Carrier Delay - Merged threads

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by NotmeChief, Dec 11, 2008.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. No New Carriers

    It's just been announced (08/12) that the government is expected to make an announcement about a two year delay in the building of the carriers.

    I said when they were announced that they wouldn't get built and stick by that. Wish I was as good at predicting the lottery.

    So Devonport wasn't ripped off after all.
  2. Re: No New Carriers

    Delays after delays....Looks like King William will be launching your new carriers.......
  3. Re: No New Carriers

    No real surprise though is it. The Royal Navy has extended the life of most of its other ships and submarines one way or another.
  4. Re: No New Carriers

    Next Headlines - Navy get New Carrier as Invinc is brought out of mothballs!
  5. Seaweed

    Seaweed War Hero Book Reviewer

    Re: No New Carriers

    I still don't quite understand by what sprinkling of fairy dust the life of an ageing piece of machinery can be extended just because someone orders it.
  6. Re: No New Carriers

    Hey the take that ive been told by a very good friend who works in one of the companies that are contracted to carrier alliance is that the carriers wont be canceled especialy in this climate. The carriers will secure thousands of jobs across the country and will keep the money in the uk as almost all of the work and companies are UK based. The Govt are (rightly or wrongly) trying to throw money at the credit crunch and a big UK centric heavy engineering project thats ready to start now is just the ticket.

    The reason the dates are going back is that they were penciled in years ago with work starting in 2006-ish. However the whole project went through main gate only this year and they now two years behind no matter what.

    The carriers will be built but will the RN get the money to operate them when they are launched? Or will they be in the same situation that the russian carriers had. Left to rot alongside before being sold to India/China...
  7. Re: No New Carriers

    Your friend is mistaken. The dates pencilled in years ago were for ISD of 2012 and 2014 respectively, subsequently rejigged to 2014/2016 earlier this year when the contracts were signed.

    Any slip in the ISD is purely down to trying to reprofile the budget - a process that has been ongoing for over 10 years without any noticeable success in addressing the real issue. Insufficient funds have been provided for the procurements agreed as necessary to meet the commitments under SDR (and new chapter), let alone conduct two medium scale ops concurrently, which is way above the the funded level and has been accepted for over 6 years by MoDs own admission!
  8. Re: No New Carriers

    Friend isnt wrong im just a twat that doesnt listen. Got the dates mixed up :(
  9. Purple_twiglet

    Purple_twiglet War Hero Moderator

    Re: No New Carriers

    It slips the spending requirements across a wider number of years, easing pressure on the budget at the moment, and reducing the number of large contracts needing to be placed at the same time across defence.
  10. Re: No New Carriers

    Although it will end up costing more in the long term, politics is about the art of the possible: smoke and mirrors, or to be more precise, hidden taxes (eg PFI/PPP) and illusions. It will save money on the Treasury balance sheet by giving the appearance of lower cost per diem than will actually be the case once the final bill is totted up.
  11. Re: No New Carriers

    Thanks gents, I thought that would be the answer, more debt for later.
  12. Re: No New Carriers

    Lets just wait the two year and see what the announcement will be then - Remember, there WILL be a new government then and the Tories might not want any carriers or use the funds that were to be used for them to pay back the biggest national debt in history, even bigger that the U.S.
  13. Re: No New Carriers

    They are a complete waste of taxpayers money anyway.
  14. Re: No New Carriers

    Just like this piece of shit government, however a carrier is more usefull than this government.
  15. Carriers delay 'good for yards'


    So its all about jobs and not about defence of the country/British interests, or am I being cynical?

    Still when they are operational they will have adequate escorts and supply/tankers ships, no wait they have been "deferred as well".
  16. Re: Carriers delay 'good for yards'

    I heard some Labor MP spouting off with this spin earlier today, and that is alll it is spin. The stark reality is that dragging the job out will minimise the number of jubs created (think about it) and because you never lose the standing army of pen pushers it will actually cost more, now will the government allow that bit to come out before the election.

    All they are really doing is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic and trying to get you to believe it is because they are heading for the carribean.
  17. Levers_Aligned

    Levers_Aligned War Hero Moderator

    Re: Carriers delay 'good for yards'

    It also pushes that particular £4Bn hot potato onto the Tories, assuming they thrash Labour at the next election. Let's face it. Does anyone really believe that the carriers will cost just four billion? I assume Hutton has added on the gigantic expense to prolong the running and maintenance of Ark and Lusty into this little conumndrum? Either that or they sit alongside with one crew between the two ships, one of them completely shut down dead and cold with the other one providing staff to haul up the flags each morning to stave off suspicions it had already paid off.

    Nah. They won't do that, will they? I mean, anyone would think we are doing that, right now.

  18. Re: No New Carriers

    And so is a piece of 'shit'.

Share This Page