View Full Version : defence jobs to go
Looks like not only Lossiemouth and Kinloss likely to close but also Vulcan if the Trident programme is run down. According to the BBC that's the equivelant cost to NE Scotland as 700,000 jobs going in London.
Still- no more noisy jets over Caithness, and house prices in the county should make it really affordable?
Looks like not only Lossiemouth and Kinloss likely to close but also Vulcan if the Trident programme is run down. According to the BBC that's the equivelant cost to NE Scotland as 700,000 jobs going in London.
Still- no more noisy jets over Caithness, and house prices in the county should make it really affordable?
Is this a fact?
watch the BBC news
Lossie and Kinloss fly nimrods( not being replaced) and tornados (being mohtballed) and there is no committment to put Typhoon aircraft in. Trident isn't seen as a priority-and of course taking defence jobs out of SNP ruled Scotland tells you exactly how Mr O thinks.
remember I was right about some of his other cuts (one of his mates in the Tory party is a friend of my husband)- this one is inevitable
sorry Caithness- but might be worth making a fuss about this to John Thurso and Jamie Stone
Scarybiscuits03
18-Oct-10, 18:39
watch the BBC news
Lossie and Kinloss fly nimrods( not being replaced) and tornados (being mohtballed) and there is no committment to put Typhoon aircraft in. Trident isn't seen as a priority-and of course taking defence jobs out of SNP ruled Scotland tells you exactly how Mr O thinks.
remember I was right about some of his other cuts (one of his mates in the Tory party is a friend of my husband)- this one is inevitable
sorry Caithness- but might be worth making a fuss about this to John Thurso and Jamie Stone
I can't see them getting rid of Trident
neilsermk1
18-Oct-10, 20:54
I thought it was the replacement for Trident they were on about. I should think Vulcan is safe, they still need to train crews for existing boats
it appears to be the north east of Scotland that is at risk of losing jobs. With Dounreay decommissioning, and nothing as yet in its place, how will this affect the north if Vulcan is also to call time?
I see Ark Royal is to go...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11570593
Scarybiscuits03
18-Oct-10, 22:29
yeh but there are 2 new aircraft carriers to replace it aren't there???
watch the BBC news
Lossie and Kinloss fly nimrods( not being replaced) and tornados (being mohtballed) and there is no committment to put Typhoon aircraft in. Trident isn't seen as a priority-and of course taking defence jobs out of SNP ruled Scotland tells you exactly how Mr O thinks.
remember I was right about some of his other cuts (one of his mates in the Tory party is a friend of my husband)- this one is inevitable
sorry Caithness- but might be worth making a fuss about this to John Thurso and Jamie Stone
Ahh; this one: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-11565829
Faslane is secure, as is Rosyth and Leuchars- but no promises over Vulcan, and decisions already taken to mothball Lossiemouth and stick squaddies into Kinloss.
So if Vulcan was to shut and the unit be used for training the Marines?
Tubthumper
18-Oct-10, 22:48
I see Ark Royal is to go...
But we can remain a key member of NATO and a robust ally of the USA, with our Frigate and both of our carriers, even if they don't have anything to carry. And a Trident has only 3 prongs, so getting rid of one boomer will at least mean the fleet name's accurate. That said, with no other viable forces we'll hardly be a threat to anyone, so why bother with them at all?
So they've worked out the defence strategy based on our actual standing in the world today and for the foreseeable future. I pity our Army Platoon, they might be a bit busy soon.
Virtual forces to deal with cyber-threats? Aye, right enough.
I know that I sound a bit paranoid about Mr Osborne- but what if he were to make just such a decision in the interest of paying back the national deficit? Husband says he's met him in the company of Peter Mandelson- who is oddly enough Osborne's holiday chum......
He says he is a bit too single minded - but Tesco and M&S love him- and think he needs to go much much further.
So how about bringing those poor boys back from Afghanistan and sending unarmed national service 'volunteers'- ie school leavers to go and do voluntary work- ie clean hospitals; dig ditches and cook school dinners in an attempt to win hearts and minds? Sponsorship by big business; and hey presto no child benefit, or Education bursaries or unemployment benefit to hand out.
Remember what happened to that young female aid worker? Was Dave really apologetic enough there?
This review makes no odds to Vulcan, regardless of Trident.
As has been publicised in the press, a possible extension to the current contract was decided against, leaving a 13 year plan that began in 2001.
Vulcan is on land leased from Dounreay, and is in the plan to be decommisioned with the rest of the site.
Even if Trident is replaced, and even if it replaced by a new submarine launched platform, Vulcan won't be playing a future part.
Don't worry about defence, the water has already been tested. Instead of Nimrods we've got the coastguard.
Scrap all the tonkas, they only go and take piccies of the Russians anyhow. As they were this morning, chasing each other round above Caithness.
Once we've scrapped everything and laid off all the ground troops, once they've secured America's oil that is, we'll be easy pickings for Russia.
Two new boats!! They are already changing the spec' on them so there is no chance of either being on time or any where near budget. So once they've scuppered the Ark Royal on Wednesday the most potent sea borne defence we'll have will probably be the John O'Groats ferry .
I see the latest smoke and mirrors is to distract us with the fear of cyber crime.
Scarybiscuits03
19-Oct-10, 00:42
This is the govt!....have u ever believed a word they told u?......really?
Interesting to see the Tornado's that a soon to be scrapped are off out again on QRA, this time over the North Sea.
Maybe it is true: Daily Mail Cobblers (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1321713/Defence-cuts-HMS-Ark-Royal-scrapped-Trident-delayed--Cameron-wields-axe.html)
Scuppered:
http://i805.photobucket.com/albums/yy337/Phill_Rawlins/itsalljustrandom/arkroyal2.jpg
HMS Ark Royal in the Moray Firth earlier this year.
John Little
19-Oct-10, 11:55
yeh but there are 2 new aircraft carriers to replace it aren't there???
Errrrr - sort of. They are going to build one - but have no planes on it - helicopters. The French can put their planes on it apparently.
Then when the second one is built, which will have planes on it, they will mothball the first.
neilsermk1
19-Oct-10, 12:50
well I guess we got the government we deserved. Maybe Mr.Brown and his team weren't so bad after all.
well I guess we got the government we deserved. Maybe Mr.Brown and his team weren't so bad after all.
In 2001 Britain debt was 37% of GDP. Now it's 68.1%.
Thats over £950 000 000 000.
Mr Brown, and previous governments have been spending money they didn't have.
They've been no different than all those people with half a dozen credit cards, taking loans to pay off loans and living outwith their means.
Cuts have to be made somewhere, and whether I agree or not with WHERE to make them, I actually applaud the tories for standing up and starting to make them.
the plan is to build the aircraft carriers, then sell them abroad.
the subtext is to divorce us from getting involved in US wars overseas- if we don't have the military capability, we can't help out
All you people whinging now, were the same ones crying out for the schools and NHS to be protected. You should start a club. The which bit of not having enough money do you not understand club.
Or the I want my cake and eat it club. :lol:
Which is a fine idea until the Argies pitch their flag in Port Stanley and all we can send is a couple of commandeered trawlers and write a strongly worded letter.
okay- do you really need schools and hospitals in Caithness?
Give you a for instance. think about how many old people there will soon be in the county- folk who are near retirement now and might no be bale to afford to up sticks and move south. if palliative wards and home care is cut, how many will eb able to afford to go and see their partners if the nearest hospital was Inverness? That's the reason for wanting to support health and education- they keep communities going. Personally one might not give a stuff for no longer having armed forces- it isn't 1939 any more- the enemy has shifted. I'd much sooner no poor youths got sent to their deaths in Afghanistan. If Mr O has his way and the cuts continue that will be the case. However, think in terms of the future of the north of Scotland? That is after all what this website is supposed to be about
It's all very well the need to cut the deficit but sacking thousands of people isn't really the most dynamic of moves. Things like Kinloss going has an impact on the economy directly and indirectly.
If there are less people in the area there is less money in the Highland economy then things will be centralised to further save costs. i.e one big hospital at Inverness and close Caithness General, put on a bus to ferry everyone down & up.
If we can scupper the Ark Royal this afternoon then surely we can tell the septics that they can sort out Afghanistan on their own and get our troops home by the weekend. That'll save a few bob.
We own a couple of banks now that seem miraculously profitable again, lets strip every penny out of them, they obviously don't need our money anymore if they are earning bonuses.
EDIT: Ooops, forgot foreign aid. WTF! Why are we giving countries 'aid' that they then use to buy weapons or develop nuclear weapons systems. Lets stop handing out cash to the likes of Pakistan & India etc. and get our own house in order.
It's not 1939 but for the second day running UK fighters have been defending our airspace from Russian bombers.
What a good craic it'd be for the Russians to turn up in the north of Scotland in a couple of years with a landing party, just to stick 2 fingers up at the yanks.
It's all very well the need to cut the deficit but sacking thousands of people isn't really the most dynamic of moves. Things like Kinloss going has an impact on the economy directly and indirectly.
If there are less people in the area there is less money in the Highland economy then things will be centralised to further save costs. i.e one big hospital at Inverness and close Caithness General, put on a bus to ferry everyone down & up.
If we can scupper the Ark Royal this afternoon then surely we can tell the sepitcs that they can sort out Afghanistan on their own and get our troops home by the weekend. That'll save a few bob.
We own a couple of banks now that seem miraculously profitable again, lets strip every penny out of them, they obviously don't need our money anymore if they are earning bonuses.
It's not 1939 but for the second day running UK fighters have been defending our airspace from Russian bombers.
What a good craic it'd be for the Russians to turn up in the north of Scotland in a couple of years with a landing party, just to stick 2 fingers up at the yanks.
Ooh where to start?
Why would Russia want to invade us? They have more of everything than we do.
Do we still need to intercept geriatric Russian bombers with geriatric Tornados?
Why the hell did we buy Typhoon? It's obsolete; according to an interview with a ‘mercin general I saw recently (Discussing the F22) "from now on there are only 2 types of fighter jet, stealthy and targets".
Seems to me that the Joint Strike Aircraft would meet all our needs; for the new carriers, land based strike aircraft and airborne interceptor.
I don't understand what the new generation Nimrod is for at all.
Park a Trident Sub in the River Plate and I think the Argies would shut their gobs, pronto.
Ark Royal has spent a good part of the last 6 months in Portsmouth or the Moray Firth so that tells me how much use it is.
And finally, buy tried and tested equipment abroad, half the overspends we have now on procurement are due to the need to constantly 're-invent the wheel'. Our defence industry has been so inefficient it borders on criminal IMHO
:mad:
And finally, buy tried and tested equipment abroad, half the overspends we have now on procurement are due to the need to constantly 're-invent the wheel'. Our defence industry has been so inefficient it borders on criminal IMHO
I like it.
Have you read "Lions Donkeys and Dinosaurs, Waste and Blundering in the Military" by Lewis Page?
BBC LIVE
Mr Cameron says the government is not announcing base closures, adding that they can be used for other purposes, particularly with UK troops returning from Germany.
DeHaviLand
19-Oct-10, 16:24
the plan is to build the aircraft carriers, then sell them abroad.
the subtext is to divorce us from getting involved in US wars overseas- if we don't have the military capability, we can't help out
What complete rubbish. The plan is to continue with the building of the 2 new aircraft carriers. Ark Royal will be de-commissioned, and if possible, sold abroad.
DeHaviLand
19-Oct-10, 16:29
BBC LIVE
Mr Cameron says the government is not announcing base closures, adding that they can be used for other purposes, particularly with UK troops returning from Germany.
Aye, it looks as if Kinloss will no longer function as an RAF base, but it may have a role to play as a base for Scottish troops returning from Germany.
Tubthumper
19-Oct-10, 18:11
Slightly off-topic, but has anyone heard what forces cuts the US Government is making?
John Little
19-Oct-10, 18:13
No surprises really. Tories always cut defence...as history demonstrates very well.
From a purely selfish viewpoint, my job should be safe until Ive paid the mortgage off. Touch wood..
Why would Russia want to invade us? They have more of everything than we do.Just for a giggle, test the strength of our 'special' relationship.
And finally, buy tried and tested equipment abroad, half the overspends we have now on procurement are due to the need to constantly 're-invent the wheel'. Our defence industry has been so inefficient it borders on criminal IMHO Yup, criminal it is. That is what happens when the civil service get involved in procurement.
Civil / public service are utterly incompetent when it comes to getting value for money and buying the right kit.
Keep the UK industries going, buy British, just tell them what is required and when. It needs a body of commercial business people to oversee government spending and not let BAE and the likes fanny around by taking the civil service out on junkets to get bizarre contracts awarded.
Two new boats that won't be in service for years and when one is it won't have kit to fly off it and when the other one turns up it'll only be good for Entendards (useful for the Argies though).
All the while we're still pratting about with the front line who have effectively been told that if they make it home they'll get the sack.
The Drunken Duck
19-Oct-10, 20:21
I was pointed toward the thread and had to giggle at most of Ducatis posted assertions but the one that the F/A-22 is some kind of super jet did make me laugh out loud. Really ??, check out the pic below.
http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/9273/f18fgunf2202.jpg (http://img233.imageshack.us/i/f18fgunf2202.jpg/)
This is a HUD shot from a US Navy F/A-18 Hornet getting a guns Kill on a F/A-22. The F/A-18 is down at 179kts in a right hand descending turn with his nose about 20 degrees below the horizon and only pulling 1.7G. This Hornet driver is hardly hauling his nose round to make the shot. Stealth is worth sod all in this situation, the MK 1 eyeball is stealth proof.
Oh, and Lewis Page's book is the biggest load of crap I have ever read. I wouldnt wipe my backside with it. The man is a laughing stock in militairy circles. I saw him talk about the Nimrod once and he had to be corrected on basic facts about the jet. What a dullard.
Hi Duck, good to hear from you.
I thought the point of stealth was first look first kill. Not very often an F22 would find itself in that position, surely? The F18 would have had to survive a long range attack it didn't know was coming. :eek:
The Trident subs need the Nimrods working alongside to provide radar cover- scrapping them give a clue that those subs are next
The Trident subs need the Nimrods working alongside to provide radar cover- scrapping them give a clue that those subs are next
Since when do Nimrods provide radar cover for nuclear submarines??
Nimrods are offensive not defensive, they hunt submarines.
The Drunken Duck
19-Oct-10, 23:19
Hi Duck, good to hear from you.
I thought the point of stealth was first look first kill. Not very often an F22 would find itself in that position, surely? The F18 would have had to survive a long range attack it didn't know was coming. :eek:
All depends mate, if the beyond visual range option goes breasts up and the pilots get to the merge its anyones fight. The F/A-22 is built to get the first kill in before anyone knowing that its there, and it is an awesome system in that respect. Its done really well in "mock" dogfights but the US Air Force are very good at setting scenarios up to advantage themselves. Did a Red Flag once and some of the "no shoot" parameters were laughable. Anyway, for the F/A-22 to see its targets it has to emit something, and that makes it detectable electronically. The F/A-22 's advantage lies in being able to get closer without being detected, that it will be detected is no doubt. Its just betting that you will have a missile in your face by the time you do. And missiles arent stealthy, once you launch one it leaves a nice trail from you on the way to the target, thats as good as saying "come and shoot me". Stealth advatange is highly debatable, the US Air Force went all out for it on the F/A-22, the US Navy ignored it and went for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet with none and we took a bit of a middle ground with the Typhoon. Everyone thought the F-117 Nighthawk was invincible after its showing in Desert Storm but the Serbs downed one over Bosnia by reading its tactics. I still have the "Sorry, We Didnt Know You Were Invisible" sticker somewhere.
Technology has advanced since the F/A-22 was designed, radars are better and datalinks from AWACS can allow much inferior aircraft to counter it by improving their "big picture", namely they can all see what the AWACS can see and dont need to use their own radars. This makes them less detectable and therfore less vulnerable to the F/A-22. Throw in much improved jamming and passive systems and the F/A-22 isnt getting things its own way. Plus it is only going to be procurred in very small numbers which will limit its total effectiveness.
Plus never count out the most important factor in any jet, the guy flying it. A well flown and operated F/A-18 or Typhoon say is always going to get the drop on a bonehead, even in an F/A-22. The Hornet driver in that pic suckered the F/A-22 into his chosen arena, slow speed. The Hornet is renowned for good stability in nose high and slow speed scenarios, he (or she) just fought their jet to its advantages. And the F/A-22 jockey fell for it.
The Trident subs need the Nimrods working alongside to provide radar cover- scrapping them give a clue that those subs are next
?
If thats the case what providing cover for the next 5 years?
Virtually undetectable subs aren't so if the have a plane whizzing round above, and I doubt they need radar to go nuclear.
Trident may be reigned in and the subs are already earmarked for extended service. We ain't going to give up nuclear anytime soon.....I hope :eek:
Cancelling the Trident renewal would save £100 billion of taxpayers money, confirm the UK's position on the nuclear weapon proliferation treaty, build better relations with its neighbours, make an action louder than words on global peace.
Yet the tories would prefer to cut funding to NHS etc. Pathetic.
Cancelling the Trident renewal would save £100 billion of taxpayers money, confirm the UK's position on the nuclear weapon proliferation treaty, build better relations with its neighbours, make an action louder than words on global peace.
Yet the tories would prefer to cut funding to NHS etc. Pathetic.
What other major party would scrap Trident or its replacement?
The Drunken Duck
19-Oct-10, 23:34
Since when do Nimrods provide radar cover for nuclear submarines??
Nimrods are offensive not defensive, they hunt submarines.
Nimrods were used to clear the initial departure routes for our Missile Subs, they would sanatise the area, ensuring it was clear and thus allowing the sub to get out of Faslane and dive undetected en route to its patrol area. Within weeks of the Nimrods being retired Russian Subs were parked outside Faslane waiting for the next one to pop out on Patrol. With no Nimrods coming on stream I would guess that Akula's are going to be parked outside Faslane like sailors round a brothel. And we can do sod all about it.
The Nimrods did a lot more than hunt subs Golach, pity most of it cant be talked about. Some cracking stories to be told eventually I hope. The Loral pods on the wingtips are a passive system used to snoop on electronic emissions and gather data on them. And the aircraft was used to good effect in Afghanistan for elctronic intelligence gathering.
Sad atmosphere at Kinloss tonight, a whole skill base has been binned overnight and we cant get that back quickly once its gone. The infrastructure is there for the Nimrod MRA4, three jets are, or were, ready for delivery and the only saving being made is their operating costs. What a waste. A maritime island nation without a maritime patrol aircraft is ridiculous.
Still never mind. India is building its own carriers and it WILL have jets to use on them, they also have a space program and a Nuclear weapons program .. and £800,000,000 from us every year to help with their poverty becuase they are so poor. Go figure. Wonder how those getting made redundant at Kinloss feel about that.
EDIT .. Seems those at Kinloss have kept their sense of humour .. http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=190458541958&afsrc=1
India is building its own carriers and it WILL have jets to use on them, they also have a space program and a Nuclear weapons program .. and £800,000,000 from us every year to help with their poverty becuase they are so poor.
That is an eye opener indeed. Whilst I agree in principle to cost cutting at home, I definately think foreign aid should be cut first.
John Little
20-Oct-10, 07:06
"a whole skill base has been binned overnight and we cant get that back quickly once its gone..."
That will have quite an impact.
I can think of another place where that sort of thing happened some years ago.... doesn't have a good effect on the long-term economy of the area I fear.
Short sighted cuts based on saving a few quid out of one budget today.
Cancelling aeroplanes ready for delivery and then buying even older ones from abroad.:confused
Just a quick question to the experts. Why Nimrod anyway, the latest airframe must be 50 years old. Wouldn't it be more cost effective to buy a bunch of old airbuses or 737s and fit all the anti sub and spy stuff?
BTW I used to live near Woodford where the early generation Nimrods were converted and I was asking that question then. Maybe thirty years ago. :eek:
They were massively overbudget and late
"a whole skill base has been binned overnight and we cant get that back quickly once its gone..."
That will have quite an impact.
I can think of another place where that sort of thing happened some years ago.... doesn't have a good effect on the long-term economy of the area I fear.
Dont mean here John do you? 1992 to 1994? workforce slashed from 12,000 to 3,000, hardly a mention on the news or in the press though.
"a whole skill base has been binned overnight and we cant get that back quickly once its gone...".
Same happened here in the 90s. True the pool of skilled labour goes but they just recruit contractors
John Little
20-Oct-10, 20:49
I was thinking of Dounreay- one of the finest and most innovative places on earth with a staff second to none, who led the world in what they did.
Just a quick question to the experts. Why Nimrod anyway, the latest airframe must be 50 years old. Wouldn't it be more cost effective to buy a bunch of old airbuses or 737s and fit all the anti sub and spy stuff?
BTW I used to live near Woodford where the early generation Nimrods were converted and I was asking that question then. Maybe thirty years ago. :eek:
They were massively overbudget and late
We've paid for them, tested them and they are ready for delivery. The kit is top class and highly capable. All were saving is operating costs.
Remember these machines were to provide SAR cover as well as ISTAR & ELINT capabilities. SAR cover is currently, and looks like for the foreseeable future, covered by a coastguard Cessna.
The airframe has been 'relifed' and is largely all new design/manufacture. In comparison to a 737: "In comparison to the proposed Boeing 737-700 MMA, the Nimrod MRA4 will have much longer range, endurance, weapons load and additional capabilities and not forgetting twice the number engines. There is no doubt that the MRA4 is a very complex aircraft – it will carry around 5.4 million lines of computer code, making it around 3 times as complex as the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber."
Procurement is an institutionalised screwup in the UK, that is one of the things that needs a strategic review across defence, health, education etc. etc. More commercial nouse is required across the board.
Nimrods were also used to co-ordinate search and rescue missions like the Air India crash back in 1991- they work alongside the helicopters- when I'm in Wick I often hear them flying over- esp when there's been a boat lost at sea
Nimrods were also used to co-ordinate search and rescue missions like the Air India crash back in 1991- they work alongside the helicopters- when I'm in Wick I often hear them flying over- esp when there's been a boat lost at sea
You haven't heard 'em for a long while now and never again by the looks of things.
One of the points I made, no SAR top cover. No Maritime capability.
This could save Kinloss:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=190458901355&ru=http%3A%2F%2Fshop.ebay.co.uk%3A80%2F%3F_from%3D R40%26_trksid%3Dp3907.m570.l1313%26_nkw%3D19045890 1355%2B%26_sacat%3DSee-All-Categories%26_fvi%3D1&_rdc=1
That is an eye opener indeed. Whilst I agree in principle to cost cutting at home, I definately think foreign aid should be cut first.
I think it should be stopped.
Tubthumper
23-Oct-10, 10:05
Same happened here in the 90s. True the pool of skilled labour goes but they just recruit contractors
Problem is, over time the whole national skills pool drops away. Where do the contractors gain the skills and knowledge? And who designs the stuff?
Sooner or later we'll be buying all our military kit from India or China!
Kinloss is currently playing host to a squadron of US & Canadian aircraft desperately searching for a Russian sub, last seen off the coast of Wick. Well in the North Sea anyhow.
Daily Record gubbins (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/2010/10/22/with-nimrod-fleet-grounded-britain-has-to-call-in-americans-to-hunt-for-russian-sub-missing-in-atlantic-86908-22650066/)
Now if we had our own fleet of maritime reconnaissance aircraft we wouldn't have to pay other nations to do a half arsed job of looking for it.
Kinloss is currently playing host to a squadron of US & Canadian aircraft desperately searching for a Russian sub, last seen off the coast of Wick. Well in the North Sea anyhow.
Daily Record gubbins (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/2010/10/22/with-nimrod-fleet-grounded-britain-has-to-call-in-americans-to-hunt-for-russian-sub-missing-in-atlantic-86908-22650066/)
Now if we had our own fleet of maritime reconnaissance aircraft we wouldn't have to pay other nations to do a half arsed job of looking for it.
Who's lost it? :eek:
At least you can find ours [lol]
Yeah, at least we do the decent thing and leave them on sandbanks here and there to give everyone a a fair shot.
It's just not cricket this clandestine hide and seek is it.
Encouragingly there is a lot of synergy between the work in the defence industry (eg making turbines and plate steel manufacture) and the work involved in building a greener society. Unfortunately the established defence contractors seem to fail big time in branching out into those markets.
Encouragingly there is a lot of synergy between the work in the defence industry (eg making turbines and plate steel manufacture) and the work involved in building a greener society. Unfortunately the established defence contractors seem to fail big time in branching out into those markets.
That's because they would have to make stuff that works and comes in on budget and on time. :roll:
(eg making turbines and plate steel manufacture) and the work involved in building a greener society. And nuclear power plants!
That's because they would have to make stuff that works and comes in on budget and on time. :roll: Now, now. Lets be fair..........no actually your right, carry on.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.