Editing BAE Systems (section)

===United Kingdom===
BAE Systems is the main supplier to the UK [[Ministry of Defence (United Kingdom)|MoD]]; in 2009/2010 BAE Systems companies in the list of Top 100 suppliers to the MoD received contracts totalling £3.98&nbsp;billion, with total revenue being higher when other subsidiary income is included.<ref>{{Cite news |title=MoD top 100 suppliers: How you each gave BAE Systems £64 last year |url=https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/dec/01/mod-top-suppliers-bae |work=The Guardian |location=London |date=1 December 2010 |first=SA |last=Mathieson |access-date=16 December 2010 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20110122091933/http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/dec/01/mod-top-suppliers-bae |archive-date= 22 January 2011 |url-status= live}}</ref> In comparison, the second largest supplier is [[Babcock International Group]] and its subsidiaries, with a revenue of £1.1&nbsp;billion from the MoD. Oxford Economic Forecasting states that in 2002 the company's UK businesses employed 111,578 people, achieved export sales of £3&nbsp;billion and paid £2.6&nbsp;billion in taxes. These figures exclude the contribution of Airbus UK.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.oxfordeconomics.com/Free/pdfs/BAEFinalReport.pdf |title= The economic contribution of BAE Systems to the UK and implications for defence procurement strategy |date= January 2004 |publisher= Oxford Economic Forecasting |page= 51 |access-date= 13 January 2007 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20070102121735/http://www.oxfordeconomics.com/Free/pdfs/BAEFinalReport.pdf |archive-date= 2 January 2007 |url-status= dead}}</ref>

After its creation, BAE Systems had a difficult relationship with the MoD. This was attributed to deficient project management by the company, but also in part to the deficiencies in the terms of "fixed price contracts". CEO [[Michael Turner (businessman)|Mike Turner]] said in 2006 "We had entered into contracts under the old competition rules that frankly we shouldn't have taken".<ref>{{Cite news |first=Angela |last=Jameson |title= BAE Systems chief reaps reward for years of fighting for revival |url= http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/engineering/article735302.ece |work= [[The Times]] |location= London |date= 27 February 2006 |access-date= 9 November 2006 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20110611171023/http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/engineering/article735302.ece |archive-date= 11 June 2011 |url-status= dead}}</ref> These competition rules were introduced by [[Peter Levene, Baron Levene of Portsoken|Lord Levene]] during the 1980s to shift the burden of risk to the contractor and were in contrast to "cost plus contracts" where a contractor was paid for the value of its product plus an agreed profit.<ref name="basic">{{cite web |url= http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Papers/BP50.pdf |title= The UK Defence Industrial Strategy and Alternative Approaches |access-date=9 November 2006 |author=Dr Steven Schofield |date=March 2006 |work=Basic Papers: Occasional Papers on International Security Policy |page= 5 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20061108211358/http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Papers/BP50.pdf |archive-date= 8 November 2006}}</ref>

BAE Systems was operating in "the only truly open defence market",<ref>{{Cite news |first=Graham |last=Warwick |title= Best of British; For years BAE Systems' identity was British, but with its investment in foreign markets increasing, change is just around the corner |work=Flight International |publisher=Reed Elsevier Inc. |page= 48 |date= 6 June 2004}}</ref> which meant it was competing with US and European companies for British defence projects, while they were protected in their home markets. The US defence market is competitive; however, largely between American firms, while foreign companies are excluded. In December 2005 the MoD published the Defence Industrial Strategy (DIS) which has been widely acknowledged to recognise BAE Systems as the UK's "national champion".<ref name="econdis">{{Cite news |title= BAE Systems: Changing places |url= http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8091318 |newspaper=The Economist |publisher=The Economist Newspaper |date= 26 October 2006 |access-date=9 November 2006 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20061115211145/http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8091318 |archive-date= 15 November 2006 |url-status= live}}</ref> The government claimed the DIS would "promote a sustainable industrial base, that retains in the UK those industrial capabilities needed to ensure national security."<ref>{{cite web |url=https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/272203/6697.pdf |title=Defence Industrial Strategy |author=<!--Not stated--> |date=December 2005 |website= assets.publishing.service.gov.uk|publisher=Ministry of Defence |access-date=2021-02-26 |quote=}}</ref>

After the publication of the DIS BAE Systems CEO Mike Turner said "If we didn't have the DIS and our profitability and the terms of trade had stayed as they were... then there had to be a question mark about our future in the UK".<ref>{{Cite news|first=Douglas |last=Barrie |title=British Defense Industrial Strategy Secures BAE Systems as UK. Champion |url=http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/12195p1.xml |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120404114426/http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news%2F12195p1.xml |archive-date=4 April 2012 |work=Aviation Week & Space Technology |publisher=The McGraw-Hill Companies |date=7 December 2005 |access-date=9 November 2006 |url-status=dead}}</ref> Lord Levene said in the balance between value for money or maintaining a viable industrial base the DIS "tries as well as it can to steer a middle course and to achieve as much as it can in both directions. ...We will never have a perfect solution."<ref>{{Cite journal |date= Summer 2006 |title= New Deal for UK Industry |journal=Interavia |issue= 684 |pages= 10–17 |issn= 1423-3215}}</ref>