Five questions answered on the BAE Systems and Oman contract

BAE wins a deal.

British aerospace company BAE Systems has won a substantial fighter-jet contract with the Sultanate of Oman. We answer five questions on BAE’s Oman contract.

What is the contract for?

Europe’s largest defence contractor BAE Systems has signed a contract with the Sultanate of Oman to supply 12 Typhoon fighter jets and eight Hawk Advanced Jet Trainer aircraft, as well as in-service support. Manufacturing will begin in 2014 with delivery expected in 2017.

How much is the contract worth?

The contract is worth a staggering £2.5 billion.

What does this contract mean in the long term for BAE Systems?

Earlier in the year BAE Systems seemed to be struggling after it failed to close a merger deal with European defence company EADS. Other blows to the company include the US defense budget, where it derives 40 per cent of its earnings, being cut by $600bn (£369bn) and this week the news that it’s contract with Saudi Arabia  for 72 Typhoon fighters has been delayed because of disagreements over the final contract price.

This latest deal will provide a much needed boost to the company and help safeguard 6,000 high-technology and engineering jobs across sites at Warton and Samlesbury in Lancashire, and at Brough in East Yorkshire.

What has BAE Systems said about the deal?

BAE said in statement: "This contract is further recognition that both Typhoon and Hawk are leading aircraft in their class."

What are other people saying about the contract?

According to the BBC Prime Minister David Cameron welcomed the deal, saying:

"It's testament to Britain's leading aerospace industry and the deal will safeguard thousands of jobs across the UK, not just at the BAE Systems factories in Lancashire and East Riding in Yorkshire, but at many more small businesses up and down the country that play a vital role in delivering these aircraft.”

BAE Systems has won a substantial fighter-jet contract with the Sultanate of Oman. Photograph: Getty Images

Heidi Vella is a features writer for Nridigital.com

Getty
Show Hide image

The economics of outrage: Why you haven't seen the end of Katie Hopkins

Her distasteful tweet may have cost her a job at LBC, but this isn't the last we've seen of Britain's biggest troll. 

Another atrocity, other surge of grief and fear, and there like clockwork was the UK’s biggest troll. Hours after the explosion at the Manchester Arena that killed 22 mostly young and female concert goers, Katie Hopkins weighed in with a very on-brand tweet calling for a “final solution” to the complex issue of terrorism.

She quickly deleted it, replacing the offending phrase with the words “true solution”, but did not tone down the essentially fascist message. Few thought it had been an innocent mistake on the part of someone unaware of the historical connotations of those two words.  And no matter how many urged their fellow web users not to give Hopkins the attention she craved, it still sparked angry tweets, condemnatory news articles and even reports to the police.

Hopkins has lost her presenting job at LBC radio, but she is yet to lose her column at Mail Online, and it’s quite likely she won’t.

Mail Online and its print counterpart The Daily Mail have regularly shown they are prepared to go down the deliberately divisive path Hopkins was signposting. But even if the site's managing editor Martin Clarke was secretly a liberal sandal-wearer, there are also very good economic reasons for Mail Online to stick with her. The extreme and outrageous is great at gaining attention, and attention is what makes money for Mail Online.

It is ironic that Hopkins’s career was initially helped by TV’s attempts to provide balance. Producers could rely on her to provide a counterweight to even the most committed and rational bleeding-heart liberal.

As Patrick Smith, a former media specialist who is currently a senior reporter at BuzzFeed News points out: “It’s very difficult for producers who are legally bound to be balanced, they will sometimes literally have lawyers in the room.”

“That in a way is why some people who are skirting very close or beyond the bounds of taste and decency get on air.”

But while TV may have made Hopkins, it is online where her extreme views perform best.  As digital publishers have learned, the best way to get the shares, clicks and page views that make them money is to provoke an emotional response. And there are few things as good at provoking an emotional response as extreme and outrageous political views.

And in many ways it doesn’t matter whether that response is negative or positive. Those who complain about what Hopkins says are also the ones who draw attention to it – many will read what she writes in order to know exactly why they should hate her.

Of course using outrageous views as a sales tactic is not confined to the web – The Daily Mail prints columns by Sarah Vine for a reason - but the risks of pushing the boundaries of taste and decency are greater in a linear, analogue world. Cancelling a newspaper subscription or changing radio station is a simpler and often longer-lasting act than pledging to never click on a tempting link on Twitter or Facebook. LBC may have had far more to lose from sticking with Hopkins than Mail Online does, and much less to gain. Someone prepared to say what Hopkins says will not be out of work for long. 

0800 7318496