Aircraft Carrier Costs To Double

[jake-the-peg]

These ships are costing over six billion

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24801942

Do we actually need them? and if so what for?

How do they defend the UK?

[sandyRoe]

They're supposed to be like out nuclear submarines, allowing us a place at the top table.
I can't see how they would be a deterrent to the greatest threat we are said to face, terrorism.

[anotheoldgit]

Just another pro Labour story from the Left-Leaning BBC.

[AB Editor]

"Just another pro Labour story from the Left-Leaning BBC."

Huh?

[Hypognosis]

There was some interesting insight into the workings of the MoD in this story which kind of explains why costs always, -always- overrun.

(i) The armed forces have to 'sell their case' when requesting new equipment
(ii) They underplay the cost projections in order to persuade ministers and/or the Treasury to go ahead
(iii) Once construction is well underway it becomes politically embarassing to stop the project in its tracks so they can now request all manner of changes or add-ons and no-one will tell them where to get off
(iv) the specifications are changed multiple times, with extra functionality being added
(v) the cost spirals

It's interesting to see how this pattern seems to apply to other areas that are government-funded, especially where large-scale civil enineering is involved.

HS2

[Milvus]

Hardly pro labour AOG. It was labour who signed the contract to build

[youngmafbog]

I dont think we do need them anymore. I would like to see us come off the world stage and only have sufficient troops to defend ourselves.

The money would be much better spent on counter terrorism which seems to be the way of the world at the minute.

[youngmafbog]

It was labour who signed the "flawed" contract to build

[Zacs-Master]

Doesn't bode well for HS2 does it?

[Bazile]

I've asked this question before on a different subject , namely HS2 - i'll ask it again on this matter .

1. How is this cost made up - does the government have any idea ?

2. Does the government have any control on these costs OR are these contractors holding the gov to ransom ? - i.e . give us an extra billion or else .

It seems outrageous that the cost has increased so much from the original figure . These contractors must be laughing all the way to the bank - talk about a blank cheque .

[youngmafbog]

The problem is that civil servants could not negotiate a contract to save their lives. This happens time and time again, regardless of the Government in power at the time.

Yes, contractors, often foreign are laughing all the way to the Bank.

And lets hope HS2 is ditched. It has become a big white elephant.

[jake-the-peg]

I believe a fair amount of the cost overrun was government changing its mind as to whether or not a steam catapult was to be used or jump jets.

As I recall that was dithering presided over by the current government!

I still can't see what role they will play in defending the UK though - great to have for foreign wars though

Where's next?

[LazyGun]

It all comes down to what your expectation of the role of the armed forces is for the UK in the 21st century.

Aircraft carriers are all about force projection - a potent symbol of a countries ability to conduct military operations a long way from its own territory. Undoubtedly useful if your role is to be the worlds policeman, and of some benefit in protecting UK vested interests outside the immediate territorial borders of the UK, but of little benefit otherwise - and especially if you have an aircraft carrier but no aircraft to fly from it. And wasn't it the case that they decided it would be cheaper to build 2 and then immediately mothball one anyway, or sell it or something?

The expenditure on aircraft carriers, rather like our spend on the Trident Missile Defence system, is largely symbolic, allowing us to keep our permanent position on the UN security council - to "punch above our weight", as it were. But when you factor in the cost to the country of such military spending, you have to question whether they are truly of value to the british taxpayer. After all, at a combined cost total (Trident and aircraft carriers) of around £110 billion or so over the next 10-20 years, that's a lot of money that might be better spent improving travel infrastructure, or improving schools and hospitals, or any amount of other domestic projects - Even paying down the debt! :)

[Bazile]

As well as civil servants negotiating leaky contracts , i suspect also that given that there aren't many companies in the business of building aircraft carriers , there is not much choice / competition on who gets awarded the contract .

So the government is held to ransom - i.e. give us another billion , or else

[Zeuhl]

/Just another pro Labour story from the Left-Leaning BBC./

aog - your evidence for that is? nah didn't think so


/The cross-party committee, which assesses value for money in government spending, has said it still regards the project as "a huge technical and commercial risk" and was not convinced the MoD had it under control./

Clue?

'cross party'

[Hypognosis]

Apparently hypothecation of taxes is universally detested. I've never understood why, it just is so.

So, just for fun, for every £10,000 of tax you pay, if your tax return had a series of boxes to fill in where you could enter from £0 to £10,000, how much would you enter in the box marked 'Defence of the UK'?

[DrFilth]

> These ships are costing over six billion <

when you compare them to what the bbc get every year ( 3.4 billion ) to make eastenders, what is in your attic etc they are a bargain

[ToraToraTora]

Our WSS budget is at least 3 times the defence budget, do you think there is money to be saved elsewhere? I haven't done the figures but I would venture that we spend more on wacky baccy and white lightening than we do on aircraft carriers!

[Hypognosis]

6 billion divided by ~60 million is only £100 each, so you'd be right there, TTT