Vlamgat9 Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 MoD may delay carrier contract By Sylvia Pfeifer and Chris Giles Published: January 10 2008 22:02 | Last updated: January 10 2008 22:02 The Ministry of Defence is examining possible delays to its £4bn contract for two new aircraft carriers as it struggles to meet Treasury demands for swingeing cuts to its budget. The MoD had been expected to agree a manufacturing contract with the industry alliance building the Royal Navy carriers as early as next week, but that now looks likely to slip. The carriers are scheduled to enter service in 2014 and 2016 and had been viewed as one of the few big-ticket items to escape the impending cuts. There is no suggestion that the programme will not go ahead but the talks underline how stretched the MoD’s budget is. The carriers’ hulls are due to be assembled at Rosyth in Scotland in the prime minister’s constituency, so abandoning it would appear politically difficult. Last July, the Treasury agreed a budget with the MoD, providing 1.5 per cent real increases every year until 2010-11, claiming this to be the best defence settlement in almost 30 years. But higher depreciation and impairment charges on equipment that has been heavily used in Iraq and Afghanistan left the MoD with only 0.9 per cent real increases for day-to-day expenditure and the requirement to make heavy cuts in many areas. Some estimates put the budget shortfall as high as £2bn. With tax revenues already falling short before the credit squeeze took hold, there is little room for additional defence funding over the next three years. It is understood the discussions are among the reasons for the delay in the signing of a joint venture between BAE Systems, Britain’s largest defence contractor, and VT Group to put their shipyards together. The joint venture was seen as the first step towards the consolidation of Britain’s shipbuilding industry. Although the venture could go ahead without a manufacturing contract for the carriers, the companies are still waiting for a government commitment to a 15-year partnering agreement. The terms of the agreement would offer industry a guarantee to maintain jobs and technical capabilities for 15 years. People close to the talks stressed discussions were part of the MoD’s wider review of its equipment programme and that no final decision had been made. The MoD said: “Periodically, as part of the planning process, we consider a wide range of ideas on how we might reallocate funds. Many of these are not taken beyond initial consideration. The [comprehensive spending review] settlement allows the MoD to proceed with two new aircraft carriers . . . We need the [joint venture] to stand up as a legal entity before we sign the contract – that process is under way.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnonymousDFB1 Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 And so it begins.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg B Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 (edited) Ahh, might actually get the decent boots that were ordered for me to replace the ones that have wrecked my feet like 90% of the rest of the Army, then the shoitehole I live in refurbished with the money that wont be spent on the CV's. Hang on, its already being spent on two theatres as the budget allocation from the treasury isnt covering it......... Swiss Des, you are a c***.... Edited January 11, 2008 by Greg B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 We're gonna be left with just harsh language as a defence at this rate... as long as it doesn't include any racial or cultural slurs of course. Money to burn for their own pay & the Olympics, and yet nothing for the defence of the realm. They should be put up on Treason charges, the lot of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg B Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Just give me the cabinet, 30 minutes with a Shovel R.E. and the Band of the Royal Marines playing the 1812 overture to give me something to thwack along to. No more problems, could even sell tickets with the proceeds going to the charity of your choice...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
entlim Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Brill Idea Greg! Ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DamienB Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 I struggle to understand why delaying anything will save money - history shows it makes things more expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Fleming Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 I struggle to understand why delaying anything will save money - history shows it makes things more expensive. For the same reasons as PFI is used (see FSTA) - it keeps the capital expenditure off this years balance sheet. Don't spend £100m this year, you might have to pay £110m in futiurew, but that's not on your spending deficit this year. It's all about Brown's desperate attempts to make it look like the Govt is not spending a fortune on capital spending. Oh, and Rosyth isn't in his consituency anymore - he moved to Kirkcaldy at the last election when the boundaries were re-drawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlamgat9 Posted January 11, 2008 Author Share Posted January 11, 2008 For the same reasons as PFI is used (see FSTA) - it keeps the capital expenditure off this years balance sheet. Don't spend £100m this year, you might have to pay £110m in futiurew, but that's not on your spending deficit this year. It's all about Brown's desperate attempts to make it look like the Govt is not spending a fortune on capital spending.Oh, and Rosyth isn't in his consituency anymore - he moved to Kirkcaldy at the last election when the boundaries were re-drawn I agree it is all financial jiggery pokery to hide the huge bloating of government expenditure. The government sickens me in this regard as isnt even as if you notice the extra money that has gone into the health service etc. It has all been wee weed away on bureaucracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nev Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Radish has had it right for years, HMS Improbable and HMS Unlikely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobski Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Oh for f**k's sake, Darling, just buy the damn Carriers and have done with it! Stop raping the defence budget to pay for the Olympics and Northern Rock! On a (very small) positive note, the F-35 is still subject to delay, so putting the carriers back by a year or two will mean there will actually be aircraft to fly off of them when they finally arrive! This, of course, assumes that the F-35 doesn't get canned... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 You never hear of them delaying the next pointless upgrade to their computer systems, or executive cars etc. do you? Feathering their own nest is 1st, 2nd and last priority... politicians! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenDragon Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Labour won't be happy until the Navy consists of one Admiral of the Fleet, a rowboat and 2 swabbies to paddle him around the Serpentine in Hyde Park as a tourist attraction! The Army will be reduced to a couple blokes in Bearskins for photos outside Buckingham Palace and the Air Force will have an Air Commodore with a rubber band powered model plane and an Aircraftsman to run and pick it up for him, and wind it up for it's next sortie. Paul Harrison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham T Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Labour won't be happy until the Navy consists of one Admiral of the Fleet, a rowboat and 2 swabbies to paddle him around the Serpentine in Hyde Park as a tourist attraction!The Army will be reduced to a couple blokes in Bearskins for photos outside Buckingham Palace and the Air Force will have an Air Commodore with a rubber band powered model plane and an Aircraftsman to run and pick it up for him, and wind it up for it's next sortie. Paul Harrison I don't think it's all Labour's fault. The last Conservative government instigated sweeping cuts under the "options for Change" post cold war review. Despite this I believe that with something like £33bn, the UK is still the second largest spender on defence in monetrary terms. As a proportion of GDP, we spend as much as France & more then Germany - the most suitable comparisons. Problem is that unlike these two nations, we are currently fighting two "small wars". Look back in history as far as Wellington & Nelson during the Napolionic Wars, no British Government has EVER been keen on large expenditure on defence. We've been caught with our trousers down several times as a result. The opinion of the "man on the Clapham omnibus" is often that defence spending is a waste of resources, however, as long a the UK has a largely "home based" defence industry (& BAE Systems for instance is the largest defence contractor in the world outside the USA), the benefits to UK Ltd are significant through wages to those building the ships/aircaft/tanks etc., to the companies with full order books & ultimatly the exchequer through income tax & corporation tax from profitable defence companies. Ho hum! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gengriz Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 (edited) You never hear of them delaying the next pointless upgrade to their computer systems, or executive cars etc. do you? Feathering their own nest is 1st, 2nd and last priority... politicians! Mike (and others), Before flinging around uninformed personal insults, you might just want to bear in mind that some of us frequenting this site (e.g. myself and at least 3 others I know of) do this (defence acquistion and support) for a living. My civil service colleagues do NOT have "executive", or any other kind of company car (unlike their private sector equivalents with the same skills and experience), and far from "feathering their nests", they are paid such ridiculously low salaries in comparison with the private sector, and so often the subject of public ridicule (for political ends IMHO) that the MOD are struggling to recruit or retain any of them these days. You are entitled to your opinions, of course (indeed that is the underlying reason why many of my friends and colleagues, military and civilian are risking their lives on a daily basis at this very moment), but please don't believe everything the papers and politicians tell you without checking out the facts first, or at least reading beyond the sensationalism of the first few paragraphs (the FT article that started this topic being a perfect example). Edited January 12, 2008 by gengriz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
entlim Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 I think Mike's referring to those who DO have exec powers , rather than those like in the "lower ranks" Ed Ps - knowing him quite well, Mike ain't the sort to chuck the muck without having an informed opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nev Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 I don't think it's all Labour's fault. The last Conservative government instigated sweeping cuts under the "options for Change" post cold war review. Despite this I believe that with something like £33bn, the UK is still the second largest spender on defence in monetrary terms. As a proportion of GDP, we spend as much as France & more then Germany - the most suitable comparisons. Problem is that unlike these two nations, we are currently fighting two "small wars". Well, I think you answered that yourself. Options For Change was a by-product of the "Peace Dividend" - remember that? They weren't expecting to fight not one but *two* proper shooting wars halfway round the world. Proper shooting wars that have dragged on for years. And whilst we're in the process of cutting and running from Iraq, Asscrackistan is already budgeted to go on past 2010.....can carrier based F-35s reach Hemland from the Indian Ocean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gengriz Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 (edited) can carrier based F-35s reach Hemland from the Indian Ocean? Yes. Whilst the Taliban were still in power, carrier based USMC, Spanish & Italian AV8Bs operated over Afghanistan from the Indian Ocean/Arabian Sea, albeit that they required IFR (some from UK assets) to stay on task for any useful time. The UK's SHARs were not used, some might suspect for political reasons (i.e. they were about to be scrapped early to pay for Eurofighter, which definitely CANNOT reach Helmand from secure UK sovereign territory). F-35 will be better than the AV-8 in that respect. However, as part of the RN/RAF Joint Force, they will also be able to deploy ashore if required (e.g if secure host nation support is available, or once it is safe enough/justifiable to build a vastly expensive and vulnerable Expeditionary Air Base to support them). Edited January 12, 2008 by gengriz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XV107 Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 There were several reasons beyond politics why the SHAR didn't go - no real LGB capability (certainly not to self-designate); lack of range (too many refuellings needed compared to AV-8B/GR7) & bring-back (return from patrol, discover two unexpended and expensive LGBs have to go into the oggin if you're to get back aboard safely). Politically-speaking cynics might suggest that it would arguably have been better to send SHARs and for them to prove (as they regretably would've, best efforts of the pilots notwithstanding) that they were inferior air-ground platforms compared to the GR7, thus validating the need to have an all-GR7 carrier wing. [Without going into too many details, the above isn't just based on reading Pprune, but involves chats over coffee with members & former members of 800 and 801 NAS who are/have been colleagues] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiwiSteve Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 If it come down to it boys and the F-35 is delayed then I'm sure NZ will lease you some Skyhawks until they finally arrive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham T Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 If it come down to it boys and the F-35 is delayed then I'm sure NZ will lease you some Skyhawks until they finally arrive No thanks, nothing that smells of moth balls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
entlim Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SPang Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 Hi, If you prefer for your carrier, we have in France the Rafale M which is ready to fly. SPang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vickers McFunbus Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 We could always spend the money on something useful - like a replacement for a tanker fleet which is running on 40 year old aeroplanes rather than a messed up PFI which is gettting further and further delayed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
entlim Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 Good point.............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now