircraft sold to any Arab state must not be operated within 150 miles of Israels borders
Whereas Maggie didn't give a toss where the buyers flew their planes once the invoices were paid, that's what really got up the noses of the Yanks

I wonder if, once the dust has settled, the Serious Fraud Office will now have the backbone to investigate the behind the scenes shenanigans that end up with us buying Apaches, rather than one of the superior competitors :


PS: What makes you think that military export sales are government funded Trout

CrisPDuk

And don't get me started on the whole Joint Strike Fighter debacle

gpssti4

iTrader: (6)

There are two new carriers on order, but there is a possibility that the second one may be cancelled or at least mothballed. They'd have cancelled the first, but for the fact it would have cost them too much money!

Submarines provide the nuclear deterent not the aircraft carriers. Guess what we're building new subs and they maybe cancelled too!

This country needs it's armed forces.

DCI Gene Hunt

Dear all,

It's BAE Systems or BAES not BAe - that's a throwback to British Aerospace, if you're going to slate something at least get the ******* name right!

+1 for this was a private business, not government funded - and these charges relate to activities that go back 8 years. Today BAE Systems is a massively different organisation that has gone through a top down restructuring so that things like this can't happen again.

But remember that paying Saudi middlemen is the way business works in the Kingdom, and profit and work from that £40billion contract came straight back to the UK in the guise of jobs and taxes!

JonMc

iTrader: (51)

Or the number of jobs that would have been lost in Gordon Brown's constituency

DCI Gene Hunt

What this space.......... next on the agenda is "The European Defence Force"

Leslie

That will be the knell of doom!

Les

Trout

iTrader: (1)

Pretty much everyone calls it BAE whatever it's full name is

It may be a private business but a very significant part of it's revenue comes from the MOD, it's position in the market is protected by the Defence Industrial Strategy and it's markets are heavily controlled or managed hand in hand with the Goverment. It is the MOD's largest supplier. Sovereign funds can usually afford more major weapons than the average private army. You can't access these customers without help from HM Gov.

To all intents and purposes it's existence is an extension of HM Gov plc so it is hard to separate it's existence from contributions from the tax payer.

DCI Gene Hunt

Really?

The MOD procures nearly all its services via DE&S, there is no protection provided or requested from HMG either as that would be against international guidelines for procurement. The defence market is saturated with companies supplying defence related equipment and services and contrary to general belief it's not a lucrative marketplace to operate within - most, if not all projects are 'open book' - so there's not much fat in it these days. But I'm sure 30 seconds worth of google will throw up a thousand counter arguments!

gpssti4

iTrader: (6)

Indeed, for new equipment, we have to declare our profit margins and the MoD decides if it's 'fair'.

Trout

iTrader: (1)

Maybe you should read the Defence Industrial Strategy then...

...and it is still the largest single supplier to the MOD...

...and in spite of International guidelines on procurement are you seriously trying to tell me that soveriegn defence markets are not in any way politically influenced. Wake up and smell the coffee!!


As for whether it is worthwhile that is a different matter entirely since cost plus ended.