By stewartb:
Cost to Scotland of global ‘power projection’ – a blank cheque!
Paying anything is too much for what you don’t need!
The National Audit Office (NAO) has just published (26 June, 2020) a report on the UK Ministry of Defence and its ‘Carrier Strike – Preparing for deployment’ programme.
The NAO states: “In this report, we examine how the Department has managed the programme since 2017 and how it is addressing the risks towards achieving the full capabilities of a carrier strike group.”
The present article follows on from recent TuSC alerts regarding Westminster government cost over-runs and mismanagement that cost Scotland’s tax payers money and for items of spend that Scotland doesn’t need nor want.
Background
The NAO report describes the UK’s ‘Carrier Strike’ in the following terms: it “provides the ability to launch fixed-wing aircraft from a ship to undertake a range of military tasks. It is central to the government’s plans for the country’s armed forces and the first step towards Carrier Enabled Power Projection (CEPP), which is the government’s ambition to be able to respond to conflicts and support humanitarian relief efforts anywhere in the world at short notice. It intends Carrier Strike to be interoperable with NATO allies. The UK has been without such a capability since 2010, when the Ministry of Defence (the Department) retired the Harrier aircraft that had operated from its Invincible Class aircraft carriers.” (with my emphasis)
Carrier Strike is based around two Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers – the largest warships ever built for the Royal Navy – together with Lightning II jets, which are being bought through the United States (US) Department of Defense’s international programme. The Department is also buying a new airborne radar system, Crowsnest, to help protect a carrier strike group. Depending on the type of deployment, the carriers will be accompanied by at least one destroyer, an anti-submarine warfare frigate, and ships for support and resupply. This all adds up!
Costs according to the NAO
£6.4bn: forecast build costs of two new Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers, £193 million (3%) above the revised budget.
£6.0bn: expenditure to date on new Lightning II jets, out of an approved project budget of £10.5 billion.
But here’s the ‘good’ bit!
Not forecast: the Ministry of Defence has not estimated the full future costs of Carrier Strike.
More revelations from the NAO
“The Crowsnest airborne radar system will provide a crucial element of protection for a carrier strike group, .… The Department did not oversee its contract with Lockheed Martin effectively and, despite earlier problems on the project, neither was aware of the sub-contractor’s lack of progress until it was too late to meet the target delivery date.”
“The Department has not yet made funding available for enough Lightning II jets to sustain Carrier Strike operations over its life. From 2015, its intention has been to buy 138 Lightning II jets, which will sustain Carrier Strike operations to the 2060s. The Department initially ordered 48 jets but has not yet committed to buying any more.”
“.. the Department has only one ship able to resupply a carrier group, which slows the tempo and reach at which this can be done. It has long been aware that this will restrict the operational freedom of Carrier Strike but has not yet developed a solution.” And then this: “… this will delay the introduction of new ships by between 18 and 36 months, making it uncertain the first new ship will be operational before the existing support ship leaves service in 2028.”
This does seem just bizarre: “The Department has still not provided the necessary funding for logistics projects and munitions. We highlighted the importance of these requirements in our 2017 report, but the Department still does not have funding to develop a long-term capability to move people and goods, including Lightning II parts, to or within a carrier group. Nor has it developed a stockpile strategy capable of supporting CEPP, or identified the consequent funding requirements.”
“The aircraft carriers have a 50-year lifespan but many capabilities in a carrier strike group will retire before then. However, the Department has not established a consolidated view of the enhancements that are needed to continue to develop Carrier Strike’s capabilities, or their cost. It will need to make funding decisions in the next 10 years, such as deciding how to replace or extend Merlin helicopters, which are due to go out of service in 2030. These decisions will create added funding pressures at a time when the Equipment Plan is already unaffordable.”
“Given the strategic importance of Carrier Strike, we would expect the Department to develop a clear view of support and operating costs. It estimated the additional costs of Carrier Strike in 2017, but this did not include all elements of a carrier strike group.”
“The Department may not have made sufficient provision in later years’ budgets to reflect the full costs of operating Carrier Strike. Failure to make realistic cost estimates creates a risk that the Department will face increased financial pressure in the future, perpetuating the cycle of short-term decision-making that we have seen in our reports on the Equipment Plan.”
“ … there is a risk that budget provisions may not cover all of Carrier Strike’s future needs; for instance, there are doubts that budgets for future years will be sufficient to fund routine deployments and keep both carriers ready for use at short notice.”
To sum up
Once again Scottish taxpayers:
- have already contributed their financial share of a costly project – we could have invested in useful naval defences for Scotland
- pursued by a Tory government a majority in Scotland didn’t vote for
- aimed at achieving a military ambition that has no relevance to a country like Scotland
- the final costs of which to the Scottish taxpayer remains unknown
- all part of a programme of dubious financial and operational management; and
- whose military capability at the end of the day remains in doubt even in its own terms
Am I missing something?
I believe it was Broon who initiated this program based on the fact that an election was in the offing and he needed something to keep the restless natives in Fife voting Labour.
Apart from the enormous costs of these two ships,there is the question of future warfare.
The days of sending gun boats to support Westminster’s theft of resources from other countries is long over.
The trend in military thinking is to use drones,aerial and aquatic which are cheaper to produce and less easy to defend against.
These two ships probably wouldn’t survive very long in a future conflict against drone swarms etc.
So,all in all,just another disaster from the incompetent London regime that we have become accustomed to who seem to specialise in spending more bucks for your bang than just about anyone else on the planet.
Might they come in handy as hospital ships for say,coping with a pandemic?
LikeLiked by 2 people
In 2014, the thuggish Mr Ian Davidson, at the time MP for the Govan area, with the connivance of his cronies in the Joint Shop Stewards Committee at the shipyard, demanded that HM Government make the placing of the order for the type of frigates mentioned be conditional on Scotland voting NO.
If Scotland voted YES, then, because the Government of the UK – of which Scotland is a part – does not place such construction contracts with “foreign” yards, such contracts would cease to be placed in Scotland. This ignored the fact that an independent Scotland would have a right to a proper share of naval resources after independence. Secondly, Govan and Scotstoun are the only yards in the UK, which are capable of building such vessels, so, where would rUK place future orders?
After voting NO, there was the ‘union dividend’ of the placing of a substantial order, but, with ‘austerity’, this has substantially been reduced.
No wonder the people of Govan gave this arsehole his jitters in 2015.
LikeLiked by 3 people
So where was most of the money spent?
LikeLike
Oh the final cost is far from over yet
If these 2 carriers are ever to become fully functional as intended ( but such is impossible see my other post on China )
But in order to complete the task
At least 1 new supply vessel reqd
At least 1 new Hunter killer nuke sub
At least 1 new anti surface warship
At least 1 new anti submarine warship
Along with the relentless ever spiralling costs of the F35 stealth fighter/bomber
At least a squadron of mine sweepers
So costs to come at least £ 18 billion
So lets put these 2 white elephants into
Some context
Harold Wilson labour government and after the keel being laid and 2 new carriers (half the size of these 2 ) were ordered
And he was presented upon request the Final costs he cancelled immediately
And as a result The MOD asking whitehall
For monies for such future projects the use of the words Aircraft Carrier was banned from use in all MOD documents in fwd.planning
Then a clever chappie came up with calling the new R22 class for design and order we ended up with HMS Invinvible &
Illustrious
How you might ask did they ever convince Whitehall to approve
Simple they were never ever referred to As Carriers until launch
And were actually classified as R22 Through Deck Cruisers so they could outwit the fiscal mandarins in Whitehall
Till it was fait accompli
So what has the 2 carriers led to today in defence terms
1.Mod in talks with Germany for procuring upgrade of Leopard 2 tanks
Britain can no longer manufacture such
Our current Challenger 2 tanks completely outdated and useless today
The And i kid you not The Swiss Army not only has the most up to date German Leopards but has more of such than we have of our old 1970,s designed Challengers
So every time you hear Westminster,s
Clarion call of having in their precious Union the Best defence forces in the World
That it is pure Coital Bovine Scatology
Dont believe me
Not my words but those of The recently retired Admiral of the Fleet
Britain has only 5 no.capital surface ships currently fit for purpose due to budget mis management,key highly skilled crew shortages and that of vital equipment and parts
So much so we can no longer protect our shores and maritime borders far less take them to wars in foreign waters
And if i was still in my post i would refuse point blank to order such ships to war as it would be suicidal and i would never ever condemn men under my command to a certain death
Now how is that for the Broad Shoulder of the Precious Union
Me thinks those shoulders could not carry a sack of feathers
Ah but such are the delusions of a collapsing Empire well into its death throes
Know thy Foe
They are paper tigers
LikeLike
Given it’s the Royal Navy, could they ask the Queen to give them a wee sub?
LikeLike
The only bit that’s missing is that this is not being shouted from the roof tops by Scottish politicians, who, while they have a mass of information like this to use, they seem strangely reluctant to deploy it.
That in part explains why the Scottish population aren’t scrambling to be free of the Westminster buffoons.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You ask if you missing something and i believe I posted what follows a month or so ago
Firstly the MOD were aware of what follows as work began on the 2 carriers
China is NOT a aggressive Nation.Read their history and you will soon find out that they will defend themselves to the hilt
And mainly in the form of deterrence
Look at the Great Wall to make sure the Mongol hordes would never again over run them
When Obama reconfigured completely US defence strategy it was to deal with what they perceived as the main threat to their hegemony and China was the big future threat
So and as their own carrier fleet reqd.renewal but a severe lack of
Funds to do so a backdoor deal was done with UK for us to build 2 new carriers, and a very bad deal it has turned out to be
However the deal was at least 1 of the carriers would be deployed
Upon call to the Sth. China sea by US
responses to China as they continue to
Build military bases on the Islands in S.China seas
Initially China had plans for 22 carriers of their own
But then had a brain wave,which was after a comprehensive study
Of WW2 they came to realize that it was not about building carriers
But was sinking them
How because Japan before and during WW2 had 28 carriers
But finished with only 1 no.
And as a result converted ICBM missiles to conventional warheads to carry
9 tonnes of high explosives instead of nuclear and vastly improved their accuracy
To less than 1metre
But as far as US & UK carriers concerned the Chinese missiles have
A impact speed of 4800 mph and we have no defence against such
So our carriers are utterly useless in conflict with China and that is so
Any where upon the Globe
Furthermore China now has a very advanced radar that renders the F35 stealth fighter for our carriers
Useless because their radar can now see them despite their stealth
And they have now ready to deploy their own stealth fighter bomber
And produced in large nos.at a fraction of the very troubled hideiously expensive F35
Not only all that but creating a rapid response amphibious assault group
In less than 6 months from concept
To commission they designed built launched sea trialled and equipped a 48 k
Tonne assault carrier
Along with 12 stealth fighters,advanced radar as prev..described,12 attack helicopters,24 main Battle Tanks and
1880 special forces
What does that represent
Well if the US overnight and by suprise
Takes over 1 of China,s military Islands in S.China sea then they require to do so with massive resources as this Amphibious assault ship can dislodge 60000 occupying forces
A excellent example of Chinese deterence
Their message just like the Great Wall
Is one of Come on thenTry it
Their us no doubt whatsoever that China is now and for once and all and all Humanity bringing to a end of US
Military Hegemony along with a economic war that will also end the power of the $
Europe is the only sensible ally now in exercising some form of sense and control
As the tectonic plates of Geo Political forces rapidly re align
All proving the Utter stupidity of Little England with their delusional exceptional ism with their Brexit
They have put what little money they have well and truly on the wrong horse
And that is another massive reason and need for Scottish Independence
I could go on and on all day
But as far as UK & US
And just as M.Caine sung in the film Little Voice
ITS OVER
LikeLiked by 1 person
Russia too. Most wars fought to defend itself and defensive buffer countries?
LikeLike
Yes i agree
Putin openly invites any to attack
Warning them that The Nazis thought they could and get away with it
And you all know how their plan ended up for them do you not
But The west always makes out that we are in dire danger from them
Just like China Russia has been ultra smart in defence matters
E.G.Their latest Main Battle Tank
Has infra red targeting, computer controlled from a squadron lead tank.
Auto load and fire Repeat to another target in millie second
Super hypersonic missiles in lieu of conventional shells
Quote From head of Nato command
We cannot possibly engage with this formidable piece of hardware with our current and new generation of main battle tanks
It would be slaughter
Once More a fine example of Deterrence
And remember when BOJO as foreign secretary invited us to demo outside Russian Embassy after Novichok
Quote from Senior Russian defence planner in response
Brittania rules the waves
Quite the reverse the waves rule Brittania
And I assure you that in matters of defence planning you now are a irrelevance and no longer figure in our strategic procurement and planning
But did any MSM report upon the Russian response
No coconut prize for correct answer
LikeLike
Premieroneuk
We don’t / can’t make battle tanks, or equip the carriers with planes. . . . . We cant even make bullets since Bishopton was closed down. As I remember the UK was going to get their ammo from Sweden?
LikeLike
I believe when Gavin Williamson was Defence Minister he proposed sending a carrier off to the Yellow sea to “show who is boss”.
Of course, being a fireplace salesman, he never thought this nonsense up on his ownsome. When you have many more Admirals than ships, they fight like rats to show they are still relevant. I expect one of them, egged on by Captain Elmer J Chickenshack111 of Pensacola, thought this up.
A really good idea, if you want a steel reef to breed fish.
The Chinese have hypersonic missiles, from which there is no defence, even if our carriers HAD a defence flotilla. Which they don’t.
LikeLiked by 2 people
When you look at England alone and see its limitations it beggars belief how arrogant England is , they are like the wee boy in the playground going around hitting people and annoying people just hoping that nobody decides to call their bluff and fight back.
Once scotland is independent it will be the end of aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines and the end of warring around the globe.
Im sick of all this nonsense.
Come on people vote for scottish independence bring england down to size and save the world from their idiotic attitudes
LikeLiked by 3 people
Tis England that needs saving from itself now
I fear when we depart there is a excellent chance of open civil war there
That is how bad things are and such problems will become untenable for the powerful elite to control
any longer
History tells you collapsing Empires are not pretty things always one helluva mess
And when their leaders start spouting words like Empire 2 Make us great again
World class we shall defeat etc etc
Then the end indeed is nigh and ominously upon them now
LikeLike
It’s difficult to argue against the UK being world class in one aspect of military development- the spending. They may be rubbish at planning and project management, but they are very good at spending what money they have and what they can borrow.
In fact, they are so good at spending that you could not be blamed for thinking that spending is their main objective, especially when the money is going to their mates and to those they want to impress. Perhaps cost overruns are seen as a good thing?
No doubt they can scrape money together by cutting some other aspect of social care. Is this a government concerned for its people, or for anything other than self-enrichment?
LikeLike