The media have been covering the decision by the UK government to order to BAE Systems Hawk trainer aircract, instead of the Italian Aermacchi M346.
The story seems to be that the Hawk is poor value for money, but it was chosen to safeguard jobs.
Is this illegal, bearing in mind EU law on the common market? Also, it seems to be a state subsidy. Is that illegal as well?
By: dhfan - 3rd August 2003 at 23:45
Originally posted by Hand87_5
How long did BA ignore Airbuses?
Good point, but BA wouldn’t buy anything but Boeing for years. They and their predecessors did untold damage to the UK civil aircraft industry.
By: Hand87_5 - 3rd August 2003 at 12:22
Originally posted by dhfan
Re the EU law.
How many British aircraft have the Italians got?
How many British aircraft carriers (or anything else) have the
French got?It’s time we ignored EU laws that don’t suit us, just like everybody else does.
How many French fighters have the Bristish got?
How long did BA ignore Airbuses?
By: dhfan - 3rd August 2003 at 11:45
Re the EU law.
How many British aircraft have the Italians got?
How many British aircraft carriers (or anything else) have the
French got?
It’s time we ignored EU laws that don’t suit us, just like everybody else does.
By: mongu - 31st July 2003 at 19:32
No, my point was that there is an implication BAE is profiteering. The Hawk seems to have a huge price premium.
Whilst others rattle on about jobs, my concern is that the tax payer is being extorted. Why should a Hawk be so expensive – what extra abilities or features does it have?
If the government sends out a message that they’ll buy British irrespective of price, what do you think will happen to the economy…it’ll become inefficient. Jobs will in the long run be lost.
You’ll see the Police driving £100,000 Ford Focuses instead of £30,000 BMWs!!
By: Manonthefence - 31st July 2003 at 18:18
Wellllllllll
We have chioosen a proven aircraft at a price which, whilst high, will secure many British Jobs. It is the aircraft most suited to our Air Forces needs (the crews will tell you different but they all think the grass is greener just ask anyone who trained on T28’s etc with the NATO School in the USA), it was procurred because it is the right aircraft for the RAF, the Country and the Economy.
You’re Damn straight its against European Law and you can shove that European Law right up the Danube.
No questions would have been asked if the Alphajet were procured in the same manner. But wait we couldnt do that because its out of production! Why? Because it was crap.
By: PhantomII - 31st July 2003 at 17:46
I don’t see what the big deal is. The RAF operates the Hawk now, so why would they want to change to something else?
Besides, the Hawk is a great trainer, and has been getting the job done for over 20 years. There’s nothing wrong with it, and I guarantee you the M-346 wouldn’t have been that much of an improvement over the Hawk.
I totally agree with Kev, and unfortunately Geforce as well.
By: Hand87_5 - 31st July 2003 at 12:15
Originally posted by GarryB
Why restrict yourself to obeying the law when others don’t. Having a halo won’t help your economy and won’t get the politicians in your country reelected… and that is all politicians think about…
I guess they think a tiny bit about money too …. 😀
By: Geforce - 31st July 2003 at 05:53
Well, agree with Kev here. It would be stupid to convert to another trainer, bearing in mind the RAF already operates the Hawk.
By: Arabella-Cox - 31st July 2003 at 04:51
Why restrict yourself to obeying the law when others don’t. Having a halo won’t help your economy and won’t get the politicians in your country reelected… and that is all politicians think about…
By: kev35 - 30th July 2003 at 23:14
Mongu.
I know nothing of the legal complexities of this issue. But, from an operational standpoint, doesn’t it make sense that a current Hawk operator would want to continue with the Hawk rather than replacing it with something totally different?
Regards,
kev35
Sign In
July 30, 2003 at 11:08 pm