The Labour Government

Vic said:
A bit Trumpian that

news.usni.org

Trump’s Call to Return Steam Catapults to Carriers Would Cost Billions - USNI News

Experts predict President Donald Trump's desire for new aircraft carriers to incorporate steam-powered catapults will cost billions of dollars to design.
news.usni.org news.usni.org
Click to expand...
I think it may well cost billions to redesign steam catapults into an existing ship but maybe cheaper on a new build and gives you flexibility on aircraft you can operate. We had steam catapults for years on aircraft carriers designed for them. They worked really well.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
"In late 2020 Bulwark was dry-docked for phase two of her optimised support period.[42] The ship was to remain in dry dock prior to undertaking a phase 3 "recertification package" ahead of her planned return to the fleet in 2023.[43] In mid-2023 it was reported that the ship would not be ready for active operations until sometime in 2024."

Looks an awful lot like not useable for 4 years, which is what I wrote.

Whether Cartlidge has been interpreted rightly, I don't know - this seems drawn from this single line answer in Parliament:
"I can confirm HMS BULWARK will be regenerated from extended readiness and maintained so that she can be ready to deliver defence outputs if required."

Due back in 2023, then sometime in 2024. Cartlidge's comment seems to be an avoidance of actually saying that it's done because that would look like it had been left to rot without plans to replace it.
Click to expand...
You missed the last bit out, where it states Bulwark is undergoing a refit?

Also says Bulwark is undergoing a refit in this article.

www.navylookout.com

Even before the defence review has begun, five Royal Navy warships are to be scrapped | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com www.navylookout.com
 
Last edited:
Churchlawtonblue said:
You missed the last bit out, where it states Bulwark is undergoing a refit?
Click to expand...

Cartlidge didn't say that, and the word refit doesn't appear in the citation; it appears to be an unsubstantiated comment from the wikipedia editor after Cartlidge's statement (which I posted in full).

I would have thought anyone seeing that it had a 'recertification package' in dry dock would assume that some kind of refit was going on for some of that.

It's been in dry dock for 4 years, with no return date apart from two that have already passed. I think that's well past any 'refit' if the decision instead is to scrap it 8 or 9 years early.

I'd accept that it doesn't say it's not a useless money-sink of a rustbucket, but that's what I interpret those statements as saying.
 
I think the MOD needs to move into the 21st century and realise that they need to make having a naval career not only and time exciting but financially rewarding. They have offered existing recruits a £500 bonus if they can attract new personnel, but this is clearly peanuts.

Having spoken to one or two on here who have served , they have said that recruitment is so bad that it results in longer ship deployments, which result in less recruitment and people leaving ie catch 22.

I worked offshore in the oil industry early in my career. The reason most work away from home in the offshore industry is the pay is alot better than working onshore doing a 5 day week. If the government gave every RN ship crew a 50% pay rise to reflect the commitment and deployment time, I wouldnt mind betting the recruitment issues would dissapear.

You have to move with the times, and the costs involved would be small fry compared to the waste and cost in government in other areas.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
Cartlidge didn't say that, and the word refit doesn't appear in the citation; it appears to be an unsubstantiated comment from the wikipedia editor after Cartlidge's statement (which I posted in full).

I would have thought anyone seeing that it had a 'recertification package' in dry dock would assume that some kind of refit was going on for some of that.

It's been in dry dock for 4 years, with no return date apart from two that have already passed. I think that's well past any 'refit' if the decision instead is to scrap it 8 or 9 years early.

I'd accept that it doesn't say it's not a useless money-sink of a rustbucket, but that's what I interpret those statements as saying.
Click to expand...
It's in the words in the article thats what I'm saying.

Also in this article it says it is undergoing a refit.

www.navylookout.com

Even before the defence review has begun, five Royal Navy warships are to be scrapped | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com www.navylookout.com
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
It's in the words in the article thats what I'm saying.

Also in this article it says it is undergoing a refit.

www.navylookout.com

Even before the defence review has begun, five Royal Navy warships are to be scrapped | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com www.navylookout.com
Click to expand...

That one does - it's from today, and isn't one of the citations I looked at.

However, I see your link suggests it might be sold to Brazil so maybe the lack of crew is the main issue. Presumably a fair amount of stuff would have to be removed before sale, so it's a good thing it's in dry dock!

I just think that any process that costs so much to make ready and has no crew that scrapping it is considered better doesn't really count as being in refit.
 
Churchlawtonblue said:
I think the MOD needs to move into the 21st century and realise that they need to make having a naval career not only and time exciting but financially rewarding. They have offered existing recruits a £500 bonus if they can attract new personnel, but this is clearly peanuts.

Having spoken to one or two on here who have served , they have said that recruitment is so bad that it results in longer ship deployments, which result in less recruitment and people leaving ie catch 22.

I worked offshore in the oil industry early in my career. The reason most work away from home in the offshore industry is the pay is alot better than working onshore doing a 5 day week. If the government gave every RN ship crew a 50% pay rise to reflect the commitment and deployment time, I wouldnt mind betting the recruitment issues would dissapear.

You have to move with the times, and the costs involved would be small fry compared to the waste and cost in government in other areas.
Click to expand...

Do think that a goverment could survive the backlash caused by the necessary tax rises for these pay increases ?
 
Mr Kobayashi said:
Do think that a goverment could survive the backlash caused by the necessary tax rises for these pay increases ?
Click to expand...
Yes because it wouldn't ammount to that much money in scheme of givernemnt expenditure. Some very quick rough maths. Roughly 8000 RN personnel required to man our fleet. Let's say average yearly salary is 30k. A 50% payrise for those personnel equates to £120m per year. Up from £240m to £360m. Take a look at the numbers the government spends in other areas, it really is peanuts Kobay.

Governments waste billions , this is what Labour thought the last government wasted. The money is there it just has to be spent more wisely.

 
Last edited:
Churchlawtonblue said:
Yes because it wouldn't ammount to that much money in scheme of givernemnt expenditure. Some very quick rough maths. Roughly 8000 RN personnel required to man our fleet. Let's say average yearly salary is 30k. A 50% payrise for those personnel equates to £120m per year. Up from £240m to £360m. Take a look at the numbers the government spends in other areas, it really is peanuts Kobay.

Governments waste billions , this is what Labour thought the last government wasted. The money is there it just has to be spent more wisely.

Click to expand...

Good post.

But Wouldn't it push up salaries in the Army and air force and other frontline public services?

And create more demand in the defence industry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.