Januarry sale from the Government

  Govan1x 11:41 04 Jan 2018
Locked

Looks like the Government is having a clearance sale. it cost about 60 million a few years ago for a refit.

Looks like a bargain to me.

Click here

  john bunyan 12:26 04 Jan 2018

This is an appalling decision. To justify spending so much on two huge aircraft carriers ( with no fixed wing aircraft yet available) the head honcho of the RN is sacrificing this LPH that is one of our few amphibious fleet and can project RM ashore . They are also considering the sale of Albion and Bulwark, again the only vessels designed for a heavy lift. Helicopters can only land (underslung) very light loads , and in the Falklands campaign, artillery ammunition was the heaviest single ittem that had to be landed. No one is suggesting that we retain the full capacity for a massive amphibious assault but to lose the three ships mentioned would put back even a token amphibious capability for decades.

  Cymro. 12:40 04 Jan 2018

So will the money they get for things like this go back in to the general defence budget or is it just swallowed up along with other government revenue?

I wonder what the scrap value is of this?

  john bunyan 12:57 04 Jan 2018

Some years ago the government split the Defence budget into portions for the Army, Navy and Air Force and the heads of those have considerable freedom within their part. In the case of this amphibious debate the RN are forgetting the fact that with the reduction in the size of the Army , that the Royal Marines 3 Commando Brigade is , alongside 16 Air Assault Brigade , our best rapid reaction force. As the RM are in the RN budget , any reduction may help the RN but would be a major loss to the country, so hopefully the minister will get involved. Going back to Defence Procurement, it has a dreadful history of waste, from the sale of the Harriers with no replacement , the Upholder class submarines and many more.

  Cymro. 13:14 04 Jan 2018

I expect John that you could tell me that spending limitless billions of pounds on defence will in the long run save us more than it costs. I expect you can prove anything with statistics but to me it is all an immoral waite of money.

  john bunyan 13:28 04 Jan 2018

Cymro

Our Defence budget at 2% is what we are committed to in NATO. In my 20’s it was 5%. What is needed is to stop wasting money on bad decisions. If you trust others like Putin, ISIS or Kim Jon Un, by all means don’t have Defence. As Chamberlain found out, that is a mistake.

  Pablo de Catio 14:11 04 Jan 2018

Does the UK needs these relics from the past when the greater threat are cyber and terrorists. The financial upkeep most be astronomical. We have a nuclear deterrent to dissuade larger aggressors. The UK is not the force it once was and the sooner daily mail readers see that, the better.

  john bunyan 15:20 04 Jan 2018

Pablo de Catio

At the time of the unexpected invasion of the Falkland Islands by Argentina, would you have written off the wishes of the islanders? We could hardly have nuked Buenos Aries to get them to withdraw. Also the rescue of people fleeing from Libya a few years ago needed boots on the ground, quite apart from the recent deployment to the Caribbean to give aid after the hurricane, where the ships mentioned played a vital role - do you want us to abandon such a capability . It is patronising and insulting to assume that the Daily Mail forms the opinion of all who are keen on our country's defence. Cyber is a threat and must be a priority, as are terrorists, where both home agencies and Special Forces are required, and their budget has been increased. However a maxim to remember is "Always prepare for the unexpected" . A balanced defence is a vital part of a responsibility in the "Defence of the Realm". Look what happened to the Crimea recently.

  Forum Editor 15:57 04 Jan 2018

Defence spending is like paying an insurance premium - you would rather not have to do it, but you're very glad you did when things suddenly go wrong.

That said, we are living in an age where we are more likely to need to carry a big stick than actually have to use it. To that end, we obviously need ships/aircraft/submarines/people/armaments but warships are by far the most expensive single items to build and to maintain, and I sometimes think that there's an emotional attachment to ships that is out of proportion to their value in realistic terms.

Perhaps I'm wrong - I don't know enough about military logistics - but I would have thought that one big aircraft carrier, with its various support vessels and aircraft to fly off it would be enough, given that we also have other warships.

Selling off a 20-year-old vessel doesn't seem so terrible to me.

  qwbos 00:51 05 Jan 2018

If you trust others like Putin

Why not? He's less of a risk than Trump and various others before him, if, for no other reason than he doesn't have so many "toys" to play with.

Also the rescue of people fleeing from Libya a few years ago

And why were they fleeing? That was due to Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy trying to remodel Libya. That went well!

Look what happened to the Crimea recently

The Crimeans appear to be happy with their current arrangement.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Microsoft Surface Book 2 15in review

Illustrator Amy Grimes on how setting up her own eco-brand led to success with clients too

MacBook Pro keyboard issues and other problems

Test : l’enceinte connectée HomePod d’Apple