I think you're jumping on this a bit hard.
Apologies if I appear that way, I'd mis-read the comment below...
"
Any sale will require UK export licenses. I think licenses were obtained for Malaysia, which considered buying them, but decided against it."
I'd read it that the Malaysian's "had obtained the licenses", which they had previously had to do for their own vessels. Since then there have been several other changes in the laws in Europe & across the world regarding the exports of weapons.
Would BVT have bothered writing in the sort of contract restriction discussed here?
The ships are unsaleable except at a discount, so any sale would necessarily undercut a comparable new BVT bid, so it'd be rather too close to a "no resale" clause. But more important, it's unlikely anybody would want to buy them without being able to get BVT support, so BVT has an effective veto on their sale without such a clause, & in any case, anyone interested in already rather dated-looking discount ships would probably not be in the market for comparable current vessels.
BVT would probably profit from getting them into the hands of someone - anyone - who'd buy support, rather than letting them rust.
As I've said before, large companies write large, complicated contracts, so that if something does go outside the "rules" of the contract, they've got their backsides covered.
After all, have you looked a standard insurance policy for your own home? The amount of legalese & gobbldy-gook that's in them make it almost impossible for the lay-man to understand or actually claim on it, without specific clauses being met. Contracts for multi-million pound defence projects are just as bad, if not worse.
Yes, I suppose BVT might have the ability to reject the sale contract without such a clause, but again, knowing how some of these big companies work, it's a given that it's been written in.
Additionally, contracts like those for a warship take time to negotiate & thrash out (usually years), so by the time an end-user has decided to down-select a particular supplier, they've been through that much, such as the govt assigning the cash from the budget, etc, it's doubtful that they would reject a contract, just to go after 3 ships that are being sold by a 3rd party.(especially as once you signed Letters Of Intent (LOI's), you pretty much have to pay the price for the ships to get out of the contract).
As the Nakhoda's stand, yes they are now nearly 5 years old, but other than a quick maintenance check, possibly a hull wash & paint, they're good to go(as long as you're prepared to accept the BVT baggage / support contracts that would have to go along with it !). Technologically I wouldn't call them "dated",they are light years ahead of most comparable sized ships that were built pre 1995 & would be capable enough to hold their own. They've done little other than their proving trials with the shipbuilder, so are no worse than say a demonstrator car from your local car dealership !
I'd even go as far to say that if the RN had the cash, they'd snap them up !
SA
