More police and benefit cuts here we come!

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/nov/23/trident-nuclear-renewal-costs-rise-by-6bn-defence-review-reveals

It amazes me just how badly things are costed in defence. It just seems like arbitrary made up numbers, which are hiked up a couple billion after a while. How are things like this still not forecast correctly...

Although I favour Trident, they should really should have put some of that money into giving the Navy decent carriers, rather than the mickey mouse ones they're building.

Why are they keeping the nukes? They can't even launch without US approval.

Yeah, I'm starting to think the money would be better spent on keeping up troop numbers and giving us some decent aircraft carriers.

So basically you're admitting Corbyn is right.

>>3
http://www.politico.eu/article/uk-trident-nuclear-program/

Which is why we need our own Trident system and well worth the £6 billion, just to cut the fucking Yanks out.

>>5
That would be better. The consensus is becoming that no one really wins in a nuke war.

Or maybe they could keep the nukes there but have the US run and maintain them?..letting the US worry about the costs. Since we're war mongrels anyway.

I haven't seen the new air craft carriers yet. Are they crappy? It's interesting they are buying so many US war planes(F-35s). I thought the Brits liked to use their own equipment. Maybe it saves them more money over time than having to develop their own.

I think the new carriers can only use Short take off and vertical landing aircraft. They abandoned plans to have Catapult Assisted Take Off But Arrested Recovery installed on them.

I didn't know about that catapult thing. Helicopters yea but can F-35s take off and land on this thing? Just in a different way?

Hey its made it Scooootland! Are you in this video? I bet you are proud to a helped built it!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hntfADBhwCA

Nice ship!
THey should have named it William Wallace!

Yes, it can take F35Bs (but they wou't be able to carry their most destructive weapons!)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth-class_aircraft_carrier

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2974717/Pentagon-s-expensive-fighter-jet-set-use-Royal-Navy-HMS-Queen-Elizabeth-not-carry-advance-weapons-design-flaw.html

Doh!

I'm not in the video, but I am in charge of overall quality control at Rosyth!

The F-35B's can be operated - but they have a shorter range and reduced payload. Not to mention the pesky issue of them not actually working properly yet.

If you want a measure of just how stupid those in government are, you need only look at the decision not to install cats n traps on these carriers.

1. Only one type of fighter jet can be operated. So we have no choice but to operate the F-35B

2. Our allies (US, France etc) all use cats n traps, which means there is no interoperability. If they want to land on our carriers they can't and vis vera.

3. The support aircraft required to operate these carriers are not jumpjets - they require cat n traps. I'm not quite sure how they are going to get around that one...

4. The future is UAV's. Once again you need cats n traps to launch them.

The level of short-sightedness and stupidity on this project has been astounding. The Navy specifically said they wanted a catapult system and the government has given them the exact opposite of what they requested.

Talk about a cluster fúck!

It's a joke. It annoys me because they're going to the effort of building these once in a generation supercarriers but the one vital piece of equipment that was needed is not being installed. They're virtually useless. A complete white elephant. But they will try and sell it to us that these are the pride of the navy... but they're not, they're completely useless.

Meanwhile trident, which won't ever be used is going up 6 billion and it's deemed ok.

This country!

Here's a nice vid on it. Helpes to illustrate not having cat/trap. Still looks great though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A84WcrypFX0

On the dailymail comment section someone mentioned it would have been cheaper to just have ordered the US to build 2 carriers with cat/trap/ nuclear power but they waited too long or something.

That's a bummer about the F-35 cargo/bomb space but it seems they will try to work on it.

Tbh I don't think it even looks that great. The 'ski jump' is gay.

The one saving grace is that both carriers have been designed to have catapults retrofitted into them. But that probably won't happen for another 10-20 years.

Wow. That long? That's ridiculous. Or maybe youre just being hyperbolous.

Maybe in a few years of action they will see the need for them and get them fitted.
But true what you said drones eventually will be the future.

Or maybe the US black ops will finally show off some anti-gravity alien tech.

I'd like to see them fitted, but knowing the UK they will probably hobble along with it for a few decades and hide to the public just how useless they are...

Or maybe they could keep the nukes there but have the US run and maintain them?..letting the US worry about the costs. Since we're war mongrels anyway.

We should put Trident, the Navy, Army and all our national defense out to tender - lowest bid wins. I'm sure Pakistan, China, or India could provide the same service as the USA but at less than half the cost.

Let the market decide.

Interesting idea.

Kazakstan with their urine powered wooden subs would be the cheapest.

Kazakstan with their urine powered wooden subs would be the cheapest

People are irrationally scared of urine power, but it's the cheapest and most reliable source of warmth and ammonia. In the UK, people are never going to stop talking and taking it.

Accidents aren't as common as people think and, with the use of depends technology, the harmful effects can be minimised.

These new facts helped me to realize how important urine power is
..and just how wrong I was about it. Thank you!

www.urineisthefuture.org

From £25b to £31b in nine years? Is that an actual increase, or is it just an updated price taking account of inflation?

Either way, money well spent IMO.

"The MoD said the earlier figure should be revised to take account of inflation, although the department was still quoting it as the official cost earlier this year."

Something smells.

That makes it sound like inflation is indeed the reason for the "increase".

Either way... spread over 10+ years of development and then a 30 or 40 year service life, it's well under a billion a year. Considering the NHS budget alone is getting on for £100 billion per year, it really doesn't seem like an awful lot of money.

It talks about the £31 bn as being manufacturing costs in the article. Doesn't say anything about ongoing servicing and operational costs.

Also, the extra £6bn doesn't seem to be a simple inflationary increase:

"The revised cost and schedule reflect the greater understanding we now have about the detailed design of the submarines and their manufacture" the review document says.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-34898411

What's the difference between costs rising and spiralling?

The size of the rise.

The Guardian went with rise. You went with spiral.

Please could the two of you align so we get some consistency?

"Spiral" was on the BBC's breaking news ticker and I was about to post a very barebones BBC article when I saw the Guardian already had something more substantial available already. I forgot to change the thread title.

No doubt the dog ate your homework as well, hmm?

Torygraph are going with "spiral"! Maybe that's where I saw it?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/

May have been this:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/nov/23/defence-review-sdsr-cameron-statement-paris-use-of-raf-cyprus-base-for-attacks-on-isisi-politics-live

Surprised at the guardian being so restrained. Independent as well, they're just saying 'has increased'.