Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Fears for 500 jobs as MoD seeks cuts to curb aircraft carrier costs

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: 30 June 2009
HUNDREDS of jobs at the Clyde shipyards were put at risk last night after it emerged the Royal Navy's new aircraft carriers are running £1 billion over budget.
Leaked memos from the consortium building the two carriers warned they faced a "very real fight" for survival. The Ministry of Defence admitted it was currently re-costing the carrier programme, work on which was due to get under way on the Clyde
next week.

The memorandum by the board of the carrier consortium – which includes BAE Systems and the VT Group – warns of "substantial redundancies" of between 400 and 500 jobs to cut costs.

Much of the work is due to take place at shipyards on the Clyde, where 4,000 jobs are dependent on the two warships – HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales.

The 65,000 tonne vessels were due to come into service in 2014 and 2016, as the biggest and most powerful warships the UK has ever built.

Work on the two carriers had been due to get under way in December last year, but was postponed until 7 July.

Harry Donaldson, secretary of the GMB Scotland union, said the workforce on the Clyde would be "shocked" by the development, which he feared would have a "major impact on jobs and the local economy.

"Our view is it would be a false economy at this stage to try and cut, bearing in mind we need the carriers for our defence programme.

"It is not going to be easy to get these skilled workers alternative employment at this point. These are highly-skilled workers and they are significant to the defence of the country. We will be looking for cost efficiencies that won't impact on jobs."

A spokesman for the MoD said it was made clear last year that the cost of the carriers was set to increase.

"We took the decision to delay the two future aircraft carriers in December 2008.

"We did this in order to re- prioritise investment to meet current operational priorities and to better align the programme with the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft.

"We acknowledged at the time that there would be a cost increase as a result.

"We are currently re-costing the programme.

"The MoD accounts published next month will present an initial estimate and the formal costing will be available until later in the year."

A spokesman for BAE Systems said that the initial delay to the project was always expected to lead to an increase in costs.

He added: "The decision to delay the in-service dates of the carriers, taken as part of the MoD's equipment examination in December 2008 to meet affordability challenges, led to a substantial re-profiling of the programme to spread the work over a longer period of time."

However, a spokeswoman for the Scottish Government said: "These reports are extremely worrying and we will be demanding immediate clarification from the UK government as to what the position is."





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 30 June 2009 12:42 AM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

response,

Syd 30/06/2009 01:03:25
The Queen needs the money you ungratefull people never mind your jobs, just be quiet and do what your told by the Engleesh folk,Och here we go again.
2

Edward,

30/06/2009 01:06:57
The Carrier project was already heading for review with the envitable outcome that it would be cut in half or scrapped altogether. This latest news of being a billion over, even before steel has been cut surely must be the nail in the coffin!
The UK government just doesnt have the money
3

Iainbroch,

30/06/2009 01:11:08
Looks like the typical Westmidden set up!?

Watch this space!
4

,

30/06/2009 01:28:22
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
5

Edward,

30/06/2009 01:40:22
#4 Sorry Suzanne
Brains and Inteligence dont seem to be your vital asset then
6

Fletty73,

Stirling 30/06/2009 02:46:48
Expect to see these items on e-bay if they get built.
7

foxbat3000,

Edinburgh 30/06/2009 02:55:57
Hmmm carriers wont make much difference to Scotland's security. The parliament should have a veto on the use of Scottish regiments. Further to that the parliament should be able to use them as the Irish do for peacekeeping roles. A neutral within the UK defence policy would serve us better. I'm not paying for Trident either.
8

,

30/06/2009 03:21:53
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
9

donald,

glasgow 30/06/2009 04:15:01
Lord Palmerston had better gunboats than Labour Imperialists.
10

donald,

glasgow 30/06/2009 04:19:30
Lord Harold Wilson had Gunboat Palmerston's picture hanging in No. Ten, along with his other Imperialist Heroes. Does Broonie have Lord Nelson turning a blind eye to his follies? "England expects ..."
11

Aldi Shopper,

Irvine 30/06/2009 05:33:28
I doubt if these ships will ever be built. It was used to boost Labour's standing in Scotland and is about to fall flat on it's face. Brown is so good at making empty promises.
12

yockel,

30/06/2009 07:15:32
8~ SS. They would never get that far.

Do you realize they would be so vulnerable that they would have to sit so far off shore that their aircraft would have to refuel to get to a target?

Times change.

13

catgut,

pomona 30/06/2009 07:56:44
maybe we can copy the brazillian navy and have a carrier and not be able to afford any planes.
14

McNasty,

Edinburgh 30/06/2009 08:04:19
That is just the construction costs. Then you need aircraft, (F35 JSF) crew, bombs, missiles, fuel and maintenance. The maintenance costs will be horrendous as they will be propelled by medium speed diesels. Several high speed tankers will be required to keep up with the carriers. This is a complete mess in the making.
15

Politico,

Edinburgh 30/06/2009 08:27:01
I said this months ago when this shambles was first mentioned. These ships cannot go to sea without a substantial escorting force and the Royal Navy no longer has the surface fleet for the task. This project will never happen and was doomed from the start.
16

yockel,

30/06/2009 08:29:39
Ye' but Joe. What is more environmentally friendly and economically sound. Near on 500 workers going back to Ireland, Poland and England and a handful of Scots all looking for more useful work or at worst being on the dole for a while (they could cultivate their veg patch) or building a floating mega scrap heap that will cost billions to build and run, will burn tons of diesel per hour and all to no useful purpose?
The only reason these projects are not being scrapped is because somebody would lose face.
17

NittonLover,

Newtongrange 30/06/2009 08:42:22
#17 - They will still have more of a purpose than the "NEW IMPROVED TRIDENT".....

I say build them, get the jobs, and then vote for independence and leave the rest of the UK to pick up the tab!

18

Sgian Dubh,

30/06/2009 08:49:54
These carriers, if they are ever built, will never be put to sea. There are dozens of ships tied up alongside 'Her Majesty's Dockyards' because we can't afford the fuel to run them. To send a carrier to sea requires a flotilla of other warships, support vessels and submarines to look after her. The aircraft require to be maintained to a higher state, and they need to be made 'salt water proof' adding hundreds of thousands in cost to each aircraft. Note the difference in cost to a 'Harrier' jet and a 'Sea Harrier'. Same plane, completely different construction with marine grade stainless steel. Very expensive.
These two carriers will be the most expensive bits of steel tied up to dockyards for most of their 'operational' lives.
19

Sgian Dubh,

30/06/2009 08:53:12
There is a huge up-take of cruise holidays. Why are Clyde shipyards not building cruise ships for this very lucrative market?
20

The Strategist,

30/06/2009 08:55:16
This was inevitable. Since the inexcusable shift in the balance of the economy towards financial services and away from making things the real value of the UK's GDP has depended more on creative accounting than anything else.

21

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 30/06/2009 08:57:31
#19

There is no such thing as a Sea Harrier, the FA2 was withdrawn from service 3 years ago. The RAF GR7 and GR9 "Harriers" now quite happily operate from the flight decks of the small CVS carriers with minimal alterations. Even Apache is now able to operate from Ocean. The steel used in aircraft is the same. Plus the version of F35 we have ordered is designed for the USMC to operate from their Wasp class assualt carriers.
22

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 30/06/2009 09:07:25
Scrap the entire education budget and put the lot into the army (teachers can't teach any more anyway so nothing lost). Then we can rent out the army as mercenaries and make a tidy profit.
23

John Cameron,

St Andrews 30/06/2009 09:08:50
At Chatham Dockyard today, a party of VIPs, headed by the Prime Minister will gather for a parade and fly-past to mark Britain's first Armed Forces Day. Virtually all servicemen are completely contemptuous of this cynical ZANU Labour ploy. It is simply outrageous that Brown has the brass neck to show his face and mouth the usual weasel words, when ZANU Labour are trying to cut Army numbers. The deranged monster is bound to claim that 'Britain's Armed Forces are the finest in the world'. What self-serving baloney! The head of the Army, General Sir Richard Dannatt, fought a bitter battle for all the Army's infantrymen to be equipped with the war-fighting kit they use in Afghanistan, so that they can familiarize themselves with it before deploying for action. Since this would have cost £1,500 a man the Treasury vetoed it. The only commitment he will make is to two completely unnecessary new aircraft-carriers to provide more jobs in his own constituency. You could not make it up!! Unless we can put more soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan the mission is doomed. The Prime Minister PERSONALLY vetoed reinforcements for Afghanistan earlier this year. The units were on stand-by to go, trained and briefed. But Gordon Brown refused to accept the additional cost. Yet he will produce cash to bail out the motor industry and is happy to see bankers receive grotesque rewards to salvage their own failure. The man is a complete slime!!
24

Sgian Dubh,

30/06/2009 09:11:57
#22
Thanks for the aviation up-date. Although I'm sure the carriers will still need the same support ships with associated fuel and supply costs.
Still a huge white(battleship gray steel) elephant.
25

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 30/06/2009 09:25:54
#25

The whole RN is streamlining to the role of being able to deploy 2 battle groups, centred on 2 carriers or a carrier and an amphibous group. Albion/Bulwark/Ocean. The 6 type 45s will allow 2 per task group as ant air warfare escorts and 2 or 3 type 23 frigates as anti submarine escorts. Add a new Astute class submarine and a MARS Replenishment Ship and you have 2 task groups second in capability only to the US.
26

Lang Spoon,

30/06/2009 09:26:33
#16, 19 & 24- Well said! The 2 carriers are simply a job creation exercise, and should be seen as such.
Independent military experts have agreed that a large fleet is necessary to protect any carrier, which would in any case be a large target for an Exocet-type threat.
Cancel Trident, cancel the carriers, and spend the savings on the hard-pressed Army.
Be realistic for once, stop trying to keep up with the USA.
Just to wind up the services a bit more, why not reassign whats left of the RAF into the Army Air Corps?
Thats where the action is! We could also do the same with the Fleet Air Arm, some of whom are also in action in hot places.
(This is what's called original thinking, unlikely to see the light of day when faced with the masses ranks of traditional thinkers!)
27

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 30/06/2009 09:44:13
#27

Actually that is what is known as fighting "the war" rather than a "war". A C17 can transport one tank or one helicpoter. All the armies heavy kit has to go ny sea and has to be escorted. If you denude the armed forces of the ability to fight anything other than a counter insurgency operation now, you will never get it back to face the threat that exsists in 30 years. how do you protect the 90% of UK trade that comes by sea and goes through one of 6 choke points in the world? the Uk receives a large LPG carrier weekly if we missed 3 deoiveries lights would start to go out. How do you have air support for land forced without host nation basing? In 2003 a sandstorm meant that 85% of air support for the landings was provided by carrier aviation.
28

Lianachan,

Highlands 30/06/2009 10:13:20
Like large battleships before it, aircraft carriers have been rendered obsolete by technological progress. These two are a disgraceful waste of money.
29

The Former Mr. Angry,

Perth 30/06/2009 11:49:40
I'm sure this was a Broon headline not so long ago and that the construction of the carriers would help unemployment. Now it would seem that unemployment is to help the carriers reduce their costs? D'oh! Does anyone still vote Labour?!

30

Sedov,

30/06/2009 12:14:40
Another example of the anarchy of the capitalist market.

No plan B for when the inevitable slump occurs so workers pay for the blind loyalty by government to a failing economic system

Those workers could be put to good producing homes, schools, geenspaces, an intergrated transport structure etc etc.

But of course that would mean diverting money away from the vested interets of the arms industry and financial institutions and banks who suck our blood dry.

Ony a socialist planned society can get us out of our continuing decline.
31

Willie Mor,

30/06/2009 12:44:52
Just wait until after the next election and then we will know what cuts are about.

One in ten nurses, doctors, firemen, teachers with one in ten infrastructure projects such as schools, hospitals, new roads all going the same way too.

And all because he allowed the banks to create a debt bubble many many times bigger than the entire UK economy.

No wonder Gordon Brown doesn't want a formal spending review until after the next election.
32

oder,

any town 30/06/2009 13:17:46
29 Lianachan,Highlands

that not quite true!no super carriers were sunk by enemy action in the US navy(after WWI2) but the defence strategy for the protection of these ships are based on having an entire fleet of ships around it.

if the RN were allowed to cost and be giving the funds these carriers could and would be effective! the cost to protect these ships are more than likely to be more than the cost to construct! the money argument is more the reason these ships will not sail!

them bottom line is super carries do work given the proper resources!
but the history shows the British government will not resource anything correctly (unless its their own pockets)

eg the Falklands war to save money the announced they where going to withdraw the ice patrol ship "Endurance"
which the Argentinians took as an invitation to invade! and the cost to retake them is well known.

like all British policy it is made on the "hoof" not well thought strategy!
33

yockel,

30/06/2009 13:29:05
APATS @ 26. How many crew are required for a battle group? What proportion of their time can they spend at sea? How many sailors who don't drive a desk are currently in service?

Did you asked Japan, France, Russia and China before deciding the RN would be second to the US? How about Germany, Italy and South Korea? OK more debatable but let's not just regurgitate the MOD handout for primary schools.

But then again by the time all the services, catering, cleaning, engineering, electronics, communication, navigation etc., on the new carriers are privatised to US contractors and US marines are put on board along with US aircraft and PMC security provided, perhaps we could put one to sea in support of the the US depending on who is going to pay for it.
34

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 30/06/2009 16:11:59
The carriers are slightly more useful than Trident, but that's not saying much.

Of much more usefulness would be actually fitting the only branch of the service that sees combat on a daily basis, with vehicles that are up to the task.

Soldiers are still getting killed from riding around in vehicles without adequate armour. Fix that first before you start wasting public funds on what are really just big floating flagpoles.

There is no capability that these carriers offer that cannot be accomplished much less expensively with land based aircraft and airbourne refueling tankers.
35

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 30/06/2009 16:32:00
# 31 Sedov

"Ony a socialist planned society can get us out of our continuing decline."

Obviously the lessons learned over the last hundred years from the experience of the Soviet Union and China before it adopted capitalism completely missed you.

Nobody wants socialism, not even people who still claim to be communists.
36

Electric Hermit,

30/06/2009 16:39:34
I thought it was supposed to be independence which threatened jobs.

37

,

30/06/2009 16:47:22
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
38

Dan,

Englandshire 30/06/2009 16:49:26
The two carriers were a big (Battleship grey), white elephants from the moment it was decided that they would be convensionally powered as opposed to nuclear powered.
Lets face, how are they supposed to put to sea with no oil to fire their boilers?
As for the F35 - another waste of money. The Harrier airframe is still pretty much up to the job and costs quite a bit less than the F35. Aside from the much vaunted "Stealth" capability, there's not a huge amount that the F35 can do that Harrier can't. Carry through available upgrades and the gap narrows further still.
The carriers have been set up to fail with the plug expected to be pulled just after the next election so when the Tories scrap them Labour can claim they're just doing it to spite the workers.
39

,

30/06/2009 16:54:10
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
40

Electric Hermit,

30/06/2009 17:08:57
41
Baggy Troosers

"WW12?"

And they said WW9 was the "War to End All Wars".

41

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 30/06/2009 17:47:42
#34

The number of people is directly proportional to the number of ships required. you either have the Ships or you dont. We will have sufficient ships and redundancy to have one carier battlegroup available for tasking and an ability to surge to another with notice. the RN is currently fully manned.
As for your paragraph about effectiveness, none of the countries other than the US could match the combination of Carrier airpower advamnced AAW and ASW defence and state of the art SSN that the batlegroup will bring. That is a fact based on professional knowledge not an MOD handout.
42

oder,

Scotland 30/06/2009 18:13:24
Electric Hermit

typo! WW9? never heard of it!
43

mike3,

30/06/2009 19:00:45
Disarmament seems on the way. Heard them on BBC saying something along the lines of what's the point in buying weapons when there might be no war. Oh dear.
44

snoozyowl,

30/06/2009 19:26:57
Yes, they are hugely over budget! What a surprise. The real figure is probably twice what the MoD admitted, the usual scam. Get them hooked, then raise the price to the real number in stages. Only this time the real number is so astonishing that the game started before the fish was hooked! We would never buy this stuff if we knew the proper numbers up front. All concerned are aware of that and act accordingly.
45

Iainbroch,

30/06/2009 19:45:17
re47

It also has another beautiful side effect. Money can be liberally dished out around various non Scottish institutions and not be counted towards the Barnett formula calculations thus making the jocks look even more like London dependent subsidy junkies.
Instead of actually inplementing any poicy that might actually benefit the shipbuilding industry where it still exists in UK.

46

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 30/06/2009 20:17:58
Why would any Ministry of Defence require aircraft carriers? Aircraft carriers are for assault and aggression.

So let's say the Falklands gets invaded again. Rent one from the Yanks - it would probably get there quicker anyway. Better still, look after what you have and don't poke your nose into someone else's business.
47

Martyk,

30/06/2009 20:25:14
Not a military expert but my gut reaction is we simply cant afford these things. I mean what would they spend all their time doing? Honestly ? Sailing round and round on courtesy visits or whatever and every now and again backing up the yank navy which doesnt need backing up anyway. We ( the UK ) simply cant afford this nonsense. We should have a dozen nuclear missile silos dotted around the place to provide the ultimate national defence and then a couple of squadrons of frigates and destroyers to protect home waters and fight off pirates and guard the Falklands and thats it. No Trident , utterly pointless , no aircraft carriers. The Russkies or the Chinese would sink them on day one and the Taliban and friends arent affected by them so what on earth is the point apart from an ego trip on the national credit card ?
48

Martyk,

30/06/2009 20:28:22
Sorry. Should have acknowledged the affect on Scots jobs. Must be better ways of spending this sort of money to build a less pointless economy.
49

Jo Flo,

sand under my feet 30/06/2009 23:20:59
It appears my dears that the English are leaving and laying waste in the process.

They can see Scotland going it's own way and are raping and pillaging as they go.
50

Ewen Miler,

Wilts 30/06/2009 23:22:07
#50.

There was the same sort of debate in 1975 about scapping the Sea harrier programme. Then in'81, the then Defence Security,Jon Nott, planned to sell 1 carrier to Australia and not build the 3rd. The following year we had the Flklands - if Argentina had waited another year; we wouldn't have been able to do anything about it.

Regarding the jobs; once we've lost them, it will be very hard to get them pack. Better to pay them to produce our insurance policy than to do nothing on the dole!
51

Ewen Miler,

Wiltd 30/06/2009 23:27:23
52.

There will be many job loses in Devonport, Plymouth due to the decision to move the S and T boats to Faslane - why would they do this is your theory is right?

P.S. BBC South West on CEEFAX - Appledore Shipyard in Devon announcing job loses - reported around 500 redundancies due to MoD cuts.
52

Iainbroch,

01/07/2009 00:11:57
re53

The Falklands War was ultimately about oil!Not about preserving the Falklanders right to be Brits!

re54

Liebore has given up totally on SW England, Cornwall and Devon might as well be Scotland as far as London is concerned! Scotland is somewaht more important to the greedy Brit establishment than SW England. Of course what would happen if they should find huge quatities of oil of the Cornish coast?
53

,

01/07/2009 00:28:53
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:

 

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.