Navy carriers '£1bn over budget', page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times
Topic started on 29-6-2009 @ 02:22 PM by solidshot
A £1bn cost over-run is threatening the future of the publicly-funded project to build Britain's biggest aircraft carriers, the BBC has learnt. A memorandum from the lead contractors seen by the BBC suggests there will "be a fight for the programme's survival".


BBC

There have been rumblings for a while now about what will be cut from the MOD budget after the next election is out of the way, could it be that these will end up paying the price instead of the nuclear program? then what happens if the Argentinians decide they really do want to make a serious effort to get the Falklands back? secondly what will we need the type 45's for now? aren't these air defence destroyers designed to protect these aircraft carriers?


reply posted on 29-6-2009 @ 02:26 PM by FredT
Reply to post by solidshot


If the RN kills their future carrier, their participation in the F-35 program may not last either. Can the Jsf operate from their existing carriers?



Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com



reply posted on 29-6-2009 @ 09:03 PM by FredT
Reply to post by Laurauk


why would you scrap your only real and most survivable deterence?



Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com




reply posted on 29-6-2009 @ 09:53 PM by djvexd
reply to post by FredT



I could have swore they were buying the STOVL variant. i could be wrong though. It would make since as the aging harrier is becoming even more tempermental in it's old age.


reply posted on 30-6-2009 @ 03:26 AM by solidshot
reply to post by FredT




The problem the UK has is that the current government has effectively bankrupted the country whilst underfunding the military, we really need more regiments and boots on the ground as shown in Helmand province in Afghanistan where we are having to get a load of US troops to help us out because we don't have enough of our own out there, whilst all this is going on we have the new nuke programme about to get under way in a year or two so any government that wins the next election next summer will have to make some serious choices do we scrap the nukes that very likely may never get used, the carrier fleet, our regiments of heavy tanks a combination of them all or what? personally it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they scrapped the carriers and the nukes


reply posted on 30-6-2009 @ 04:48 AM by Laurauk
reply to post by FredT




For 1, we as a country cannot afford to spend 1 billion never mind 20 billion on a cold war weapon. Will take us years to crawl out of the Debt hole that we are in.

And besides I want rid of nuclear weaons altogether, is that a bad thing?


reply posted on 30-6-2009 @ 04:13 PM by Laurauk
reply to post by paraphi



Oks, but we as a country as a whole cannot afford to pay for trident, unless we cut public spending else where.

So what do we do spend billions of pounds on a cold war weapon, or use the saved money by building those carriers, improving the equipement and resources, our Armed forces need?

To me the over estimate to the biudget for the carriers is a drop in the ocean compared to the costs for trident.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



Nano Drones Flying in Formation
  Posted 10 days ago with 15 member flags
FPS RUSSIA
  Posted 15 days ago with 7 member flags
Spinel Thin Transparent Ceramic Armor defeats Barrett .50 Cal BMG
  Posted 14 days ago with 6 member flags
Self-steering Bullet Researched
  Posted 11 days ago with 5 member flags
Shockrounds take out three of your five senses.
  Posted 3 days ago with 5 member flags
Defective Ammunition Warning
  Posted 3 days ago with 5 member flags

ATS Live North America is broadcasting in 53 minutes.
Today's Show: ATS Live: 96: Super powers, Falklands Woes, Stan Deyo Interview, Syria, Telepathy, The Devils Chord.