well he works for BAe aint that proof? :D mind you i just bought a new scanner and i dont fancy forcing his face through it

Well I have found a single source that maintains the original development program received UK Govt funding from 1971 until release to service for the MM38 version, would be suprised if it went beyond that period as the Govt were funding the Sea Eagle program for the air launched requirement and never purchased AM39. UK funded would indeed make excocet an Anglo-French project then. I would like to see a print source though so I will have a look at the library.

The MBDA the makers of the Exocet are partly owned by BAe (37.5%). IIRC MBDA stands for "Matra BAE Dynamics Alenia". So it is possable that BAe does make parts of the Exocet.

http://www.finmec.com/Press.asp?prid=77

if BAe owns a share in the company this case MBDA it means they part own everything thats made, when you buy a share in a company anything they produce you own a certain percentage of

OK...found this on the web...thought it was hilarious

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=592

HMS Daring: First Type 45, first iPod enabled warship!

RMS ?????? our ships are called HMS

Phhhhft... So... the Ohio SSBNs have a built in system that every man can access from his bunk... :roll:

You don't have a monopoly on spelling mistakes mate ;)

With regard to the choice of weapon to sink the belgrano,I believe that it was influenced by the fact that Tigerfish was at the time an ASW weapon and hence unsuitable against a hard skinned surface asset.On the video by National Geographic looking for the wreck there is a clip of an interview with the weapon p.o. who said that he never got a tigerfish to detonate when fired on the range.Trusty MK8 did the job they were designed for against a similiar vintage vessel

yes it is true tigerfish has alot of problems back then, so yes they did use the MK8 and i have seen a MK8 torpedo in real life one of them is on board the oberon submarine Ocelot in chatham