BBC Blog Network

User Profile

hannafordlee

Listed below are comments made by hannafordlee between Wednesday, 22nd April 2009 and Tuesday, 30th June 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Can we afford the carriers? 10:33am on 30 Jun 2009 DMJ
Remember the raw materials have already been purchased. Its all the "gubbins" that goes inside the shell that makes the beast.

Again it is another headline £1 Billion but that will be spread out over a number of years, nibbling away at an already shrinking capital budget.

However remember this when looking across defence; FRES has already cost £535 Million! We haven't even got a proper requirements document yet but it has managed to spend all that!! Think of all the other pipe dreams in the system!

And if anyone thinks this is a big leap in cost should remember:
Astute fixed price was £300 Million per boat.
Astute actual cost boat 1 £1.1 billion!!
Nimrod MRA4 fixed price £2.1 Billion for 21 aircraft
Nimrod MRA4 FCAC £2.1 Billion for 9 aircraft
I could go on but I think you get the idea.
Remember last week PAC released its report on Type 45. Lessons from that have been learnt and used on CVF. Wow!! Expensive lessons!!
Can we afford the carriers? 10:13am on 30 Jun 2009 But as you know in politics it is all about the now. They don't care about the tomorrow. Why should they? Everyone knows if you pay up front costs in the long term come down but if you defer payment until later the annual cost will be cheaper but we will be paying it for that much longer so when money should be available for new projects, old projects are still costing.
Aircraft carriers' costs soar £1bn 10:01am on 30 Jun 2009 UK-SILENT-MAJORITY
Every project that DPA or DES have contracted for have been delivered on time :0) don't you read the news? It is just one success after another. :-0
Aircraft carriers' costs soar £1bn 09:45am on 30 Jun 2009 John_From_Hendon
How do you think the kit gets to Afghanistan? By plane? Nope, it is by the funny things that float in the water. And remember Afghanistan is just today's battle. Where are tomorrows? Are you seriously suggesting that we spend all our defence income on one area of operation and leave the rest just to simmer away? You say one man and a speed boat does away with the millions spent on large warships. One man and a bomb does away with tanks, IFV's, APC's, AWACS, Submarines, Frigates, Destroyers, Mine Sweepers, Typhoon, Tornado and the countless other equipments that the MoD have. What is your point?

1. At present there is no aircraft for these carriers because there are no carriers.
2. Afghanistan is one battle. F/A 18 regularly patrol over Afghanistan from aircraft carriers in the Indian Ocean and Gulf. F-35 has longer range and like F/A 18 and most other 4/5th generation aircraft can be refuelled in mid air.
3. What mythical unarmed frigate are you talking about? Type 22/23 frigates are fully armed. Type 42 has a working (admittedly old) AAW system. What threat are you talking about? Speedboats and suicide bombers?
4. Doctrine states that to occupy and hold ground you need control of the air. CAS is vital for ground troops to bring weapons on to target quickly and with out at least air superiority that would not be available.
5. An aircraft carrier is an expensive platform that operates as part of a group. Its primary role is to project power and to do that it needs defending. However as the US has proved, by moving one of the aircraft carriers close to a nation shows strategic intent and serves as a warning that there is an air force on your doorstep. Coastal ships cannot do that.
Aircraft carriers' costs soar £1bn 09:06am on 30 Jun 2009 It is very common in defence contracts. What you do is quote for a job, say you are taking into account, all the risks, issues and opportunities and say that you have built them in to your cost model. You then get given a number by the MoD and are told to make your cost model fit that number. You do that and are therefore awarded the contract. You then after about 6-12 months, when raw materials have been bought etc, release the real costs plus inflation of what the product is actually going to cost in real terms. You now have the government tied into a contract that would be politically difficult and fiscally unsound to pull out of. They then have to come up with the extra funding. It reminds you of Nimrod, Astute, Typhoon, Type 45 and Combat Engineering Tractor....who built all of those by the way........and where are they built?
The return of politics' 'N' word 11:05am on 17 Jun 2009 So he is Mr Short term then. Public purse under pressure look for a big project with big numbers. Look at Trident, £20 Billion! Bingo! Found it! Headline found, speech to be made, briefings to the press and we are underway.
1. As probably many have said already, £20 Billion "over a period of years" not all at once so any financial gain would be minimal.
2. 5000/10,000 jobs guaranteed for the next 15/20 years. Barrow will continue to have a work force.
3. It is a deterrent that helps protect a £1.5 trillion pound economy.
4. Unilateral disarmament when countries like North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, India and China all have the weapons and would be very unwilling to give them up. So do we really think that getting rid of our last form of defence would make them suddenly say, "Well the British have got rid of there weapons so we will do the same"? Doubtful.
5. Although people don't like it we are one of the big 5 at the security council. By getting rid of our deterrent would put that place in jeapordy. I can see why Clegg and his europhile party would like that because the EU would pressure the UK to give up its seat to the EU.

Unfortunately we do not live in a dream world where there is no fighting, no hunger, no poverty and no famine etc. The world is what it is. You can have your lobby groups, like CND, Greenpeace etc professing that if we got rid of Trident etc but they operate in an environment and society that the deterrent has helped protect for the last 50 years. It has provided the freedom that they operate in.

Times are changing, is it a great idea to take away an option when we do not know what the future holds all for the sake of a headline and a £1 Billion saving?
What would happen to the work force?
What would happen to the skill base?
How would it affect our standing in the world? And by that I mean countries that actually make a "difference". It is that "difference" as mentioned above, those with the big clout who actually have a say. Is it any coincedince that they also have nuclear weapons (USA, Russia, China, France)?
Lewis and Lewis 1:02pm on 16 Jun 2009 extremesense: What is wrong with Bob Ainsworth? Oh thats right, he is rubbish. Remember cuts are coming up and who better to have in post than someone who already lacks the respect of the military he is there to politically protect.
Lewis and Lewis 12:57pm on 16 Jun 2009 And to think it used to be called the "Torygraph".
A question of when, not if 7:30pm on 18 May 2009 Could a deal have been done? Speaker Martin takes the heat for the next couple of days, taking the heat of GB so he can do what he does best, dirty politics. Remember he only has to survive until Thursday then they go on holiday. Then after careful consideration over the break and on advice from No 10 (leaked) the speaker stands down in the interest of democracy and you hear the wonderful political script that all MP's can start to use "A line being drawn under the issue"!
Optimistic about the future 1:25pm on 22 Apr 2009 Tory press who will demand that they protect "our people". Nick please explain? I thought you reported, not put words into the mouths of newspapers? "our people" could you please tell me what newspaper stated that people on £150k or more were their people?

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

hannafordlee