Cost Cutting Endangers Lives

CVF - Royal Navy Future Aircraft Carrier, United Kingdom
A number of protective measures such as side armour and armoured bulkheads proposed by industrial bid teams have been deleted from the design in order to comply with cost limitations.

What?! This doesn't quite make sense in my head, no side armour, the huge surface area along the side of the ship that would be the impact point of anti-ship missiles isn't to have armour, well thats just plain great isn't it!
And no armoured bulkheads, I'm not anywhere near an expert in the field of naval technology or engineering but from what I know bulkheads are important components in ships and not to armour them is a good thing.

Install explosive-suppressant foam devices in the ENTIRE Hercules fleet NOW
In January 2005 10 lives were lost when a RAF Hercules transporter
plane was brought down by ground fire in northern Iraq. It has
emerged that a safety system that could have prevented the crash was
not installed.

From the source, I'm led to believe that the USA has had this technology fitted since the sixties, the Government is now implementing the technology but lives have already been lost that this technology could have potentially saved.

Is cutting costs via the non-implemention of safety and defensive components really the way to go, are the brave men and women our of military worth so little to our Government that they will only implement changes as seen in the fuel tank foam when pressured by incidents and public pressure?

Maybe our Government should save some money and not invade countries on a lie, thats a few billions saved hey!


[edit on 1-6-2006 by Prometheus James]

This makes me wonder if they have a concept plan in the works for reactive armor.
Or if our Navy is just that good, that armor has become obsolete. Honestly with the Fleet protection that we have, it would take some thing just as good or better to defeat it.

What worries me more about the budget pinching, is why and where the money is going. Thanks for pointing this out, will be interesting to see how it gets dispersed.

Just adding to the cost cutting, this information concerns British troops and the lack of body armour at the start of the invasion of Iraq.

Cuts left troops fighting without armour
DOZENS of British troops went into battle in Iraq without life-saving body armour as a direct result of Ministry of Defence cost-cutting.

Independent defence consultant Paul Beaver has told MPs that the MoD’s equipment supply policy broke down when soldiers needed their protective gear most.

The failure centres on ceramic plates which, when worn with flak jackets, provide a degree of protection against high-velocity bullets.

It has already emerged that 33-year-old tank commander Steven Roberts, who was fatally shot in the chest near Basra, had not been issued with a ceramic plate.

Although this source is a few years out of date the point of the article still applies today, sending troops into battle without the proper armour due to budget cuts is not forgivable.
A man lost his life, a life that could have been saved had he been issued a ceramic plate for his body armour.

Can we really put a cost on the lives of our soliders...no we can't!

[edit on 14-6-2006 by Prometheus James]

Guys, that's not really new news and of course the builders will always try to stay within budget.

What I'd like you all to do, is - if you're from the UK, get on to your MP and demand that he or she takes action on your behalf.

I've written to the Labour MP for Gloucester 7 months ago on a very urgent matter and guess what?

Yep! He did not even to me the curtesy of giving me a reply. He'll not be getting my vote!

Originally posted by fritz
Guys, that's not really new news and of course the builders will always try to stay within budget.

The news articles may not be new but the issue sure as hell hasn't gone away, governments see the military as a tool and a budget, when they tend to forget it consists of actual flesh and blood as well.

Yep! He did not even to me the curtesy of giving me a reply. He'll not be getting my vote!

Welcome to Britain 2006

Whenever people risk the safety of their workers or anybody under them its always to save money. It seems like you could be able to find some other places to cut out of the budget not something as important as this.