New carriers may have to be severely downgraded in size

[may18]

From the ft, quite worrying


BAE says it cannot build ships to budget
By Mark Odell
Published: July 14 2003 5:00 | Last Updated: July 14 2003 5:00

The Royal Navy may have to accept a sharp reduction in the size of its two new aircraft carriers after BAE Systems warned it could not build the designs to budget.


The company, which is Britain's biggest defence contractor, has told the Ministry of Defence that it would cost up to £4bn to construct the pair, compared with the £2.8bn costing in January.

BAE won the lead role on the programme to build the warships - the biggest ever to be built in Europe - after a bitter battle with Thales of France.

The navy has been told there are no more funds available. So to meet the original budget, planners have been asked to consider designing smaller and less sophisticated ships.

One MoD official said: "The choice is bleak. We either find more money or we build smaller carriers."

Any move to shrink the ships would reduce their effectiveness and ability to "project power" around the world.

Instead of carrying up to 48 aircraft each, as planned, each vessel could carry as few as 20. This reduction could also affect the UK's commitment to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter - a joint programme with the US - which will be carried on the ships.

Tony Blair was planning this week to use the unprecedented level of US-UK co-operation on the F-35 to convince George W. Bush, US president, to ease restrictions on the sharing of sensitive defence technology. Such a move would make it easier for BAE to merge with an American defence company.

The MoD said the review was "normal" at this stage of the procurement cycle. It denied that the capability of the ships would be reduced. "Regardless of the final decision we are confident that the carriers will be able to fulfil the requirements identified in the SDR [strategic defence review]."

The government's decision to split the carrier contract earlier this year was denounced as a fudge by critics. Although BAE is leading the programme it was forced to build the ships to Thales' design. Over 40 years the contract will be worth about £9.2bn, including support and maintenance.

The scale of the budget overrun raises fresh doubts about BAE's ability to manage big defence contracts. Earlier this year taxpayers were forced to pay £700m to bail the company out on cost overruns on the Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft and Astute submarine programmes.

But rival industry executives and MoD officials say the government's decision to force BAE to build the ships to the Thales design is largely to blame.

The government is also expected this week to make a decision on whether to award a multi-billion pound contract for Hawk fighter jets to BAE. Additional reporting by

[Tab]

Is any one surpised about this, still as long there is room for a couple oars what else do you want.

[The 4th Patriot]

They'll find a way to fund it somehow.

[Jason The Argonaut]

As Tab said Is any one surprised about this, just another disappointment for our armed services.

But if the government stopped giving our money to all these illegal immigrants than we could probably afford a Grand Fleet.

[may18]

I hope they pay up. Its not a lot of money compared to some of the hair-brained ideas.

But i also wonder why BAE mess up so often, nimrod, hawk, astute, all over budget and behind schedule

[rabby]

May you forgot the biggest farce of them all, Eurofighter.

[may18]

aah yes eurofighter

ours for the bargain price of around 70 million each

but that wasnt just BAE fault, the germans wanted to order 1.3 of them, and have 99.999999% of the work (ok slight exaggeraation)

[Tab]

New Carriers, now if it was a new government office block, that would be no problem. I have just read the Gordon Browns new offices are costing
£700 million pounds at the moment, plus there is futher cost of £149 million to furnish it, now that place should be ready by 2008. Then there is
the New Government Spy Centre at Cheltham now that has come in at mere £1.62 billion pounds, yes folks billions not millions. Also the new government office being built in Great Smith Street are now to small to house all the new civivil servants belong to that department so they now require new offices before they have taken over the ones being built for them. Still they must not have any thing but best for them selfs must they. Now when the Labour Party came to power one of the first things they did was to slash the TA and all the TA Centres to pay for these new carriers they are now slashing the Royal Navy to pay for the new carriers and they have yet to order a nut and bolt for them. Now what odds would I get that they are never going to be built.

[Sisyphus]

But what did the Strategic Defence Review identify as the role for these carriers? It's about time Britain realized gun-boat diplomacy is a thing of the past.

Why is it our troops are spread around the world, thinner than margarine on a slice of stale bread during WWII? It's about time the rest of Europe contributed on an equal scale to the UK. Or rather, we scaled down out commitments.

And good 'ol Jack Straw has committed us to an extended deployment in Iraq for God knows how long!

[Tug]

The armed forces will be a rapid reaction force in the future, deployable from the UK to anywhere in the world. In batches of 20. So we should be able to get about ten teams out or so. The way I see it, we will be so downsized we will not be able to run two big carriers and T45's Squadrons.
Were having enough trouble as it is to man what we have at the moment.

[Topper]

If they really are cutting back the RN to pay for the carriers why don't they find some unique way to fund them. Sod the PFI, they should attach a massive fishing net to the bottom of every RN warship. So that the cost of fuel for an exercise out of Plymouth is covered by a nice haul of Mackerel or whatever. Or they could fit Invincible with a load of windmills and sell the electricity generated.

[spitz]

The FT has got it wrong, less money doesn’t mean smaller carriers, steel is cheap. Less money will mean less systems and less capable carriers, which is just as bad, but systems could be added later or cannibalised from the Invincible carriers.

The French know what happens when you build a carrier too small, the American Hawkeye radar aircraft they bought can’t be launched because the decks too short.

Build ‘em big or we’ll become a laughing stock like the French.

[may18]

But what did the Strategic Defence Review identify as the role for these carriers? It's about time Britain realized gun-boat diplomacy is a thing of the past.

Why is it our troops are spread around the world, thinner than margarine on a slice of stale bread during WWII? It's about time the rest of Europe contributed on an equal scale to the UK. Or rather, we scaled down out commitments.

And good 'ol Jack Straw has committed us to an extended deployment in Iraq for God knows how long!

I agree

But blair sees the uk forces as a political tool

rather than a force to protect britain and its interests.

On a side note, our budget is now 50B us dollars.

How come we cant manage?

[The 4th Patriot]

Our budget is $50 billion? Do you have any resources or statistics online which vouch for this? I only ask because from what I've read:

a) our budget is just over $30 billion.
b) and we're facing cuts in the defense budget

[may18]

Our budget is $50 billion? Do you have any resources or statistics online which vouch for this? I only ask because from what I've read:

a) our budget is just over $30 billion.
b) and we're facing cuts in the defense budget

There is a document buried deeply in the Treasury waffle but its an exercise in fustration finding it, so instead..the bbc ;p

________
Monday, 15 July, 2002, 16:06 GMT 17:06 UK
Armed forces get funding rise


Demands on the armed forces have increased

Spending on defence is to rise by £3.5bn a year - the biggest increase for two decades, Chancellor Gordon Brown has announced.
The rise, announced in Mr Brown's spending review for the next three years, is aimed at helping the armed forces cope with the extra demands caused by the war on terror.


Hoon: Defence increase is "excellent"

The defence budget was heavily stretched by the UK's involvement in action to topple the Taleban regime in Afghanistan.

Mr Brown said the budget would rise from £29.3bn this year to £32.8bn by 2005-6.

Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon said the increase was "excellent".

'Prudent'

He said it would equip the armed forces with the most up-to-date "battle-winning" military hardware.

Mr Brown told MPs: "This is the biggest planned increase in defence spending for 20 years and is a clear sign of the strength of the British economy.

"This government's prudent management of the country's finances has meant that we have been able to find billions extra for health and education, whilst at the same time finding billions extra to ensure that we continue to have one of the best armed forces in the world."

Mr Hoon said the increase "will allow us to invest in the continued modernisation and evolution of the armed forces to meet the new security challenges, including the threat from international terrorism.

"The settlement is also a clear recognition of the contribution made by the armed forces, our service personnel, and the civil servants and others who support them, particularly in recent and continuing operations."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2129416.stm