I don't wanna start anything, but after hearing a report on the BBC that the 18.8bn dollar contract with Airbus will cost BRITISH jobs, I had to start this.
Did the govt. betray their people over the deal, it's almost certain Boeing/BAE lost the contract, and it is reported that many British sub-contractors will lose out, including rolls royce, which could have been in a good position to supply the engines should Boeing, BAE had won. I know that costs at BAE have been a prob.
But how could the British govt. not choose Boeing/BAE?? I know I know, you win some, you lose some. But there's gonna be some confused faces at BAE soon

BAe has been having quality issues in large programs recently, so selecting them wouldn't have been prudent. And Boeing is certainly not a British, or even EU-based company whereas EADS is based in the EU and has strong ties to Britain.

RR is likely to get the engine order regardless of airframe.

I'll be a Dutchman if they don't - I'll call myself Hertz van Rental.  

I don't wanna start anything, but after hearing a report on the BBC that the 18.8bn dollar contract with Airbus will cost BRITISH jobs, I had to start this.

I dislike the idea of awarding contracts to whoever promises to create the most local jobs.

Apart from that - it doesn't make much sense to me. I thought the UK % contribution to an A332 (&c) was rather larger than the UK % contribution to a 767? Who designs & builds Airbus wings?

BAE Betrayed the national interest in going with Boeing, despite making the wings for the A330 as part of them being a full Airbus partner for 25 years.
How exactly will ex BA 767s with roughly the same refueling kit as the A330s, (no doubt sourced from Flight Refueling Ltd) create more jobs than some new A330s with equally new R/R engines?
Someone has been spinning,

The Air Tanker option, with the A330, uses a lot of British equipment and a lot of British manpower to produce the final version. Check out the Air Tanker web site for more details http://www.airtanker.co.uk

BAES had their iron in both fires so they have nothing to complain about. However as I have already said in the other thread, it is not just about the aircraft platform. It's the service that will be supplied over the next 27 years that will make up the bulk of the costs. That service was just as important to the MOD. I believe that the RAF will get the best on offer. The best aircraft and the best service.

A330 tankers = British jobs generated
A330 tankers with RR engines = Even more British jobs.

Either way, Boeing/BAE or Airbus, British jobs would be created. This 'snub' btw, is a wake-up call for BAE systems.

Actually, I think the RAF will buy up to 15 ex-BA 767-300(ER)'s and convert them to tankers anyway. The RAF L1011 and VC-10 tanker fleet is starting to get old (e.g., they will probably be retired by 2010) and RAF really does need way more than just 18 new A330-200-based tanker planes.

I too think that they will need more aircraft. Whether a mixed fleet is cost effective remains to be seen but politics tend to get in the way of sensible decissions.

This is how different areas of the UK will benefit with the Airbus deal:

Derby - Rolls-Royce PLC - build and overhaul powerplants.

Broughton/Filton - BAe Systems/Airbus UK - Produce Wings.

Boscome Down - QinetiQ - Aircraft Certification.

Royal Air Force Brize Norton - Base for the aircraft, requires substantial redevelopment, most likely from civilian contractors, from the Air Tanker website "Development of RAF Brize Norton, including extensive construction work, the provision of ground and air support equipment, ancillary vehicles, flight simulators and the installation of IT systems"

Crawley - Development and manufacture of simulators.

Wimbourne - Air Refuelling Limited - Flight Refuelling system.

Bournemouth - Aircraft Conversion.

I quote again from the Air Tanker website: The UK will account for one half of the total value of the basic aircraft for FSTA, including engine manufacture at Rolls-Royce and wing production at Airbus UK.

On top of that the issues with the age and longevity of the Boeing option and I fully support the decision to choose Airbus.

The British government is notorious for not supporting it's own industry, our new aircraft carriers are being designed and built by Thales of France for example, but in this case I must say that they have in NO way betrayed the British people.

If someone can provide a well-structured and intelligent answer as to why the Boeing deal benefits the UK more than the Airbus option, I would be most happy to change my mind, until then, I stand by the British Government, the Ministry of Defence and the Royal Air Force totally in the decision.

OT

I know i will get troube for that one but i cant resist

Did The British Govt. Betray Their People?

Does the US Government that not every Month Twice ????

[Edited 2004-01-28 23:44:01]

To add to what ConcordeBOAC said, the CVF aircraft carriers (to be named HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince Of Wales) will be built in the UK, it's a Thales design though with a big BAE input.

GDB:

Thanks for correcting me on that, I'm glad BAE will have a big part to play. Cunard having the QM2 built in france was a big blow the the UK shipbuilding industry (whats left of it) Clydebank and Belfast need all the help they can get.

I didn't know the new carriers had been named, GDB. Somewhat ironic to call one Prince of Wales bearing in mind what happened to the last one, don't you think?  

GDB, where did you run across the info regarding the naming of the new British carriers? The RN's website is still referring to them as the CVF project and putting in a web search for HMS Queen Elizabeth is bringing in no info about the carriers.

I thought those new carriers had been scrapped by the Blair administration in favour of a new holiday resort for the Labour party elite?

Friends working in the Ministry Of Defence told me, however it's been expected to be these names for some time.
But as it has not been formally announced, wait and see, you never know, there might be a change.

Hard to find a traditional name that has not had a previous ship sunk at some time, for example, HMS Invincible was sunk in WW1.
HMS Ark Royal was sunk in 1941.

Had CVA-01 onwards been built, (RN wanted 3, treasury said 'no chance') the first two would have been called Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales.

As it was a Labour government which cancelled them in 1966 (and they had little choice, the design needed much changing, the RN admitted they would not have the manpower to operate more than one at a time plus the RN were already getting capital ships in the shape of nuclear subs), maybe choosing to use the names again is a form of apology to the RN for 1966.

But in 1966, the RN were feeble in the face of a strong RAF campaign against the carriers, they even moved Australia 500 miles north to show that land based aircraft could provide cover 'East Of Suez'.
The navy struggled to provide senarios justifying the huge expense of new carriers, the cold war was the main mission, with frigates and subs, the RN never mentioned a possible Argentine invasion of the Falklands as a senario either.

Later, the Sea Harriers were approved as in the Cold War mission, the addition of Sea Harriers to already ordered large ASW helicopter carriers could be justified, as the main threat was Soviet long range anti ship missiles, launched from aircraft, ships or subs, the ship/sub launched ones relied on mid course guidance and target detection by TU-95 aircraft, which would often be outside the range of Sea-Dart ship to air missiles.
The Sea Harriers would allow longer range interception against TU-95s, or any other long range Soviet naval aviation aircraft for that matter.

Now the Cold War is over, out of area is back in vogue, that's how CVF has got approved, the RN will no doubt take some pain to pay for them, but without them, they will be lacking a role that is at the core of expeditionary warfare capabilities, aside from amphibious transport and minesweeping.