Navy carriers '£1bn over budget'

Originally posted by Ulala
It's quite unbelievable that one project can see its costs rise by 25% in only a year.

£5 billion ? That's over USD$8 billion. Can't help thinking the RN would be better served by 3 Wasp class ships with any money left over being used to increase the numbers of Type 45's. That'd make for a better balanced fleet too.

Part of the battle is the carriers are supposed to be safeguarding the jobs of the shakey shipbuilding industry in the UK.
Glasgow, Portsmouth and to a lesser extent the NW region (Barrow-in-furness?) where dancing in the streets that there would be jobs galore upon such a project being announced, years of work and so on.

reply to post by WatchRider


They, the shipbuilders will not be dancing in the street if either teh carriers order is shealved. Or they are complete then a few of those shipyards are shut down. Which the defence dept has in the pipeline. Either way it does look rather bad for the UK Shipbuilding industry.

As to the commentor asking if I did not know about public spending in the UK. Yes off course I know. Is why I am questioning why spend huge amounts of money on a cold war weapon, when do do not need nor can we afford it. Either way the defence budget is going to be cut like most public services in the UK. Whcih will mean less resources for our armed forces. Like they are not already underresourced as it is.

It is going to come to a point where the UK as a whole is going to have to decide weither or not we can send our troops here, there and everywhere. We as a country just do not have the capacaty nowadays to continue sending troops to conflict areas.



[edit on 1-7-2009 by Laurauk]

I wonder how much chance these new carriers have got at being sunk via a diesal attack sub?

Awful lot of money to be blown, not to mention loss of life.

I know the chances are slim considering we are not at war with anyone, but how good are the british defences against submarines?

[edit on 7/1/2009 by Nelly-UK]

Originally posted by Nelly-UK
I wonder how much chance these new carriers have got at being sunk via a diesal attack sub?

Awful lot of money to be blown, not to mention loss of life.

I know the chances are slim considering we are not at war with anyone, but how good are the british defences against submarines?

[edit on 7/1/2009 by Nelly-UK]

So-so I'd estimate, but don't forget a carrier would not be sailing without it's own escort of destroyers, heli's and attack submarines in tow.

The last time the RN rolled out properly was the Falklands War and HMS conquerer was on escort duty then, sinking the Belgrano which was, AFAIK preparing to launch an attack on the carrier fleet (albeit it was just outside the exclusion zone).

Originally posted by Nelly-UK
I wonder how much chance these new carriers have got at being sunk via a diesal attack sub?

Awful lot of money to be blown, not to mention loss of life.

I know the chances are slim considering we are not at war with anyone, but how good are the british defences against submarines?

The Royal Navy has advanced anti submarine warfare (ASW) capabilities. Duing the Cold War the RN was tasked with ASW duties and had the Cold War gone "hot" then their main role would have been sinking Soviet subs.

I believe the Type 23 frigates are highly capable ASW ships.

Everyone talks about "cold war weapons"... The 1998 Strategic Defence Review in the UK recognised that the RN had to change to conform to a post Cold War world. The result was the re-introduction of large carriers to the fleet in order to "project power" with the need for the RN to change from a two dimensional "versus the Soviets" navy to something more capable of contending with a range of threats and circumstances.

I for one think that the UK require this capability. If you remove the fleet, then you remove the ability to respond to events which will have a detrimental effect on the UK. You also remove the ability to assist allies and friends. The Falklands was unexpected and if it was not for the RN I wonder what state Sierra Leone would be in. The RN has played an active role in Iraq One and Two and in Afghanistan and a host of other (often unreported) activities.

Plus, like it or not the UK is a major international power both economically, socially and culturally. The billions given to the banks shows the UK can afford to fund a worthwhile Royal Navy.

Reports from "left leaning think tanks" should be taken in the context they are written and the initial questions posed.

A replacement for Trident is a different matter. The arguements with that one go further than "deterrent". It is all politics. To some extent, the twnty billion over 30 years is the price the UK will pay for a seat at the top table of the UN.

Regards

The Princess Royal will cut the first steel for Britain's biggest new warship to mark the start of construction work.

She will perform the "steel cut" on the main hull of the HMS Queen Elizabeth at the BVT shipyard in Govan.

The work secures thousands of jobs on the Clyde, though there are doubts about the yards' future when these ships are finished.

There we go, the first cutting for the Building of the UK's Biggest ever Aircraft carriers will get under way today.

BBC Scotland

reply to post by Laurauk



Was still a lot of speculation on breakfast TV this morning that at least one will be canceled? in my opinion we really need at least three of these ships so one would be practically useless.

reply to post by solidshot


Omg no 2 maybe, butnot 3, that is pushing it a little.

Even if we get one built, if we can afford the other one, can we not refit maybe 2 off the Invincicble carriers, or will they be defunct .

Actually I can see after thenext general election, If the Tories are elected into office, they might cancel the building off the Prince Of wales.

Another thing, why call the carriers the Queen Elizabeth or the Prince of Wales, why cant we call them say HMS England or HMS Scotland LOL

I will add this onto my comment:

It deals with the defence review which is tken place:

A "root and branch" review of Britain's defence policy is to be announced later by the government.

Ministers are expected to promise an interim "Green Paper" setting out their thinking around the turn of the year.

This will come before a more substantive Strategic Defence Review after the next general election when key decisions will be made.

Government sources said the initial review would not consider making cuts to the £36bn defence budget.

BBC Source





[edit on 7-7-2009 by Laurauk]

[edit on 7-7-2009 by Laurauk]

reply to post by Ulala
I agree in principle, but I would go further down in scale and suggest a sizeable fleet of MTB/MGB Type craft that served us so well in WW2. These large carriers seem to me like too many eggs in one basket, and England needs to think about defending it's coasts and borders in the future, our days of maintaining a global presence are rapidly diminishing.
As we speak, foreign nationals land on our beaches daily with no official response, in time of war this would need to be addressed.

Just a thought,

Regards,

Horsegiver.

reply to post by horsegiver


Its the UK not just England, they are not english carriers they are UK Carriers sheesh

Foeriegn nationals, are you refering to illegal immigrants, Refugees, thoe brought over for slave labour, those who are brought ove illegally for the sex trade?

[edit on 7-7-2009 by Laurauk]

reply to post by Laurauk


I made no reference to the proposed carriers being 'English' only the problem of invaders along our shores, I still think that the money would be better spent on a larger force of smaller craft. This would enable The Royal Navy to be in more places at once and provide defence for the entire United Kingdom.

Hope that makes it clear,

Regards,

Horsegiver.

Originally posted by Laurauk
Even if we get one built, if we can afford the other one, can we not refit maybe 2 off the Invincicble carriers, or will they be defunct .

I believe they are not big enough to carry the F35 or allow it to take off?

Actually I can see after the next general election, If the Tories are elected into office, they might cancel the building off the Prince Of wales.

Nu Labour will likely cancel as well, they just won't admit to it.

reply to post by solidshot


You know something, by the year 2012 - 14, between both those parties, the UK will not have the ability to defend itself. Us in the UK are so ignorant to the fact of the defence of our own country, and our colonies around the world. By the time, we do become aware, it will be to late to do anything about it, Unless we threaten to use Nukes. Which in itself would draw criticism from the international community.

well if we stop paying money to all the people who have been scrounging the system in the uk and all the financial people who have screwed this country up as we might be able to do this , we need trident , we need those carriers, we need more boots on the ground, and we need better equipment for our troops

we need to look long and hard to why we dont have the money for these things thats why we are in this mess

Originally posted by KDM_Souljah
we need to look long and hard to why we dont have the money for these things thats why we are in this mess

Because the government we have at the moment seems to think its a good idea to give our money away to foreign countries rather than our own people, just last week the prime minister was proposing to give one billion away to African countries because they had recently exited from a war, how about he gives another one billion to our troops that are still fighting one? and wasn't it just last year when we gave India 80+ mill in aid and a week later they spent 90+mill upgrading their fighter jets? then you have the recent car scrappage scheme the majority of the cash from this goes to foreign companies and countries and all of this when our country is on the point of bankruptcy

reply to post by Laurauk


They won't call them HMS Scotland or HMS England for fear of the effect on public morale when they sink to the bottom of the briny bree in some future war.

I don't know why the government is so parsimonious on some aspects of public finance such as Defence and yet splash the cash with reckless abandon in other areas. I read today that British social security payments this year will exceed the total amount obtained from Income Taxes ... just staggering.

The commentators seem to think this is 1979 all over again. Spending cuts, tax increases just to balance the books. I don't need to remind you that it was a Conservative government which threatened to sell off the new carrier HMS Invincible to Australia immediately before the Falklands War ... and to seriously reduce the number of frigates & destroyers in the fleet.

The tories are no friends of the Royal Navy. Don't ever think otherwise.

[edit on 7-7-2009 by Ulala]

reply to post by KDM_Souljah


You forgot to add, the amount of money swindled outof the taxpayer to pay for MP's other expences. They own us hundreds if notmillins back.. Will we ever see that money again I hope so.

Also I agree with solid, maybe if they stopped given money to other countries, rather than given to ours we would be better off.

Ulala, Both Governments are bad for the armed forces, both labour and the conservatives, are hell bent on reducing our armed forces down to basically nothing. Is why I commented before that by the year 12012 - 1014, we wont be able to defend ourselves as a resultof it.

[edit on 7-7-2009 by Laurauk]

Originally posted by Ulala
They won't call them HMS Scotland or HMS England for fear of the effect on public morale when they sink to the bottom of the briny bree in some future war.

They cannot be called them HMS England / HMS Scotland as those two ship names have no tradition in the RN. The names QE and POW have a RN tradition and a lineage. As they are RN ships, if they are sunk in action you can be sure they would have fought with distinction to the end.

Regards