Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


£4bn aircraft carrier project 'will go ahead'

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 29 November 2008
THERE is no threat to the massive aircraft carrier project which is vital to the survival of Scottish ship yards, senior Royal Navy officers and defence contractors have insisted.
Commodore Mike Mansergh, one of the most important and influential officers in the Royal Navy, and Alan Johnston, the chief executive of BVT Surface Fleet, one of the main contractors, told The Scotsman they were convinced that the £4 billion aircra
ft carrier project would go ahead.

They were reacting to reports earlier this week that the Ministry of Defence is reviewing the order and that construction might be delayed or cancelled.

The contract for the carriers has been signed, design work has already begun and construction of the first ship is due to start on the Clyde early next year.

The carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, will be the biggest warships to be built in the UK. They are due to enter service in 2014 and 2016.

Sections are being built in Glasgow and Portsmouth with other work done at Barrow-in-Furness. The ships are then due to be put together in Rosyth, creating or underpinning a total of 10,000 jobs throughout the UK.

Confusion over the future of the commission came earlier this week when, in response to the proposed squeeze on government finances in the face of the gloomy economic climate, a spokesman for the MoD said: "The MoD is looking at all its major equipment programmes over the next ten years, with a view to bearing down on costs and making sure front-line troops are properly supported."

But Commodore Mansergh, who commands the 43-strong Portsmouth flotilla, said: "I am an optimist … I am sure we will have the aircraft carriers in the future.

"The contract has been signed and we are focused on welcoming the first aircraft carrier when it comes into service."

The BVT conglomerate, an amalgamation of defence contractors VT Group and BAE Systems, employs 4,000 people on the Clyde, jobs which would be under threat if the carrier order was axed.

The company has enough work in its order book to cope with some slippage in the timescale for the carrier order but anything more than a year or two of delay and there would be a strain on the company.

BVT's Mr Johnston accepted there might be some delay to the project, but he said he did not think there was any threat to the project itself.

He said: "I do not have any concerns over the aircraft carrier contract per se. We know the MoD is going through an equipment review at the moment but I personally don't see any threat to the carriers. In any major military programme, timetables can be varied to suit organisational or financial requirements, but I do not see any significant threat to the carriers."

Mr Johnston said it would be naïve of him to ignore the financial constraints which the UK government is now working under and he said the biggest concern for him was the future of the small and medium-sized businesses which supported the big government contracts.

He said there appeared to be a greater danger of some of these businesses going under than of the UK government pulling the aircraft carrier order.

And he added: "In terms of forward order book, we are quite secure."

BVT Surface Fleet on the Clyde is currently working on the new Type 45 destroyers, the first of which, HMS Daring, is about to enter service with the Royal Navy. That programme will take until 2013 to complete.

The carrier orders were designed to dovetail with the Type 45 work and to keep the workforce busy until 2015 or 2016.





The full article contains 629 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 28 November 2008 10:45 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

cramond1,

Leaky Coracle, Arran 29/11/2008 05:42:42
Is building an aircraft carrier the only way to save Scottish shipyards?
2

scottishcoffindodgerno1,

Tram City 29/11/2008 08:18:50
I you read between the lines of Commodore Mansergh, who commands the 43-strong Portsmouth flotilla, said: "I am an optimist … I am sure we will have the aircraft carriers in the future. all that tells us that we will get them,but that might mean 10 years.Do not asoom to much an what a commodore might say. Very small fish indeed
3

KampungHighlander,

29/11/2008 08:36:13
"BVT Surface Fleet on the Clyde is currently working on the new Type 45 destroyers, the first of which, HMS Daring, is about to enter service with the Royal Navy. That programme will take until 2013 to complete. The carrier orders were designed to dovetail with the Type 45 work and to keep the workforce busy until 2015 or 2016."

At which time Whitehall will think up some knew waste off money to keep the shipyards open.
4

I should be studying,

Edinburgh 29/11/2008 08:54:04
#5 and you'll be the first to complain if Scottish jobs were lost because Whitehall cancelled the project. I actually think it's unfair that the majority of work seems to be going to Scottish shipyards when the English taxpayers are more likely contributing the greater cost. What about the Wales and Northern Ireland? So much for a equal partners in the Union.
5

John Cameron,

St Andrews 29/11/2008 09:10:02
Those of us with sons in the services know that what is needed is decent kit for the men on the ground, aircraft which actually have a function other than killing their crew, and a government with some vague clue of how to get us out of this unwinnable mess in the Middle East. Two aircraft carriers??? Exactly which two ocean war is Nu Labour planning to fight? And against who: Sweden and Togo? We have a big problem: the Prime Minister's brain is missing.
6

ddmc,

29/11/2008 09:26:42
giant aircraft carriers are becoming redundant due to missiles like sunburn, #7 is right spend the money on protecting the guys on the front line & equip them properly
7

Martyk,

29/11/2008 12:55:37
It is ludicrous that the is UK wasting so much money on these things. Utterly pathetic. Who are we trying to impress? All on borrowed money. I wish I were younger. I would head off somewhere less messed up. £9 Billion on Olympics. £ 15 Billion on carriers. Both projects utterly useless. All financed by borrowing. Country going bananas.
8

,

29/11/2008 14:56:00
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
9

Goggsie #,

Fife 29/11/2008 15:32:35
Visit http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.2226
to discover that they are support vessels for operational areas where there are no airfields. So they will not be operating offshore package holiday destinations!
10

Martyk,

29/11/2008 16:06:58
It is a disgrace. Wish the tories would ask some tough questions on it. The US has just completed a programme building 60 - yes sixty- Nimitz class Nuclear Aircraft Carriers. Our two is for what exactly ? Cringe making.
11

Darien,

Panama 29/11/2008 16:23:02
#7, 8, 9, 10 are all correct. Carriers are the last thing we we need to defend this country. Carriers are for fighting battles in far-off lands and I don't believe that's what the majority of Scots or even 'Brits' want. This £4 billion (plus more £ for aircraft) is a complete waste of money, but New Labour and the Tories (Note for #12!) have to keep their large corporate defence contract donors happy. Defence procurement and political connections/funding is what this is all about. And the so-called 'union dividend' is the benefit much played by New Labour and union troughers.
12

Moffat's Murkin,

29/11/2008 18:02:11
£4bn. How many schools, hospitals, youth clubs, carers, doctors, engineers and teachers would that pay for?
13

Moffat's Murkin,

29/11/2008 19:07:51
#17 Dan, I'm not a fan of a new bridge. If absolutely essential I'd prefer a tunnel.

Are you inferring that schools, hospitals, youth clubs, carers, doctors, engineers and teachers are of less real use than two boats that planes can land on?
14

Vaward,

01/12/2008 00:47:00
#10 "Two aircraft carriers for what? to patrol what? to guard against what? to protect us from who?"

Globalisation has made Britain rich, we need to protect those sources of income. Britain has mining and oil interests the world over. Two of the world's 3 most profitable oil companies are British,same goes for mining companies. These carriers are to project British power in defence of these vital interests.

And, comparatively speaking, Britain doesn't spend overly large amounts on defence, it's certainly below the average.
15

Vaward,

01/12/2008 00:51:00
#12 "The US has just completed a programme building 60 - yes sixty- Nimitz class Nuclear Aircraft Carriers. "

Make that 9.


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.