Well done Robert, completely flawed report....again.

[AshVX220]

Good work done by Robert Peston,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpest...

The project is over budget because of the governments "re-alignment", (of course the government doesn't cause delays). This was highlighted and identified at the time this was announced, nothing to do with the contractors.

Also, he states that steel will be cut soon, I wonder who should tell him that it's already started and the first whole block (the lower bow section) is awaiting transport to Scotland.

Also, he said last night that they'll only last until 2036, they're gonna be in service for a hell of a lot longer than that.

For a BBC Business specialist, he doesn't really understand or indeed help UK business with this crap does he?

[turbobloke]

AshVX220 said:

For a BBC Business specialist, he doesn't really understand or indeed help UK business with this crap does he?

No, but he puts a lot of effort into the affected voice.

[Tyre_Tread]

He's also not terribly PC or can't spell

Robert Peston said:

HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Price of Wales

[Matt_N]

Id wager its more to do with the JSF being delayed

[AshVX220]

Matt_N said:

Id wager its more to do with the JSF being delayed

That's what caused the "re-alignment", but the increase in costs are on the platforms, not the air wing (though the price of JSF will go up no doubt).

[AshVX220]

Sorry DPM and finger trouble.

Edited by AshVX220 on Tuesday 30th June 09:40

[Matt_N]

AshVX220 said:

Matt_N said:

Id wager its more to do with the JSF being delayed

That's what caused the "re-alignment", but the increase in costs are on the platforms, not the air wing (though the price of JSF will go up no doubt).

Sorry, yeh I meant the delay.

[esselte]

turbobloke said:

AshVX220 said:

For a BBC Business specialist, he doesn't really understand or indeed help UK business with this crap does he?

No, but he puts a lot of effort into the affected voice.

That really gets on my nerves...

[DSM2]

The man's a complete tit and largely responsible for the credit crunch, in my ill considered opinion.

[Bluebarge]

turbobloke said:

AshVX220 said:

For a BBC Business specialist, he doesn't really understand or indeed help UK business with this crap does he?

No, but he puts a lot of effort into the affected voice.

That's because he has a stutter, and the delayed delivery is a strategy for curbing it.

[loltolhurst]

steel? for that price id want carbon fibre body at least! not sure why we need aircraft carriers but they look cool which is a good enough reason for me

[Bluebarge]

DSM2 said:

The man's .....largely responsible for the credit crunch, in my ill considered opinion.

Spot on. I don't know why these business and economics reporters think it's their business to report on business and economics. They should be singing happy songs to cheer us all up, then there wouldn't be a recession.

[AshVX220]

Bluebarge said:

turbobloke said:

AshVX220 said:

For a BBC Business specialist, he doesn't really understand or indeed help UK business with this crap does he?

No, but he puts a lot of effort into the affected voice.

That's because he has a stutter, and the delayed delivery is a strategy for curbing it.

Ah, I do feel sorry for anyone wih a speech impediment.....he's still a cock though!!

Edited by AshVX220 on Tuesday 30th June 11:55

[loltolhurst]

should we stop trying to punch above our weight?:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8124108.stm

[angryS3owner]

loltolhurst said:

should we stop trying to punch above our weight?:

No, we should make sure we have the ability to defend ourselves and properly equiped armed services.

[AshVX220]

angryS3owner said:

loltolhurst said:

should we stop trying to punch above our weight?:

No, we should make sure we have the ability to defend ourselves and properly equiped armed services.

The biggest problem with all such "think tanks" (other than that they rarely think) is that they never can see beyond the here and now.

To address and earlier question, we do need these ships as they enabe power projection and a platofrm for various other non-warfighting tasks. We as a nation still have assets and interests very far from our shores and out of the reach of (for example) the RAF. Without aircraft carrier's we couldn't have even contemplated re-taking the Falklands. Carriers are also a very powerful strategic asset and a huge political statement, in short their capability tells the rest of the world "don't fk with us".

As for defence in general, OK, who could have seen the rise in international terrorism 35-40 years ago?

Who would have thought at the end of WW1 that there's be another World War, who would have thought at the end of WW2, that we would find ourselves in a cold war and nuclear standoff?

we have no idea what shape the world may take in the next 40 years plus and above everything else we must be able to defend the UK against any all threats that can be percieved. If China and NK start making noises in 15 years and come marching across the continent (they certainly have enough people in arms to do it), how could we stop them if our defence has been stripped to the bare minimum?

[pugwash4x4]

for a country with the worlds 5 or 6th largest GDP, its a little silly to start talking about "lightweight". Yep we don't run the world anymore, but that's not say we shouldn't be able to protct assets or our own homeland.

I'm entirely unconvinced that the world is a safer place than 50 years ago!

[Mojocvh]

Best you all read this then

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8125466.stm

[dnb]

What a stupid attitude in that report. How is the UK defence industry supposed to export equipment when our own government doesn't want it? I know the company I work for has a considerably bigger export book than domestic. Yet another short sighted way to kill off a UK industry and all the associated businesses that it supports...

[AshVX220]

Mojocvh said:

Best you all read this then

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8125466.stm

Well, here's a novel idea, how about we slash spending in the "benefits" sector? or the NHS? The NHS throw's billions away, how about instead of giving them more money they sack the current managers and take on manager's who can manage it properly?

Just a thought.