Senior executives from big US defence contractors, including Lockheed Martin, Boeing and General Dynamics (GD), will be out in force at the Defence Systems & Equipment International show in London's Docklands this week.(11-14 September 2007)
But unlike the usual combination of glad-handing, schmoozing and tourism that characterises m! any international arms fairs, this time serious business is on the agenda.
The British government is in what it hopes are the the final stages of deciding the future shape of its £16bn Future Rapid Effect System (FRES) programme, an ambitious plan to overhaul the UK army's increasingly decrepit fleet of armoured vehicles, beginning in 2012.
Across its 40-year life, the 3,000-vehicle programme Britain's biggest ever land systems project could be worth as much as £60bn to contractors. When such serious sums are involved, even US companies, usually buffered by the Pentagon's vast equipment budgets, sit up and take notice.
'I don't think some people realise that this is massive,' says Iain Burgess, head of aerospace and defence at Ernst & Young in London. 'The impact of this programme will far outshadow that of the new aircraft carriers [ordered by the Ministry of Defence ! this year].'
The new carriers have la id the groundwork for the transformation of the British naval ship-building industry, through the merger of BAE Systems' and VT Group's yards in Portsmouth and Glasgow. The FRES programme could have an equally profound effect on the armoured vehicle business, Mr Burgess says.
As with the carriers, the future role of BAE, Britain's biggest arms manufacturer, on the armoured vehicle fleet, will be central to the FRES procurement debate in coming months.
BAE managed to establish dominance on the carrier project over Thales, its French rival, and saw off a challenge from KBR of the US. But this time it faces an arguably more serious threat from the big guns of the US industry.
The MoD has split the FRES industrial roles into four. First, it is seeking a 'system of systems' integrator (SOSI) to help provide the government with the expertise to run such a complex project and also det! ermine how the armoured vehicles will plug in electronically with other battlefield 'assets', such as command and control systems, fighter jets and unmanned aircraft.
Boeing, with its mixed experience of running the giant US Future Combat Systems programme, has teamed up with Thales to pursue this role, while Lockheed has joined with Ultra Electronics, a local UK supplier.
Alison Wood, BAE's strategy director, has argued that the company needs to play some part in the SOSI role to maintain its leadership in British armoured vehicles, and is thought to be considering an alliance with Italy's Finmeccanica and possibly GD.
The SOSI role has caused concern among interested companies because it remains unclear how wide the responsibilities run or the financial value of the contracts. Regardless, it will be fiercely contested because the winner would be in the box seat for any expan! ded role leading the entire development of the UK's battlefield commun ications effort.
Of even greater concern to BAE is the second role, the 'vehicle integrator'. This appears to be the most lucrative position on the project, and the one where BAE could wield most power. However, rivals for the role including GD, unless it teams with BAE, and possibly Lockheed argue BAE may not possess the right skills to bring together all of the advanced electronic architecture on the vehicle, the key responsibility of the vehicle integrator.
BAE rejects such claims and wheels out a familiar 'British jobs and skills' lobbying tactic, arguing that failure to secure the role could sound the eventual death knell for its UK armoured vehicle business, also responsible for maintaining the rest of the British land fleet.
The British manufacturer has already lost out on the third FRES role, the vehicle's 'design authority'. Its proposed vehicle failed to make a fi! nal cut, which will see the Dutch-German Boxer, an updated Piranha from GD and Nexter of France's VBCI face off in a so-called 'trial of truth'.
BAE is confident it could still win the fourth and final role on FRES, manufacturing the vehicle at its Newcastle plant under licence from the successful vehicle designer. This 'metal-bashing' role would, however, be little comfort if it lost out on the vehicle integration role.
This is what makes the keen interest of the Americans so critical. Faced with the possibility of a decline in the mammoth US defence budget towards the end of the decade, Lockheed, Boeing and GD are eager to expand internationally.
The UK is one of the most open markets in the world, despite BAE's dominance, but of even greater interest to US contractors is that an armoured vehicle built in Britain would have excellent access to export opportunities.
US companies looking to export are often hamst rung by the country's draconian technology transfer legislation. A British-built product would offer a neat solution and the potential to sell thousands more FRES vehicles around the world.
'As well as potentially opening up a lucrative part of the UK market, this a big reason why you have a lot of Americans queuing up to get involved,' Mr Burgess concludes. This week's show should be testament to that.