150 Rafale Ms pour le Royal Navy?

[azaazel]

il y aurat des transferts de technologies si le rafale est choisi ? mais au risque d'en amellioré le typhoon non ?

[P4]

désolé pour l'anglais mais quand Rob pipote et nous fait bien rire :)

j'ai envie qu'on rigole encore plus :lol:

from

The Independent

22 November 2002

Bombshell over defence contracts leaves BAE friendless Defence giant's profit warning has damaged directors' credibility and reawakened memories of its near-collapse in 1991

By Michael Harrison, Business Editor

BAE Systems may have changed its name, but it has not lost any of its capacity to shock. This week's bombshell that the world's second-largest arms manufacturer is facing substantial cost overruns on two of its biggest Ministry of Defence contracts sent BAE shares into a fresh tailspin yesterday. They have now fallen by 40 per cent since Wednesday's profits warning. At one stage yesterday they dipped briefly below 100p - the kind of level last seen just over a decade ago when the company was still called British Aerospace and it was teetering on the brink of bankruptcy.

The cause of the crisis back then in the autumn of 1991 was a piece of financial engineering that went disastrously wrong. The chairman at the time, Professor Sir Roland Smith, had embarked on an audacious plan to buy Austin Rover and Royal Ordnance and then rationalise the two businesses, selling off chunks of BAE's vast landbank to pay for the resulting redundancy bill. When the recession arrived and property prices duly crashed, BAE's strategy was left high and dry. Sir Roland was ousted and only an emergency £432m rights issue saved the company from being swallowed up by Arnold Weinstock's GEC.

Today BAE is staring down the barrel of a gun once more, although this time the crisis is of a different nature. It is not financial engineering but aeronautical engineering that threatens to be the company's undoing. The problem can be summed up in one word: Nimrod. The plane has been around since the 1960s. GEC-Marconi almost came unstuck in 1986 trying to develop an airborne early warning version of the Nimrod. Sixteen years later BAE, which now owns GEC-Marconi, has run into trouble with the £3bn development of a maritime reconnaissance version.

The contract involves stripping the existing fleet of Nimrods down to their fuselages and then rebuilding them with new wings, tailfins, cockpits, engines and mission systems. As an executive from a rival defence company admits: "It's a huge and horribly complex job. When the Nimrod was built originally, it was put together with little men using rubber hammers and rivets who could bend things to fit. Today, they are using computers and lasers. It is a question of having to take a 1950s design and apply 21st century technology."

The City thought BAE had got all of the bad news out of the way two years ago when it announced it was taking a £525m charge, £300m of which related to delays and cost overruns on the Nimrod programme. This week's profit warning demonstrates that is emphatically not the case.

Together with cost overruns on the Astute nuclear-powered submarine programme, analysts fear BAE could be looking at a balance sheet hit of anywhere between £800m and £1bn.

Unsurprisingly, the company is now virtually friendless - in Whitehall and the City. The Ministry of Defence reacted with unusual speed and vigour to Wednesday's warning, making it clear that BAE would have to accept responsibility for the cost overruns and pay the penalty for its "failure to perform". In the City the reaction was scarcely less scathing. Even BAE's own joint house broker, ABN Amro, switched its recommendation on the shares to "sell".

What alarmed the City was not just the cost overruns themselves but the damage that has been done to the credibility of BAE's management. The profit warning followed several days of increasingly fevered speculation in the market that a just such a statement was imminent and equally emphatic assurances from within BAE that all was well.

The City's anger at being misled made the subsequent punishment all the harsher. In a withering note headlined: "The leopard has not changed its spots", Goldman Sachs said it was cutting its forecasts for BAE "severely" and estimated the Nimrod and Astute fiascos would cost the company £800m. Sash Tusa, the bank's defence and aerospace analyst, added: "Our lack of confidence in either the guidance of BAE's management or in its ability to manage programmes leads us to impose an additional 20 per cent discount on the value of the company in its current form."

Credit Suisse First Boston was equally critical. Its defence analyst, Harald Hendrikse, said: "In our view, with the shares down 200p since August, the charge is not the problem, management credibility is. How can we be sure there is no further bad news on other contracts?"

The man with whom the buck stops at BAE is Mike Turner, its chief executive. He was parachuted into the top job when the previous occupant John Weston was unceremoniously dumped last March. This is Mr Turner's second profits warning in three months. In September, he caught the markets offguard by announcing a £120m write-down on two other military programmes. He then further unnerved investors by appearing to renege on BAE's long-standing pledge that profits would start to rise in 2003. In a curious formulation, he said: "We are more confident than ever that we are going to get profit growth but we can't say in what year."

It was not the message the City wanted to hear and it accelerated the slide in the share price. As a former BAE executive says: "The company still operates on a need to know basis and unfortunately it applies that attitude not just to secret weapons programmes but also to its relationship with the City."

Pessimists such as Goldman Sach's Sash Tusa now believe BAE will have to slash its second-half dividend by a half. Worse, the profit warning has reawakened fears about BAE's Achilles heel - cash flow - given its reliance on very big and lumpy procurement contracts that can very easily fall behind schedule, as Nimrod now has.

Goldman Sachs reckons BAE will suffer a cash outflow of £1.5bn over the next two years, taking its borrowings up to an eye-watering £3.6bn and stretching its balance sheet considerably. "BAE in our view needs to take radical action to staunch this bleeding," it adds.

BAE was supposed to have overcome its vulnerability to shocks like this by widening its geographic spread and concentrating its mix of businesses. Throughout the 1990s, investors were treated to a string of mind-bogglingly large write-offs on its regional aircraft activities until BAE finally exited the business altogether.

Save for its 20 per cent stake in Airbus, which accounts for some £3bn of sales a year, it is now even more defence orientated. But it is the Pentagon, not the MoD that is now BAE's biggest single defence customer. It will become even bigger as the £100bn F-35 joint strike fighter goes into production. By contrast, UK defence programmes - such as Nimrod and Eurofighter - now account for just 18 per cent of turnover.

But, as BAE has repeatedly demonstrated over the years, just when investors think it is safe to get back into the water, along comes another nasty surprise. BAE says it will "never again" take on a "lousy" fixed-price contract such as Nimrod or Astute. "We have learned our lesson," a spokesman said. History has had a tendency of disproving that.

8)

[Invité Rob]

Wow, P4 you have reached a new level of idiocy. Posting a 4 years old article has no relevance to today's BAe-MoD relationship. Now BAE makes 1000 Million Pounds profit a year with 100000+ employees and 15.4 Billion Pounds turnover. They are healthier than ever before. @tom: Je pense que les Anglais veulent peut-etre UK "subsystems" comme CAESAR radar, missiles [Asraam etc...]. Et aussi un part dans le production global du Rafale (par example 20% du tout les Rafales). Le JSF va donner l'industry du RU 27 Milliards de Pounds (---> 40 Milliards d'Euros). C'est la raison pourquoi Dassault a besoin donner le RU un tres bon prix/deal. In English:I think that the UK will want to integrate a lot of UK subystems such as the new CAESAR radar and missiles. Also they would demand a part in the total Rafale production (20%?), that is mainly because UK industry is set to gain 40 Billion Euros worth of work from JSF if current workshare stays the same. That is the reason why Dassault would have to give the UK a very good price/deal.

[P4]

C'est la raison pourquoi Dassault a besoin donner le RU un tres bon prix/deal.

c'est pas Dassault qui a besoin c'est ton pays................

pour BAE le generique AAE(AMERICAN AEROSPACE) me parait plus approprié.

[Invité Rob]

c'est pas Dassault qui a besoin c'est ton pays................

I disagree. Dassault is desperate in the military market searching for a first customer. But really it is theory because the UK-US will resolve the tech issue, th US is already carving in to UK/Aussie pressure.

pour BAE le generique AAE(AMERICAN AEROSPACE) me parait plus approprié.

Oh how funny. :rolleyes: BAe is neither sharewise more American than British [56.65% is British, whilst the remaining is international, source: http://ir.baesystems.com/bae/shareholder_info/foreign/ ], nor employee wise, nor order backlog wise nor turnover wise [the UK based BAe units make up 69% of BAe turnover whilst US based units make up the remaining 31%, though the US based units have a lot of UK locations]. Actually Britishness is going to rise with the acquisition of Babcock, this deal could add 5000 UK jobs to BAe's payroll.

[lefoudeladefense]

in fact great britain need americans satellite to launch nuclear attack..... they must threaten united states to buy rafales if they dont share technologies..... great britain is really an independant country :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[P4]

I disagree. Dassault is desperate in the military market searching for a first customer. But really it is theory because the UK-US will resolve the tech issue, th US is already carving in to UK/Aussie pressure.

extraits

Dassault has denied reports that Britain, angry at U.S. budget cuts and reluctance to share technology secrets, might be preparing to pull out of the project and instead buy into its Rafale fighter.

et encore

The French company also denied the speculation.

”We are not in any talks with Great Britain,” Dassault spokesman Gerard David said in a statement received here March 29.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=1652043&C=airwar

Dassault compte bien rester en dehors de cette brouille.

pour AAE l'actionnariat est peu etre majoritairement detennu via des etablissements Anglais ce qui ne veux pas dire que ces actionnaires sont Anglais.

par contre le plut gros contractant est bien l'etat US et non l'etat UK,ce qui donne un pouvoir certains.

[Fonck]

Rob

Citation:

"I disagree. Dassault is desperate in the military market searching for a first customer. But really it is theory because the UK-US will resolve the tech issue, th US is already carving in to UK/Aussie pressure. "

C'est son reve mouille le plus sauvage. Allant jusqu'a "nationaliser" Thales dans les forum anglais pour donner le credit du design CVF au

R-Us.

pauv' mec.

Me gonfle tellement, permetez moi de vous presenter le nouveau visage de l'industrie aerospaciale Beiranique (Dessous) et de celle de la France (Dessus)...

http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/8545/loveis3aw.png

Porkie: La plus large en Europe, la moins performante pour le nombre d'employes, la Francaise par contre est numero DEUX mondiale depuis 2004...

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/407/baeexpertise018yh.jpg

Quand aux raisons: British NAO 2005. Quand est-ce que ce mec se casse les deux bras?

[P4]

"I disagree. Dassault is desperate in the military market searching for a first customer. But really it is theory because the UK-US will resolve the tech issue, th US is already carving in to UK/Aussie pressure. "

first customer :et l'etat Français c'est pas un client,soit précis Rob si tu comptes avoir un once de crédit ici.

[Invité Rob]

in fact great britain need americans satellite to launch nuclear attack.....

Totally untrue. Anti British propaganda nothing more.

they must threaten united states to buy rafales if they dont share technologies.....

No, again not true. Noone has talked to Dassault. Besides it is the UK's own fault if they didn't put it into the contract from the beginning but UK/Aussie pressure is showing first signs of success on this issue.

great britain is really an independant country

It certainly is.

C'est son reve mouille le plus sauvage. Allant jusqu'a "nationaliser" Thales dans les forum anglais pour donner le credit du design CVF au

R-Us.

You mean the design France paid 200 Million Euros to the UK to HAVE A LOOK AT IT? What I always said is that the CVF design [as quoted from Thales UK CEO] was done 100% in the UK, by BMT, BAE,VT,Babcock and Thales UK.

[lefoudeladefense]

rob its a present for you Chris2002 a écrit: La Royal Navy étudierait des sous-marins nucléaires au rabais Shocked ... En farfouillant sur le web, je tombe sur ce rapport http://fpc.org.uk/publications/188 publié ce mois-ci et qui est pour le moins ... troublant. On se doutait depuis longtemps de ce que l'indépendance de la force nucléaire britannique n'était pas aussi complète que celle de la force française ou de la force russe. Les missiles Trident II emportés sur les SSBN Vanguard britanniques sont non seulement produits, mais encore maintenus aux Etats-Unis. ... Mais à ce point ? Et un rapport officiel d'une institution britannique qui l'avoue tout uniment ? Je recommande en particulier le tableau pages 16 et 17 du rapport (soit pages 14 et 15 du PDF) : dépendance complète des Britanniques non seulement pour les missiles, mais encore pour les armes nucléaires elles-mêmes. Voir encore en bas de page 13 du rapport : le système Trident s'arrêterait de fonctionner après 18 mois si les Etats-Unis cessaient de soutenir la Grande-Bretagne. Et encore page 18 : les Etats-Unis connaissent la position des SSBN britanniques en patrouille, lesquels ne peuvent être contactés que par l'intermédiaire de satellites de communication américains, et ne peuvent recevoir de ciblage pour leurs missiles que grâce aux satellites d'observation américains ! Lire encore le commentaire bas de page 12 d'un général britannique en 1980 suivant lequel l'utilisation des armes britanniques ne serait possible qu'après autorisation du président des Etats-Unis. Et la répartie cruelle de McNamara en 1962 en haut de page 18 concernant l'indépendance britannique ... Shocked Shocked Shocked !!! Le rapport conclut que la Grande-Bretagne n'est plus une puissance nucléaire depuis les années 1960. Rappelons que nous parlons d'un rapport officiel Shocked ! Il continue en soutenant que faire semblant de l'être coûte cher, oblige à un alignement politique étroit sur la politique américaine du moment, sans compter le fait que les armes nucléaires c'est mal. Donc il faut s'abstenir de remplacer le Trident plutôt que continuer la politique actuelle ou encore plutôt que construire une force nucléaire peut-être moins avancée mais qui aurait le mérite d'exister.

[lefoudeladefense]

it means great britain is unable to use nuclear weapons without united states........what a pity!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: and its not propaganda because its a britannic institut which said it in a report.....

[Invité Rob]

I read the report too and it does not say what you are implying. It says that the UK deterrence is relient on the USA, that is true. Tridents can hit targets without satellite navigation using their own navigational tools. However the UK can independently fire the Tridents. I had a MoD document about this but since they restructered their site it's gone. I might be able to find it again, I'll post it here then. also John Reid has stated the same in Parliament.

[Chris.]

sauf que quand vous avez tirés tous vos Trident et que les US ne sont pas content, et bien vous avez plus aucun trident... Enfin quand les anglais se facheront avec les US sur ce genre de sujet :rolleyes:

[Invité Rob]

sauf que quand vous avez tirés tous vos Trident et que les US ne sont pas content, et bien vous avez plus aucun trident...

Enfin quand les anglais se facheront avec les US sur ce genre de sujet

Yeah, it happens often that we need more than 48-96 [how many are on UK subs at any time] nuke warheads. :rolleyes: I mean just a week ago the UK nuked some small country and after bombing them with 48 nuke warheads, we were like: " Hell we have run out of nukes!" :rolleyes: ;)

[seb24]

De toute façon les choses sont simples. Le Royaume Uni ne maitrise pas sa capacité missile balisitique. Qui est de fabrication et de conception américaine. Par la même vous dependez des USA. Si ils ont placé des sécurité controlable par le pentagone vous n'avez aucun moyen de le verifier, et de coté je suis presque sur que c'est fait.

[Chris.]

maybe, I hope not... but, the trident are the only british nuclear vector, and it's a american missile, not very good... France, Russia, India, maybe Iran are indenpendant with their nuclear forces... traduction: peut-être, mais j'éspère que non mais, le trident est le seukl vecteur anglais de dissuasion nuclaire, et il est américain... La France, la russie, l'Inde et peut-être l'Iran sont indépendant quand à leurs capacités nuclaires...

[lefoudeladefense]

http://fpc.org.uk/fsblob/722.pdf read this in whole you will understand its USA who are responsible for the production of nuclear vital material.. all is written...

[Chris.]

Si ils ont placé des sécurité controlable par le pentagone vous n'avez aucun moyen de le verifier, et de coté je suis presque sur que c'est fait.

J'imagine pas les US donner des armes capables de les détruire sans avoir mis quelque part une sécurité...

Il doit forcément y avoir un système, ils sont quand même pas fous...

[Invité Rob]

I have read it when it came out. The UK is fully capable of firing Tridents onto any nation they want. John Reid says it [uK defence secretary and not some inofficial "think tank"] and I agree. what the report states is that our nuke maintenance and nukes themselves are very reliant on US tech that is true but does not change the fact that the UK could in theory even nuke the USA because Tridents do not need satellites for navigation, UK subs do not have US officiers on board, UK PM is not mentally controlled by the US President etc....

[lefoudeladefense]

britannic nuclear capâcities use american satellites to work..... if USA dont allow to britannic to use their satelitte......how will they launch their missils????????????????

[Invité Rob]

britannic nuclear capâcities use american satellites to work.....

if USA dont allow to britannic to use their satelitte......how will they launch their missils????????????????

By inertial navigation. It is not that accurate but it works.

[seb24]

Le problème est simple. L'utilisation de larme nucleaire serait la conséquence d'une situation extremement grave, et donc suite a des evenements mettant en danger le Royaume Uni directement. Chose qui n'est pas arrivé depuis la seconde guerre mondiale. Dans ce cas tu ne t'assures pas un dissuasion nucleaire fiable en theorie, mais en pratique. tu t'assure de connaitre ton arme par coeur et d'en maitriser l'ensemble de la chaine. Si les USA la France ainsi que TOUS les pays disposant de l'arme nucleaire (Sauf le Rouyaume-Uni) s'assurent une maitrise complete de l'arme ce n'est pas par hasard. C'est une illusion de croire qu'on est independant lorsqu'on confie une partie de son independance à un autre pays (beaucoup plus puissant), c'est ce qui s'appel se faire des illusions et se voiler la face. Si demain les USA disent : " on ne veut pas que Royaume Uni utilise ses armes nucleaire et ont les a donc désactivé à distance". Vous serait dans l'incapacité total de remettre en place une dissuasion nucleaire pendant 10ans minimum.

[Invité Rob]

Yes it is true that the USA could pull all support away and we would have to start new [though a UK nuke bomb programme was halted in 1993 under John Major].If this support was pulled away in times of crisis I highly doubt that the UK would just let it's subs bring the nukes back to the US. BUT in any situation NOW we could fully independently fire nukes and hit any country on earth including the USA. Besides I do doubt that the UK would need 10 years. AWE Aldermaston has full nuke bomb design ability and are designing new ones right now. The tricky bit would be the missiles, but I guess we could either equip the RAF with some again or just pump massive money into the Starchaser rocket. [okay that is a bit way off]

[lefoudeladefense]

oui c est sur et je crois que cette dependance a surement joue plus qu on ne le pense dans la politique outre atlantique de la grande bretagne le fait qu ils remettent en cause leur actuel principe de dissuasion est une bonne chose.... ils pourront par la suite adopter une politique plus europeenne....