CVF Construction

Member for

10 years 6 months

Posts: 1,142

Welcome to New Labour & the 21st century.

I can't wait for next year. I know the Tories will be little better but it's still a glimmer of hope I can hold onto until they start making decisions.

(In my opinion Tony Blair wasn't that bad, he made some good calls, Brown cut his balls off on defence though, wouldn't let the money out of his grubby little paws, pity he's become synonymous with Labour.)

Member for

10 years 5 months

Posts: 420

I don't think the tories will be any different. Remember what happened last time the tories were in. I don't remember any big defence budget increase. Tories are out to make the rich richer and stuff the rest. What ever party comes in we will just see more of the same. Some one needs to shake up the MOD and stop it from using so much of the budget on civilians it's crazy how much of the budget and time for projects get's taken up from these people. 1 man can do a job, get 100 people doing that job and it takes 3 times as long and cost 100 times more and you end up with a comprimise. The main problem is 1st the MOD has far to many staff and makes a **** up of every project they get there hands on cause they have 2 many staff to puzzle and adjust things. 2nd the budget isn't big enough for what the UK want's it's armed forces to be

Member for

13 years 11 months

Posts: 1,039

One of the Oil explorers, Desire Petroleum, announced a drilling campaign in the offshore North Falklands yesterday. 'If ' they find oil early next year in any volumes then it will change the game for the RN to a significant extent, so I bet there are a few Admirals praying for oil :diablo:

Profile picture for user kev 99

Member for

11 years 3 months

Posts: 1,533

One of the Oil explorers, Desire Petroleum, announced a drilling campaign in the offshore North Falklands yesterday. 'If ' they find oil early next year in any volumes then it will change the game for the RN to a significant extent, so I bet there are a few Admirals praying for oil :diablo:

Explain? Why would it change the game for the RN?

Profile picture for user Stan hyd

Member for

10 years 6 months

Posts: 604

Tell you something though, if they do find oil. I want another 4 Eurofighters down that way.

Also wouldnt mind sending a Type 23 and a Type 42 on a routine visit.

Member for

10 years 5 months

Posts: 420

With the Scottish budget worries about some major projects like the new forth bridge crossing under threat in the next few years we could have a great use for the CVF's if hte get cancelled half way through building. Line the 2 of them up and make a bridge. Brilliant no that's what i call multi role.

Member for

10 years 6 months

Posts: 1,142

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6835280.ece

Dear god and to think I am campaigning for them. Ill stop today

Now I feel ill.

I couldn't care less if A400M was scrapped for now, in fact i'd welcome it, because the Tories would effectively be forced to buy more C17's unless they actually want to wave their dicks at our troops and the war in Afghanistan.

Typhoon doesn't need a decision for a few years now (2012) as 3A has been signed and done with. They can put that off until the finances are a little better, but eventually they're going to have to buy something to use.

I just hope that the contracts for the carriers is too far gone and too much work has been done for them to cancel them. It's the second CVF i'm particularly worried about because they'll try and justify doing something stupid like only buying the first.

The fact that the chancellor is saying this not the defence secretary tells me that they won't care what we need, only what we can buy, thus making the upcoming SDR pointless. The Tories have managed to snub out the last faint hope that made me want to vote for them.

Profile picture for user kev 99

Member for

11 years 3 months

Posts: 1,533

Not particularly encouraging but then hardly surprising either. Still its only words at the moment and politicians words mean nothing to me, we won't find out what their real intentions are until they get in power.

You could actually view this article as one big piece of excuse making for not cutting those three programmes - "didn't know cancellation costs at the time, now I do, want to cut them but can't, sorry".

Member for

10 years 2 months

Posts: 165

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6835280.ece

Dear god and to think I am campaigning for them. Ill stop today

I just can't see them cutting the carrier programme, as far as has been leaked, the contractors put in some very hefty cancellation clauses. Also, I have no doubt tha tthe navy would pursue the carriers relentlessly (they seem to have learned some lessons form the 1960s carrier wars).

Politically, the idea of having a partially built carrier lying in bits around the last of Britain's dockyards would be a huge embarrasement to the Tories, It would gut what was left of Britain's shipbuilding industry, putting some thousands out of jobs.... the political fall out in Scotland in particular would be massive, given the steadfast Labour leanings of the shipbuilding constituencies and the largely held public opinion (whether you believe it or not) that the last Tory government spent all it's time kicking Scotland around, thus it would look like business as usual (and perhaps an acceleration of nationalist appeal up north).

Profile picture for user Stan hyd

Member for

10 years 6 months

Posts: 604

thank god for penalty clauses.

The only way it seems to keep a british government doing what they said they would do!.

Im all for the A400M cancellation. Buy more C-130's and C-17s

Leave the euro fighter and carriers alone.

I know though knowing our policitians they will scrap the JSF deal and say we can make do with Harriers. Or only buy 30.

Profile picture for user kev 99

Member for

11 years 3 months

Posts: 1,533

thank god for penalty clauses.

The only way it seems to keep a british government doing what they said they would do!.

Im all for the A400M cancellation. Buy more C-130's and C-17s

Leave the euro fighter and carriers alone.

I know though knowing our policitians they will scrap the JSF deal and say we can make do with Harriers. Or only buy 30.

I suspect chopping back on JSF numbers is the easiest way for the next Government to save money, or at least deferring some of them, Typhoon Tranche 3b I think has very little chance of being ordered.

Member for

10 years 6 months

Posts: 1,142

thank god for penalty clauses.

The only way it seems to keep a british government doing what they said they would do!.

Im all for the A400M cancellation. Buy more C-130's and C-17s

Leave the euro fighter and carriers alone.

I know though knowing our policitians they will scrap the JSF deal and say we can make do with Harriers. Or only buy 30.

If I was in government i'd make sure I included penalty clauses so that if I got kicked out it'd be too late to scrap important projects.

The only issue I have with scrapping A400M is if we can't recoup any/most of our costs, then it'd be pointless really. I think we'd also have to wait quite a while for more C-130's and C17's. But in the long run i'd rather have C-130's so that it'd be easier to justify KC and AC variants being bought.

And if they scrap the carriers they'll almost certainly scrap JSF as pointless. Add that to scrapping Typhoon and Britain has suddenly lost it's naval power projection and the majority of it's fast jet force. All that would happen before an SDR could be completed so would be entirely a knee-jerk reaction to 12bad months for the economy and would **** up our country's defence for the next 30-50 years. In short George Osborne is a short sighted ******.

Member for

16 years 1 month

Posts: 4,674

They can weasel out of the A400M stating contractual non-fulfillment.

They can weasel out of CVF by just stopping it. BAE keeps development money.

And they can weasel out of EF2k by selling them off to them 'Rabs.

Any questions? :D

Profile picture for user Obi Wan Russell

Member for

13 years 1 month

Posts: 519

thank god for penalty clauses.

The only way it seems to keep a british government doing what they said they would do!.

Im all for the A400M cancellation. Buy more C-130's and C-17s

Leave the euro fighter and carriers alone.

I know though knowing our policitians they will scrap the JSF deal and say we can make do with Harriers. Or only buy 30.

Agreed for the most part, though on the last point, keeping the Harriers running isn't a viable option, after 2018 they will start running out of fatigue life, which has already been extended as far as practically possible. The F-35s don't have to be ordered all in one go though, and this is a program that will be spread over many years. An initial purchase of up to 60 aircraft will give an initial operational capability (30 is too few to be of practical value, not enough for one carrier air group let alone an OCU or attrtion reserve) and then more batches can be ordered later, as the production lines will be open well into the 2020s. During the transition period from Harrier to F-35, they will be operated side by side for s few years, with the FAA scheduled to recieve them first. This should free up a large number of Harrier airframes for the RAF, so they can pick and choose the best airframes from a larger pool to eke out the fatigue life of the remaining aircraft.

Profile picture for user Stan hyd

Member for

10 years 6 months

Posts: 604

one more question.

How do i get US citizenship?

Member for

10 years 2 months

Posts: 165

They can weasel out of the A400M stating contractual non-fulfillment.

They can weasel out of CVF by just stopping it. BAE keeps development money.

And they can weasel out of EF2k by selling them off to them 'Rabs.

Any questions? :D

any attempt to save money on cancelling CVF would sort of rely on getting as much money as they could back from the project, so really, letting BAE keep the development money is not an option.... the fact is that a large portion of the money has already been spent. I'm really not sure how Osborne plans to save money, despite his protests about limited staff sizes (and his own limited mental faculties) even he should be able to read what is publsihed on the subject.

Member for

13 years

Posts: 277

They can weasel out of the A400M stating contractual non-fulfillment.

They can weasel out of CVF by just stopping it. BAE keeps development money.

And they can weasel out of EF2k by selling them off to them 'Rabs.

Any questions? :D

Yeah, are you looking for a job at Tory HQ?

Profile picture for user swerve

Member for

14 years 6 months

Posts: 13,433

thank god for penalty clauses.

Im all for the A400M cancellation. Buy more C-130's and C-17s


We've already paid about 25% of the bill, for development & setting up production. Do the penalty clauses mean we get it all back if we cancel?

Clobbers the British firms building large parts of it, as well, if we cancel & buy American. Neither C-17 nor C-130J have significant UK content, unlike A400M.

Member for

10 years 6 months

Posts: 1,142

We've already paid about 25% of the bill, for development & setting up production. Do the penalty clauses mean we get it all back if we cancel?

Clobbers the British firms building large parts of it, as well, if we cancel & buy American. Neither C-17 nor C-130J have significant UK content, unlike A400M.

Another major problem with cancelling A400M is the likelihood of the wing manufacturing being moved away from Filton to somewhere overseas. I doubt we could get Boeing to start local production either unless we ordered a massive number of a/c.

I think his point about penalty clauses was for not cancelling Typhoon/CVF. I think out of all our major programs A400M is the one we can most easily get rid of. The money invested isn't too high, it has decent alternatives and would not cost as many jobs as the others. Still we would need firm commitment to replace them with other a/c, which defeats the point of making these stupid and massive cuts. If they cut something, I doubt we'll see a replacement.