Losing this deal would have been bad news for BAE, but the hysterical scare mongering BAE was feeding the press about 50,000 job losses, the end of civilisation as we know it etc etc was just bollox intended to pressurise the government into dropping this investigation. Again, if BAE really are so reliant on this one contract then they’re in massive trouble whether they keep the contract or not, the truth is that even if they lost it the world wouldn’t end for them.

I find this shameful. Shameful. One of the few things the UK could be proud of was the indepence of the judiciary and that we had a robust and reasonably fair (not perfect but a hell of a lot better than many) legal system. Now it seems if you wave a cheque for £6 Billion around and throw a tantrum UK Plc will just throw the rule book away:mad: 😡

I’m not naive, I know fine well the world of international arms sales is a sewer, and the House of Saud is a sewer, and that if we’d blown this order France or America would have been happy to step in, but to me the integrity of the legal system and public confidence in the fair application of the law counts for more than selling 72 EF Typhoons to Saudi Arabia. If BAE are really desperate for this deal to survive they’re f*cked anyway, and take away the rhetoric and losing this deal would not have been the end of either BAE or the Typhoon.

Something that the UK and France could have used as a mutual face saving thing is that it could have been presented as a quid pro quo, France accepting a British vessel design (OK by Thales, but Thales working for the RN with the design being done in the UK) as part of a deal involving the UK buying a French fighter. Face saved all around.

On F35 tech transfer, I can understand the US position in not wanting to release the info BUT that said it should then have been made clear before accepting financial contributions to the program and at the point of partners signing on. If the US had said they would retain information for themselves from day one then other countries would sign on or look for something else on that basis, but don’t complain if customers are brought onboard on the basis of technology access and front up billions of dollars and then want that agreement honoured.

No worries, my attitude is the same, when I buy my own ticket I just go for the cheapest reputable airline. We’re going to Jakarta in February and are using KLM for the same reason, they were cheapest, that and they offer a good service from Newcastle.

Problem with a tanker would be hull rigidity and deck strengh, and because the hull and decks are load bearing you can’t just cut holes like you can with a container carrier. Many older tankers were single hull with added implications fro damage control, although because of the regs on double hulled tankers you could probably pick up an old tanker for nothing. Other thing is speed, tankers tend to be slow, probably 16-17 kts tops in most cases, although a carrier conversion would be light so should get a bit more. Whilst possible (like the British MAC ships which just stuck a flat top on top of a bulk carrier or tanker type hull) it’s need a lot of structural work, wouldn’t be cheap and would be slow and unweildy.

India is all over the place, buying gear from Russia, Europe and possibly America at the same time as pumping money into indigenous programs that never seem to go anywhere. Given the scale of the efforts they’ve made in indigenous weapons development so far they seem to have got a very poor return for it.

Interesting on the mono vs. multi hull debate that the UK now seems to have veered back towards the mono-hull side of the debate after a few years when it seemed that the RN was serious about a multi-hull FSC and did extensive trials with RV Triton. Multi-hulls do have some very real advantages, especially for high speed vessels and offering a large deck area.

The HSE are trying to intervene and have issued circulars on the abuse of H&S law to justify stupid decisions. However there is such an inertia to things like this it’s like turning one of those 1970’s oil tankers around, takes time. This really needs the employers to act and start employing H&S managers who know their subject rather than just over reacting and taking the soft option by banning anything without actually looking at legal requirements.