Bae Systems Share Discussion Threads

[dafrog] 17/11/2013 11:06

Owenski, thanks, good to hear that.

[owenski] 17/11/2013 11:01

Dafrog, Yes Bicester is the centralised hub for Army and is in part a distribution network for navy, but Portsmouth is the Naval stores depot and is a business that has been growing.

Some jobs lost in ship build will transfer to ship repair which is a vibrant part of the business.

The 'old' Vospers business is now run under the BAE small boats and whilst it doesn't build the size of boat it once did, it does still build boats of a certain class and is a very busy repair facility in its own right operating out of Portsmouth.

The Naval base remains a large employer and that is likely to increase (post the lay offs of the ship build staff) in the years to come due to future carrier support and ongoing surface fleet support, plus a variety of other services.

The newspapers portray the loss of ship building as that of the naval base closing down, this is simply not true, it is and remains a large employer.

However, it is an emotional thing to see many jobs lost and rightly so.

[squidsgone] 16/11/2013 19:41

Eyes to the Middle East people!

[dafrog] 15/11/2013 08:16

Oweneski. You are right, particularly about the launching ramp. However, we used to have Vospers but that's gone. Thought most stores had been centralised at Bicester, not that we have much left.

[owenski] 09/11/2013 11:27

I found the news article not entirely factual.

Shipbuilding will stop at Portsmouth, however, it has stopped before, the current phase of building is relatively recent.

The ship repair business at Portsmouth still continues and most of the fleet is stationed there.

The Naval Stores business is also centered at Portsmouth.

Portsmouth remains a premier Naval Base and large employer.

Much as its tragic to see jobs lost in Portsmouth and Scotland, it makes sense to use the facilities in Scotland, Portsmouth doesn't even have a launching ramp for large ship builds.

[fangorn2] 08/11/2013 21:08

:)

I have fond memories of a trip to HMS Victory as well....

Problem with having one super frigate with modern weaponry versus 15 of the previous model is it is a damn sight easier to track, identify and then destroy the one sole ship. And I'm pretty certain the technology leap from the last frigate type to the current one isn't that large.

CCF myself. Ah those were the days.

Have a good weekend all.

[dafrog] 08/11/2013 10:48

I was in the ATC, we had a visit to HMS VICTORIOUS, complete with Javelins.

[hectorp] 08/11/2013 10:35

Have not been there since I was 15. I was in the naval Cadets ( CCF) . Got a tour of the " Victory " which was of course memorable. I remember Plymouth and Portsmouth full of Frigates and Destroyers. Some even then were mothballed. However today, one super frigate will have the modern tech and weaponry far beyond anything of the 70's.
No wonder they are so expensive to build maintain and man.

[dafrog] 08/11/2013 07:16

A Fleet at Portsmouth! Been there recently? The harbour tours list mostly ships up for sale. Lucky if you see a T45 and the odd minor war vessel. Cameron has decimated our Services.

[hectorp] 07/11/2013 18:56

Agree, a good chat about all this. Have a good evening.

PS there is a case for giving everyone a vote and why not, as it is a very big change to the UK .
I believe the splitting of this land mass into two foreign countries, going back to the day before Union ( 1707) will reverberate. It is much bigger than joining the EU was.
Of for a glass of vino sec.

[miata] 07/11/2013 17:54

Lets not forget that the reason we got 'this darned coalition', namely that most are rotten, self-serving, snout-in-the-trough, egotists that we did not want to give much power to.

[fangorn2] 07/11/2013 14:40

Fangorn, it would also be wrong for Westminster to put England first

Why is it okay for Westminster to put Scotland first then? As it has seemingly done by closing Portsmouth and consolidating ship building on Glasgow?

As far as the 'two Scottish Banks' are concerned their business is worldwide. There is no possibility of them reverting to simply being Scottish banks.

Why not?

They're Scottish banks, they were trumpeted as Scottish banks when the going was good, and they were run by Scots! (Well, RBS was - and run into the ground by a Scot) Why should the rest of us in England pay for Scottish extravagance or should we say hubris and utter folly?

You Scots want ALL the OIL after all - yet you want us to pay for all your debts as well. Kinda taking the mickey in my book.

As far as the 'vote' is concerned, it seems very unlikely that it will be the Yes people who win. What about our pensions, etc etc. Its simply not practical.

I agree it seems unlikely but who knows. What I don't understand is why there are so many that want to throw off the yoke that is Westminster and replace it with Brussels? Is Salmond hoping for all those hundreds of billions in subsidies paid by Britain, Germany and Holland?

It's time for a change because many English people are getting tired of the current situation.The Welsh have an assembly, as do the Scots. But the English get nought. Add to that the constant bickering, whining and general anti English sentiment expressed by many Scots and can you not appreciate why we're a tad peeved? The added bonus of Independence would mean we're more likely to get a proper government that England wants rather than a likely Labour government come the 2015 election. A silver lining perhaps :)

The shipbuilding skills though will be in Scotland. Which is the issue. Having "the fleet" at Portsmouth is scant consolation.

Not a welcome move in any regard. Perhaps some of that HS2 money could be diverted to ensuring that the UK actually has a Royal Navy worth commenting on. It's ever dwindling size means it will soon be an irrelevance - and the loss of technical skills irreplaceable.

[hectorp] 07/11/2013 13:35

Fangorn, it would also be wrong for Westminster to put England first. ( As long as we are all still Britain, that is). As far as the 'two Scottish Banks' are concerned their business is worldwide. There is no possibility of them reverting to simply being Scottish banks. As far as the 'vote' is concerned, it seems very unlikely that it will be the Yes people who win. What about our pensions, etc etc. Its simply not practical.

Time to move on perhaps? I must leave this aside for now.
The BAe share price is reacting positively, after all
800 plus will go on Clydeside and 900 plus to go in Portsmouth. Reducing forward capex. Shareholders , for one, should be quite pleased to see economies made, wherever they are done.

Note that the 'fleet' will still be at Portsmouth.
H.

[dafrog] 07/11/2013 06:55

UKIP would. Three RFA tankers being built in Korea. We do not build ships for other customers now. EU rules, meaning we have to tender Europe wide for components and all, means that it is time consuming and not economic. Other nations look after their own.

[fangorn2] 06/11/2013 16:02

"David Cameron: Portsmouth shipyard was closed in the 'national interest'"

940 jobs will be lost at in Portsmouth as shipbuilding moves to the Clyde, raising fears it was sacrificed to spare Scottish jobs ahead of referendum

Portsmouth dockyard was closed in the "national interest", Downing Street has insisted, raising fears it was sacrificed to spare Scottish job losses ahead of the vote for independence.

Which was what I speculated was the case. And it's utterly disgraceful if true.


Does any British Govt put ENGLAND first I ask?

[squidsgone] 06/11/2013 15:09

Just looked at the latest Hammond statement. I rwad it as cost if carriers has gone from £5.45bn to £6.2bn, then a separate statement on re risk-share. Err .... so the order book is to increase by £0.75bn less the previous risk share element of 10%, so net £0.67bn ...?

[squidsgone] 06/11/2013 13:38

Suspect there has been some major re-baselining of scope and cost before the 50:50 risk share ... but only summising.

[fangorn2] 06/11/2013 13:33

Incidentally- the SE of England and UKIP would be happy enough to run everything from London which is a city state already with its Home Counties. But the north of England even from Nottingham or even north of Lincoln has much more in common nowadays with Scotland. You could even see it in the 70s and 80's ( all socialists etc).

Would Northern England want to leave the Union and join Scotland in some form of Federation? I agree England is too focused on London - in fact it seems to be a mini country inside of a country in my opinion.

Major policy decisions impacting the livelihoods of Brits are no longer the preserve of the Uk parliament however. Eg Fishing. Northern England/Scottish fishing towns have had the rug pulled from under them, with no replacement employment opportunities as a result of this country ceding fishing rights of its territorial waters to the EU(and therefore the Spanish)


Let them take the South of England and Scotland and the North of England should create their own northern federal alliance with the possibly independent Edinburgh and Glasgow. It is lack of federalism that is the ice cold hand of Westminster in England. Mark my words sir! Lets see Assemblies in Manchester and possibly Newcastle. Power to the North!

Interesting thoughts Hect. I'd say it was the ice cold hand of Brussels(operating from the shadows)and thus giving the false impression its Westminster with the power that is responsible for many of the ludicrous ill thought out policies we've had ever since joining the Free Trade agreement we did under Heath.

[hectorp] 06/11/2013 13:03

Incidentally- the SE of England and UKIP would be happy enough to run everything from London which is a city state already with its Home Counties. But the north of England even from Nottingham or even north of Lincoln has much more in common nowadays with Scotland. You could even see it in the 70s and 80's ( all socialists etc).

Let them take the South of England and Scotland and the North of England should create their own northern federal alliance with the possibly independent Edinburgh and Glasgow.
It is lack of federalism that is the ice cold hand of Westminster in England. Mark my words sir! Lets see Assemblies in Manchester and possibly Newcastle. Power to the North!

[hectorp] 06/11/2013 12:58

Fangorn, I refer back to your previous post.. I think you have a good grasp of the matter of BAe / the contract / etc.

[hectorp] 06/11/2013 12:56

I don't believe ADVFN is as yet an English web site, so I will propose the following.
Incidentally, you do note that as Scots are currently also paying their share of public financing for their proportion of the carriers, they can saw off their eighth of it and retain it! lol .

However as that is impractical, assuming England retains all their carrier and indeed everything else such as aircraft and tanks if Scots vote Yes, Scotland won't have any of the current UK forces or the equipment
- but Scots have already PAID their proportion of it.
- Why should Salmond make Scots pay for a NEW defence force in Scotland? I would refuse! I think Scots should have their proportion of all today's army navy and air force. Of course, half the army ARE scots. England can't tough its boys up sufficiently to hold a camp bastion. You need Jock soldiers.
Lastly I happen to agree with your reasoning regarding the vote itself. It is simply crazy to leave the Union.
As a man with Borders connections, on the Northumbrian side in fact, though born in Edinburgh, lets not turn the clock back on Britain.
Aside - But if UKIP were to pull us out of the EU, all bets would be off for Scotland at that time. It would be back to another vote.

[fangorn2] 06/11/2013 12:54

Hectorp.

I still cant believe these major defence contracts are almost never delayed on time and within budget.Is it really down to the continual specs changing by the MOD or are contractors really that inefficient.

Looks like the so called Blair free ride (90%/10%) is over (now being 50%/50%) as you say but to what extent are those extra costs the result of constant specs changing(ie capabilities required / tech etc etc) rather than contractor tardiness?

I don't think the company has had a free ride personally. In fact the constant emphasis on slashing our Armed forces, cutting equipment procurement yet raising Foreign AID to £11.3 billion per year or 0.7% of GNI (and expected to rise)
(

If anything the Political bureaucrats are screwing over our own citizens as well as those British companies are the leading edge of technology by asking them to design a multi purpose piece of gear, which is, in most cases, impossible.You end up with an average piece of equipment that excels in no department.