£1bn overspend on the new carriers

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by lofty_lofty, Jun 29, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. BBC ticker is currently saying that there has been a £1bn overspend on the two new carriers already. They have barely even started building them... :x

    Edited to add linky to BBC page
     
  2. What convenient news for 'Mr. Bean' - currently playing 'prime minister' courtesy of Mr. Mandelson.

    They will not be cancelled before Mr. Mandelson says so though. He must first judge the effect it would have on his 'Master-Plan' to reduce us to a 'region' in Eurineland and install his repellent friend Bliar as president thereof - 'for life' naturally.

    I am still wondering whether Cherry 'Freebie Gizzit' Bliar will expect HM The Queen to curtsey to her when she, Cherry, is the 'First Woman of Eurineland'.
     
  3. How can there be an overspend?
    Seriously how? More a case of propoganda to test the water for cancelling them I would think.
    Seems like a definate case of somebody laying the ground for cancellation
     
  4. Probably something to do with this:

    "The Government has been committed to the construction of two larger aircraft carriers since 1998, when they formed the heart of a new expeditionary policy for the Armed Forces, outlined in the Strategic Defence Review. But the small print revealed the plan was to have two 40,000-tonne ships, only twice the size of the Invincible-class carriers. The estimated cost at that time was £750 million. But the tonnage has crept up to 65,000 tonnes."

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3950049.ece

    So the R&D budget has gone out the window for starters and working on the fact that the carrier is almost half as big again plus one half of original build costs (possibly)

    IIRC wasn't the reason for the heavier carriers because the decks weren't strong enough for the Joint Strike Fighters.

    Hang on I've just read the Times quote again 750m ea now 5bn for two?
    .
     
  5. I still like this letter in the Times from Dec 08.

    Sir, Two new Royal Navy aircraft carriers were announced by the Labour Government in mid-1998. At about that same time, Cunard announced its plans to build the Queen Mary 2. Since then, the QM2 has been delivered, on time and to budget, and now has five years’ active service behind her. The aircraft carriers have not even left the drawing board yet and have already notched up expenses equal to the entire cost of the QM2. Perhaps the Admiralty and the Ministry of Defence should engage with the Carnival Corporation (Cunard’s parent company) on how to design and construct ships to time, on budget, and without excessive cost overruns.

    Ivan K. Rowland

    London SE23

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article5347863.ece

    So not new news ref the overspend.
     
  6. seaweed

    seaweed LE Book Reviewer

    I always thought the quote was squeezed down although everybody knew that a viable ship could not be had at the price quoted. But then the MoD making a balls of a big costing is new, radical, surprising and newsworthy.

    It may be of course that the carriers are Bliar's dowry which ought to protect them.

    http://www.navy-net.co.uk/wiki2/index.php/Ode_to_Joy%21 refers.
     
  7. seaweed

    seaweed LE Book Reviewer

    btw QM2 is a MUCH more simple ship.
     
  8. Overspend is good at least they are being built at last. As for Lord Mandy(I like lifting shirts) he is too engrossed with avoiding a visit from past lovers to ascend mr Blair into the Presidents chair
     
  9. All this money, All this effort, All this staffing, All this planning, All this political debate. TEN Years of planning!

    "Oh sh1t Boss is that two exocets flying towards us"
     
  10. Given that QM2 is, in many respects a simpler ship to build. How much quickler could Cunard have got a warship in the water?

    But. How come this has taken so long? I know Aircraft Carriers are complex but 10 years? It took 5 years to plan, build and commisson the King George V in 1935 to 1940. That's every single plan drawn by hand, time and time again before being printed, scale models built to test, everything tested by hand.

    Was someone taking the piss and refusing to make serious choices just to delay this?
     
  11. A lot of the delays and cost increases are due to MOD interference - and MOD/Treasury not understanding business basics.
     
  12. They will be canceled, but not until Gordon Brown and Labour are out of office, over 4,000 jobs in Jock land are dependent upon them.

    No way will they be canceled by this government, they will leave it to the Tories to do that
     
  13. Did anyone realistically believe that these would be actually built, I for one havent believed these would materialise since 1998 when they were first announced. They have done their job of keeping the votes in the Glasgow shipbuilding constituencies, and now Labour are scrabbling around for any loose change they can find so they can pronounce "no cuts to public services".

    Delay and obfuscation until they can conveniently cancel them on a day similar to one where Michael Jackson died, so the news is deeply hidden, and hope the voters dont notice.
     
  14. "But. How come this has taken so long? I know Aircraft Carriers are complex but 10 years? It took 5 years to plan, build and commisson the King George V in 1935 to 1940. That's every single plan drawn by hand, time and time again before being printed, scale models built to test, everything tested by hand. "

    Fair point, but the plan was always to replace the current CVS in the 2012-15 timeframe - so there was no point bringing something into service which the RN wasn't expecting to get early as the airwing wouldnt be ready and the existing ships would still have some life in them.