10Bn for two big boats

[david_e]

Re: Falklands

Think that in the overall scheme of things these Islands might prove to be a valuable resource in time, oil, minerals, fish etc.

But our dosh should, in the main, be for defence not offence and just what credible threats there are these days, not sure, terrorists do a huge amount of damage on the cheap. Agree our priorities need sorting, Le average froggie enjoys all good services etc and still gets a slice of the economic action, irony is they are the last to join in.

 

[Jacket]

They are defensive- you can't run convoys successfully without air cover, and without convoys we'd starve if we were attacked.

 

[Jacket]

As I understood it, they are going to be 100% British built- on the Clyde. Its only the design work that thats beeing given to the French, and most of that works going to be carried out by their UK offices, so at least its UK workers involved. At least, thats what the BBC seemed to be inmplying on the news last night.

 

[jimi]

bollocks


From Treasury Stats
Total Capital Investment over last 6 years has been £49.6Bn

of which
0.7 spent on health
9.9 on Transport
2.2 Education
5.2 Culture !!
2.4 Admin
6.3 Defence

Bit of an eye opener really<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by jimi on 31/01/2003 20:47 (server time).</FONT></P>

 

[TonyMS]

That certainly looks weird! What's your source?

I suppose the Dome was culture, and cost 2% by itself. And maybe new hospitals don't show because they're all PFI and not on the balance sheet.

 

[jimi]

Source is

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media//D924B/ACF2225.xls

Capital Expenditure Tab

 

[Jacket]

But the dome itself was brilliant. Its only what they put in it that was rubbish.

Not that my comment has much to do with the thread, but I really like the dome.

 

[Observer]

Hmm. Haven't checked the facts but I can suggest that the health number looks low because most if not all procurement on "capital" items is through the PFI, which isn't on "capital" account, as far as the Treasury is concerned. As compared to defence, where relatively little capital procurement in defence can go that way because rather difficult to get the private sector to underwrite war risks.

 

[Mirelle]

Take your pick

the first three RN carriers were modified from white elephant battle cruisers, which were called 'Glorious', 'Furious' and 'Courageous', but were better known as

Curious, Spurious and Outrageous.

 

[ponapay]

It would be 10BN ..

well spent if they were properly armed with decent aircraft.

The plan apperas to be only to make them capabale of having catapault and arrester gear fitted at a later date. And to use VTOVL aircraft of a later generation than the Harrier.

I cannot understand the short sightedness of this government, they are only just able to look a bit further than the last awful labour government that scrapped the cariers and the fixed wing capability of the navy in the first place.

Now they have admitted that we have a worl wide role and need carrier they should do the job properlyand fit them for the tasks they will be required to do. That means fixed wing aircraft that are more capable than a lightweight fighter of comparativley short range and capacity.

Also required is long range airborne early warning and control organic to the fleet.

If it is needed to do the job then it must be afforded, the costs support our own industries and people and should provide a navy in which we can be proud and one that can perform the roles being asked of it.

Why has recruitment suffered so badly - because the governments have relegated the services to the bottom of the pile. UNTIL THEY NEED THEM IN A HURRY, BY WHEN IT IS TOO LATE.

History shows that is exactly what happened after WW1 and WW2, don't lets repeat it again.

 

[ccscott49]

Re: It would be 10BN ..

Who said we have a world wide role to play? Can't we just defend our own islands? Do the Germans have a worldwide role to play? the french? The spanish, Italians, etc. why us?

 

[IanPoole2]

Re: Take your pick

As current RN warships seem to spend more time in port than out at sea, maybe one of these could be called Park Royal!

 

[Twister_Ken]

Why us?

Meglomania, CC, that's why.

 

[Twister_Ken]

Choices, choices

HMS Green Goddess has quite a nice ring to it. As does HMS Brownnose

 

[ponapay]

As a so called advenced .

nation AND together with our responsibilities to the commonwealth we canot abrogate a orld wide role so easily. However anyone might so wish.

 

[ponapay]

Only to have the lessor ..

turn round and use them on us!

Or just as bad for the owner to refuse them when we need them.

How would you like your charterer to say, after you have paid, sorry I don't like your policies any more you can't have the boat.

 

[Twister_Ken]

It has just occurred to me

Imagine it was a Tory govt that had made this announcement. Labour would be in revolt, protesting about a manifest waste of national resources at a time when the NHS, public transport and education was in crisis through lack of funds, and how it was typical Tory tub thumping, pandering to the Americans and the Admirals and the 'bring back the empire' dreams-of-past-glories, gun boat diplomatists.

Unless of course the shipbuilding unions had the Labour arm twisted halfway up the Labour back

 

[Twister_Ken]

BTW

What planes are they planning to put on these things. Surely not our life-expired Harriers? Are we going to have to spend another £10 bn to develop and build a new aircraft? Or are we going to buy a half dozen squadrons of something off the Reverend Dubya?

 

[ccscott49]

Re: As a so called advenced .

Commonwealth? You are having a giraffe, surely!

 

[chas]

I think that maybe our Gordon might be muddling his capital and revenue budgets. Anyway, things have changed a bit since the early 19th centuary when 20% of the GDP was spent on the Navy!