ColdCollation,
British industry has mostly always driven defence contracts and decisions in this manner; sadly it is naive to think otherwise. That us why we supported MRCA and not F-15E in the late 70s. You will never get around the constituency politik of defence strategy.
NaB. An odd comment. Cancelling the carriers might save nothing on money promised but the operating and support costs over, what, 30 years would be a significant saving that would amount to much more than the investment thus far. Please educate me on the number of projected refits of 2 CVF over the planned lifespan (then add at least 25% because we always extend kit), the cost in terms of fuel, all the RAS costs involved etc? Do we even have that sustainment figure mapped out? I think we might do and understand if it is 'not for this forum'
Cancelling the aircraft won't save the Treasury money in quite the way you intimate. Like the carriers our contribution has been given already, 10 years ago or so. The cost savings are much more flexible in terms of scaling the budget by altering the buy profile over the life of the programme. This might not yield the numbers in the timeframe desired but that's real life finance driving expectation, not the other way around which is what got the World into deficit in the first place. One can effectively build one's arsenal of F-35 as quickly or as slowly as one wishes by ordering more.
If we for some reason don't end up with 2 carriers in 2020 at least the UK are able to base from land and sea (aboard USMC LHD or even CVN) to conduct strike missions. Cancel the aircraft, keep the carriers and you then start begging the coalition CV aircraft to use your carrier to justify its existence. That simply won't happen.
Last edited by ICBM; 6th May 2012 at 12:25.