No Aircraft Carrier with Aircraft for 9 years

StevieJ

dunstonh wrote: »

If it had been run by competent people in the last 13 years then it wouldnt be needed now.

Unfortunately, the Govt cant use dodgy claims companies to try and claim back money on their debts.

True blue in more ways than one

nicko33

ruggedtoast wrote: »

It took the spectacular incompetence of Thatcher and her government to allow it to happen the first time.

More an Intelligence failure.
a 1981 report said 'although "provision of warning of aggression" was a core duty of the JIC, it was actually ill-suited to the task...'

a few months after the April 1982 invasion, the author of that report, Douglas Nicholl, was recalled to mount an inquiry that focused on the Falklands intelligence failure

source: GCHQ by Richard Aldrich

apparently the Argentinians invaded on a snap decision with very little preparation. The Argentinian military would have expected 6 months to prepare, but only got 6 days.

Entertainer

shortchanged wrote: »

I think it's better to have 2 large aircraft carriers than to waste billions renewing trident.

Alternatively, have neither.

The best bit is that the second carrier will likely be sold off after only three years. Anyone want to hazard a guess as to the depreciation?:T

Who signed the contracts for this make work scheme - it wasn't Gordon Brown was it? If you're going to have Keynesian economics at least invest in something useful for the nation like upgrading the communications infrastructure.

shortchanged_2

Fact is the UK has been involved in some war ever since the early 90's. Even since the end of the 2nd world war the UK has been quite frequently at war. All of these have been conventional wars or the war against terrorism.
In the 60 odd years since america first used nuclear weapons they have never been used in anger since, despite the numerous conflicts going on all over the world.

I would argue that the need for aircraft carriers is much greater than the need for nuclear weapons in at least they will be useful in the conflicts that the UK faces instead of wasting billions on playing expensive war games.

tomterm8

We also haven't had mainland UK invaded in the last 60 years.

The reason we will keep the nuclear deterant is that, unlike pretty much all other weapons systems, if we get rid of the nuclear deterant, it would be illegal for us to build a new one. While we don't have any real need for a nuclear deterant, we don't know whether we will need one in forty years time.

I think aircraft cariers are obsolete techology, for the simple reason that they are massive targets. Ever since satalite technology, it's obviously possible to sink them using a missile fired from hundreds of miles away.

ChiefGrasscutter

Blacklight wrote: »

Who thought it was a good idea to buy another two ships when they were £165bn in debt this year already?

I recommend you try learning about the way very large projects are ordered, constructed, designed proceeding with etc....often years if not decades before they are completed/manufactured...then you might understand its not quite a simple as buying things from B&Q.

To put it simply (?) no manufacturer will want to commit any upfront design costs unless they know that the designs are actually going to be made so complex clauses are put into the contracts which makes it progressivly more and more expensive to cancel the more and more you get into the duration of the design/engineering/project work - and this is before the manufacturing has even started.......

So eventually we get to the point where it is more expensive to cancel than to continue:

It is not just the costs of doing the now redundant work either which have to be compensated for - it is also the 'opportunity cost' of the fact that you are doing all this work for a contract which is never to be built which is precluding you from doing work on something which IS going to be built for someone else (so the order goes elsewhere). Hence you have lost the opportunity of perhaps work for many years/decades in the future for another client thanks to the time you spent/wasted on the cancelled contract for the original client: hence the very high cancellation charges clauses.

I'm used to multi £m rather than multi £bn contracts but it is really really annoying when someone cancels and you are left with an unfillable hole in the production schedule for x months - which frankly the money paid in cancellation charges does not really compensate for.

PS contrary to expections very large projects are not completely designed first and then built second. - A lot of detailed design work is done as you are building them. There is a lot of skill in managing all of this and linking in all the various sub-suppliers so every one knows what everyone is doing and design changes mid way (the clients always want these) can be accommodated by everybody.

nicko33

tomterm8 wrote: »

Ever since satalite technology, it's obviously possible to sink them using a missile fired from hundreds of miles away.

Surely they've been obsolete since submarines...
unless we develop countermeasures

tomterm8

No, they were OK in WWII, when submarines existed. The real killer is satalites, since powers like the US can detect aircraft cariers anywhere in the world. They can't hide. There really aren't countermeasures available for mach-5 hypersonic missiles which can be fired anywhere in the world, and hit your aircraft carrier within an hour.

Fiddlestick

ruggedtoast wrote: »

We aren't at war. Not a conventional one anyway. And if we were then we would be 99% reliant on permission from the Americans to project military power overseas, which would only be given if they were themselves involved in the conflict, meaning our participation would be pointless anyway.

Twaddle.

American permission was not needed when the previous administration stepped in to stop the conflict in Sierra Leone, and it was the previous administration that convinced the Americans (against tough resistance) to step in to stop the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.

nicko33

tomterm8 wrote: »

powers like the US

so only obsolete if you want to attack US,Russia,China?