Dreaded vote of confidence in CVF

Oh dear,
If you are not British you may fail to understand just how deadly a vote of confidence is in the armed forces. It is usually the first stage in either cutting back numbers, or else scrapping the programme completely. I believe that this has applied to everything from the TSR2 all the way up to the Nimrod MRA4.

AW - Article

Jensy

So wait, someone initiates a vote of confidence in the armed forces and it's a bad thing? What happens after the vote of confidence is passed?

A vote of confidence implies a few things.

1. There has been an investigation looking at cutting back.

2. Currently, the program in question is still receiving backing.

3. That support will be conditional on the future political and financial landscape (both real and projected), and can change.



A vote of confidence can also serve as a shot across the bows to the builders etc - don't screw up any more or we'll ditch the project (whatever the project is).

Its one of those Britishisms, like queueing and not talking on a train.

In politics it is absolute lethal, it goes from:

"I give x my full support"

"I have the utmost of confidence in x"

and finnally

"I have the utmost confidence that x will suceed in future employment"

The thing is there carriers are in all honesy an absolute extravagence, we do not need anything of that size or aircraft complement, it would make more sense to either go whole hog an operate CTOL aircraft or else to build something more on the scale of the US's Wasp class assault carriers.

Jensy

As Predicted.

CVF Rethink

Thanks to the wonderful people at the Institute for Public Policy Research (far-left think tank which the govt listens to) the CVF project perhaps the only promising major military project left in the UK is now heading for that magical place where the original CV-01, TSR-2, Hawker Siddeley P.1154, and the manned FOAS all ended up.
Their argument is that the types of requirements which face the armed forces do not have a role for these carriers. IMHO however these are ideal for the type of force projection and troop deployment which is likely to be needed well into the next two decades.

Jensy

Yup... I think they are trying to spread the program cost - resulting in a greater overall cost.


In my personal opinion, the trident replacement should be scrapped. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind regarding that.


As for the carriers, well... harder to say, but I still believe the armed forces would be better off using the money elsewhere.