Conrod Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 You are itching to tell me, so please do so.I don't need to, you already know but don't seem to have the integrity or moral courage to admit it. Labour significantly cut the armed forces budgets and introduced number reductions - which are only coming through now as redundancies decided by policies several years ago. Of course, when the Tories take over a boat left sinking by Labour, you're happy to blame the Tories for the holes Labour drilled in the hull - we're quite used to that. And the carriers - you do, of course, know that Labour tried quite hard to scrap those projects completely? Think of all the out-of-work artisans in the British shipping industry that would have resulted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 I know that we wont have a carrier till 2030. I also know that due to trying to cut costs, they ordered their lenght to be cut by 30m., a massive redesign This meant that the planes, already ordered from the USA were unable to land on it. So they had to be re, redesigned again . Remind me again, Balpin...who tendered for new carriers, was then supposed to perform due diligence on the contract(s) (and punitive get-out clauses therein) and then signed them? And it was the tories that left us without full carrier strike capability till 2020 at the earliest and 2030 at the latest. Scrapping the Ark Royal and the Harriers was one of the worst possible decisions.Same questions to you, f0rd (including this time who established force projection requirements over the next 10 to 20 years and took decisions about timescales for replacement hardware, then put tenders out) Labour demonstrated all the strategic & business acumen of a 6th former in these matters. Nah, that's an insult to 6th formers, actually. And the carriers - you do, of course, know that Labour tried quite hard to scrap those projects completely?Not sure if are talking about the current carriers, but Labour planned, negotiated (ho-hum) and green-lit the new carrier projects. It's only once the Coalition Gvt tried to kill the projects (expectedly with a view to modernise current ships at much lesser cost) that it transpired the contracts were so rigged that it was cheaper (very much so) to keep them going than cancelling them. Only problem is, of course, can't do both (keep current ships + build new ones). Therefore, there will be a strategic gap. How typical of large scale project cost management by the civil service (did I just hear anyone putting "NHS" and "IT project" in the same sentence? ) Some expression about organising a drinking event in a brewery, or not, springs to mind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f0rd Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 I couldn't agree more. What a pity that the last Government spent all the cash and ran up such a huge debt whilst the world economy was doing well. If they hadn't done that we might be able to afford these things now that it isn't. Eurgh, what? Originally it was planned for us to buy two large and cheap carriers powered gas turbines and without catapults or arrester wires assisted launch. So the only aircraft that could be used would use the carriers would be jump jets. The tories retired the Harrier (and actually sold them and spares to the US at marginal cost, who still have a use for them for the next 20 years), leaving us with two carriers we can't use until we get the F-35B from the Americans, problem is they will not be ready for export to the UK till 2020 in the set case scenario. The carriers starting cost was £3.5bn, currently it's at £6.2bn and with the adaptations needed needed for the Joint Strike Fighter the costs are likely to rise to £12bn fitting the ships with catapults and arrester wires. It wasn't the past government fault the tories decided to cut the highly capable Harrier and can the present carriers. They did however keep the prohibitively expensive-to-run Eurofighter and not very good Tornado bomber. As evidence by Liam Fox and lobbying, Whitehall is clutches BAE Systems, which makes or has made (and maintains at even greater cost) the Tornado, the Eurofighter, the carriers and large parts of the F-35 fleet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f0rd Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 Same questions to you, f0rd (including this time who established force projection requirements over the next 10 to 20 years and took decisions about timescales for replacement hardware, then put tenders out) Labour demonstrated all the strategic & business acumen of a 6th former in these matters. Nah, that's an insult to 6th formers, actually.[/Quote] Blair did, but this has nothing to do with the carriers not being designed for the F35b. And the costly amendments to the carrier to accommodate them and the F35c (although I'm not saying the choice to was a bad idea, as the F35c is far superior), why not purchase the relatively cheap F-18 Hornet till we can get the F35c. And before I goto lunch the F-18 Hornet isn't created or maintained by BAE... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 Blair did, but this has nothing to do with the carriers not being designed for the F35b. And the costly amendments to the carrier to accommodate them and the F35c (although I'm not saying the choice to was a bad idea, as the F35c is far superior), why not purchase the relatively cheap F-18 Hornet till we can get the F35c.My first point was merely to debunk the myth perpetrated by Tory-/Coalition-bashers, that the strategic and cost issues surrounding the UK's aircraft carriers are all attributable to the Tories/Coalition. They are most emphetically not. It's gracious enough of you to help me prove it. My second point is that, like so many other ongoing large-scale projects piloted by the civil service, accessorily inherited by the current Gvt, the new carriers project has become a camel (you know, a horse designed by a committee ). Again, it's gracious enough of you to help me prove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 I couldn't agree more. What a pity that the last Government spent all the cash and ran up such a huge debt whilst the world economy was doing well. If they hadn't done that we might be able to afford these things now that it isn't. except it didn't, t. it kept below the 40% of gdp target it set, less than it was for most of the previous tory's administration Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f0rd Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 My first point was merely to debunk the myth perpetrated by Tory-/Coalition-bashers, that the strategic and cost issues surrounding the UK's aircraft carriers are all attributable to the Tories/Coalition. They are most emphetically not.[/Quote] Don't get me wrong, it's not. To be honest I'm pretty libertarian, I hold the tories and liebour with equal contempt, the MoD has been a mess for quite a while. It's gracious enough of you to help me prove it. No problems. My second point is that, like so many other ongoing large-scale projects piloted by the civil service, accessorily inherited by the current Gvt, the new carriers project has become a camel (you know, a horse designed by a committee ). Again, it's gracious enough of you to help me prove it. No worries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fruitisbad Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 just send in the SAS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Dome Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 Many of us already knew... Report: Iran authorities behind UK attack The storming of the British embassy in Tehran earlier this week was not an improvised student protest but an attack planned and supervised by Iranian authorities, sources told the Al-Arabiya News Channel on Thursday. The attack was planned by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamanei and supervised by the commander of the Basij paramilitary forces, Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Naqd, the sources said. act of war. lets go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f0rd Posted December 1, 2011 Share Posted December 1, 2011 Many of us already knew... Report: Iran authorities behind UK attack act of war. lets go. With what equipment? HMS Illustrious is undergoing a refit, and hasn't had sea trials yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.