Morning:
6°c
MoD may sell carrier to fill huge hole in defence budget
Nicholas Cecil, Deputy Political Editor30 Jul 2010
Britain may be forced to sell one of its flagship new aircraft carriers to plug a huge hole in its defence budget.
Talks are taking place at the Ministry of Defence about finding a buyer for one of the ships being built at a cost of £5.2 billion for the Royal Navy. The financial crisis at the MoD has deepened after Chancellor George Osborne rejected a bid by Defence Secretary Liam Fox to get the Treasury to pay for the renewal of the Trident nuclear deterrent, which will cost tens of billions.
Senior military insiders are not optimistic about forcing the Treasury to change its stance on funding the upgrade of the submarine-borne nuclear weapons system.
But they believe that Prime Minister David Cameron and other Cabinet ministers may be able to persuade the Chancellor to agree a more generous settlement for the MoD once they realise how devastating and politically unpalatable cuts to the military budget would be.
Having to sell one of the two new 65,000-tonne aircraft carriers — HMS Queen Elizabeth, which is due to come into service in 2016, or HMS Prince of Wales, due for launch in 2018 — would be humiliating for the Navy, leaving the UK with only one carrier.
Britain has been building defence co-operation with France and has discussed timing maintenance so that at least one of the countries has an aircraft carrier operational at all times.
A sale to France is thought unlikely but selling to another ally is being discussed. India is understood to have expressed an interest. Simply scrapping one of the carriers is believed to be too expensive due to contractual arrangements.
This morning Lord West, the former head of the Navy who was made security minister under Labour, insisted that the Treasury should fund renewing Trident.
“Last time this was done it came from the Ministry of Defence budget and effectively it cost the Navy about 25 destroyers and frigates,” he told the BBC. “If that happened today, we would not have any destroyers and frigates left.”
He claimed that under the Labour government, the Treasury was due to pick up the bill to replace Trident, though this is disputed by other sources.If deep cuts have to be made, Lord West believes the RAF's Tornado fleet should be axed — which could save about £7 billion.
He accepted there was an argument to end the “continuous at sea” deployment of the Trident nuclear deterrent.
Senior Liberal Democrats believe that the MoD may have to downgrade the nuclear deterrent due to budget cuts which could also see the size of the Army reduced. They have argued that the number of Trident nuclear submarines could be cut from four to three.
Former Lib-Dem leader Sir Menzies Campbell said: “It's self-evident that a decision to renew Trident on a like-for-like basis will have a serious impact on Britain's conventional capability.”
Reader views (28)
Subhash, you write "Croyboy, the people claiming balooning amount 'meternity' benefits in the UK are not Indians, they are mostly Pakistanis who don't believe in family control. You are mixing races here". 
No, I used the phrase "people (like you) from the Indian subcontinent", NOT "India".
Also, I am NOT guilty of "mixing races": "Pakistani" and "Indian" are nationalities, not races. Anyway, we're already overcrowded, and don't need immigrants of whichever stripe.
- Croyboy, Croydon, UK, 02/08/2010 16:27
Report abuse
Jamie,
Can I think of any of those situations that has a greater than 1% chance of happening in the next 100 years? Yes.
Easily.
When WW1, the 'Great War', the 'War to end all Wars' finished, no-one could possibly imagine another major war happening in Europe any time soon. Cue WW2 - a full 21 years later, (less for those in continental Europe).
After Iraq pt1, did anyone envisage Iraq pt2? Who saw Yugoslavia going the way it did?
Energy will almost certainly be the main point of contention over the coming decades, and that is something that can arouse a population VERY quickly.
Current known oil reserves are not projected to last much more than 4 decades at current usage, and while we will no doubt find more, and more ways of extracting it, the global thirst for it is speeding up also.
Russia cut off gas supplies to its neighbour Ukraine, (though which supplies run to Europe) and will likely do so again. Russia was also quite happy to stick two fingers up to the West and invade Georgia on principal. What would it do out of need?
The point of having these weapons is not that we want to use them, but that by us having them, that in itself may be enough for them not to be needed.
If you have an anti-theft device & alarm fitted to your car, and it isn't then stolen, you could argue having it was a waste of money. Another argument is that it wasn't stolen precisely because you had it fitted.
As for aid, I have no problem with it - it just needs to be better targeted.
- John, London, 02/08/2010 14:00
Report abuse
Hi Subhash,
I can understand the points you are making, but for me, the points I am trying to get across have nothing to do with race, immigration or anything else other people here have mentioned - entirely separate arguments from the topic at hand - I am looking at it solely from a cold economic perspective.
From that perspective, it simply makes no sense for us to give money to a country that CAN afford to buy things that we ourselves would like, but apparently CANNOT afford. It is entirely illogical, and I believe a fair point to be made in this discussion.
That is not intended in anyway as a slur on India - a country that is perfectly entitled to spend its own money exactly as it pleases - it's just a statement of fact.
Setting aside certain bigoted views, our countries are both powerful democracies and large economies with much in common - including many shared goals and ambitions - it is only right and natural that we have good relations and do business together, it benefits us both.
My point about India's space and nuclear programmes were not mentioned in jealousy, they were simply presented as a statement of India's own growing economic power: One that self-evidently doesn't need handouts - especially from a country that apparently can't afford its own commissioned ships.
Let me put it another way: Would you be happy for India to give £100m's in aid, each year, to a country comparable to it? Or would you rather it was spent improving the lives of Indians?
- John, London, 02/08/2010 13:33
Report abuse
Didn't the conservatives sell off an Aircraft Carrier shortly before the Falkland islands were invaded, and we had to borrow it back from the Australians?
- cyclist, london, 02/08/2010 09:37
Report abuse
Can anyone honestly think of a situation that has a greater than 1% chance of happening in the next 100 years where 1) We are attacked by a nuclear weapon 2) The attack comes from a clearly state sponsored source (i.e. not a terrorist attack) 3) Israel does not retaliate before Cabinet have even got out of bed. 4)The US does not retaliate before Cabinet have even got out of bed. 5) Retaliating would have a beneficial affect on UK defence?
If you can divise a situation I would more than happily accept we need the £20bn. If not there are better things we could spend it on. And in reply to the comment that defence spending is 2.4% of GDP international aid is 0.2% of GDP. Can we not affored 2p in every £10 to give to countries that our future exports rely on?
- Jamie, UK, 31/07/2010 22:59
Report abuse
easy do not replace trident.
Can you think of a PM with the bxlls to use it so why replace it
- iain morris, ajijic mexico, 31/07/2010 21:25
Report abuse
John and Croyboy,
I understand this discussion is here because people feel frustrated at the way UK government has been spending money in strange ways and I do share that sentiment. But I had to make my points because it was necessary. Take, for instance, the news about India launching a spacecraft to the moon last year. The BBC was littered with highly demeaning views about India, bringing in the aid-money angle etc into it, just because some people felt jealous about it. It is another thing that the UK the US were partners in that mission and it soon found water on moon - something that will be benefit to all of us in future.
About the number of Indians living in Britain, do you know how many ex-Britons are living in India, including those who settled there several generations ago? Also, Croyboy, the people claiming balooning amount 'meternity' benefits in the UK are not Indians, they are mostly Pakistanis who don't believe in family control. You are mixing races here.
Mr. Cameron said some 90,000 people are employed in the UK by Indian firms, and many more because of the operations of British firms in India. How much do you think that counts for?
So contrary to what is generally portrayed in discussions, it's far from a one-way traffic of capital. Both countries have a lot to gain - and are indeed gaining - from economic cooperations and business deals. There's no point pretending that Britain is constantly reaping loss in these deals.
- Subhash, London, 31/07/2010 20:00
Report abuse
P.A. Spoors, London comment about having European Armed Forces seems to ignore the fact that we are part of the NATO defence treaty. Are you seriously suggesting that the idiots in the EU Commission should now be made responsible for a defence programme? Would they have a finger on the trigger of both the British and French nuclear weapons?
The EU cannot manage a budget, witness the fact that the EU parliament has failed to pass the EU Commission accounts for each of the last 14 years, and you think the British have problems with their defence budget.
- pjl20, Ilkley, UK, 31/07/2010 12:40
Report abuse
So, the government is considering selling off the Prince of Wales to reduce the deficit? Excellent idea. Superb. But why just stop at the aircraft carrier?
- Paul Harper, Stratford, London, 31/07/2010 09:59
Report abuse
So, the government is considering selling off the Prince of Wales to reduce the deficit? Excellent idea. Superb. But why just stop at the aircraft carrier?
- Paul Harper, Stratford, London, 31/07/2010 09:43
Report abuse
Subhash, you say in a critical sense of another poster here "people like you".
I'd like to ask, Subhash, how many "people like you" from the Indian subcontinent my country is playing host to, and how much is it costing us - and will continue to cost us - in the form of scarce housing, education, medical (especially maternity!)
expenses, and welfare payments.
You say the UK wants "to try and keep India in good humour..."; isn't taking a chunk of its surplus population enough?
- Croyboy, Croydon, UK, 31/07/2010 09:39
Report abuse
Hello Subhash,
India is the largest single beneficiary of the UK's international aid programme, and in the three year period between 2008-2011 the UK will have given India £825m pounds. I hardly consider that sum to be 'peanuts', even if you do.
Also, the notion that the Indian government don't want that money but somehow 'can't refuse it' because they are a democracy is palpably absurd. It is precisely because they ARE a democracy that they could turn it down if they wish. But, they don't.
I can understand too the view by some in India that this money is given to keep a 'moral high-ground', but I suspect a far more accurate truth is that it is in fact given more out of a prolonged sense of guilt - that combined with the 'feel-good' factor for our politicians when they announce their largesse. "Self-righteous chest-beating" doesn't come into it.
I also think you misunderstand the nature of this argument: It was not intended as an attack on India, but an attack on OUR OWN government for their stupidity!
A country that has it's own nuclear weapons and space programmes palpably doesn't need aid money - and the real point being made is that if we can't afford something ourselves, then a country that CAN afford to buy it clearly shouldn't be in receipt of aid money from us.
Also, I know full well the role India played in our empire, but please don't pretend that India received nothing positive in return - or indeed that India didn't have it's own empires throughout history.
- John, London, 31/07/2010 01:42
Report abuse
I hope they get to at least give it a test drive first.
- Jerry, Seattle US, 31/07/2010 00:21
Report abuse
Hill, UK (and John, London),
"Why are we even considering selling a carrier to India when we already pay them so much in aid?"
Pay them?! Which world are you living in? You really want us to believe UK "pays" India anything? If you're talking about those small donations of a few million pounds (which is peanuts in terms of a country's finances), do you know what the Indian government's official position is on that? They actually don't want that aid money. Britain gives that money for educational projects etc and India being an democratic free country, can't decline money given for such purpose. A strong view in India is that the UK gives that token amount to keep a moral highground for eternity, so that when issues like these come up, people like you can use it for self-righteous chest-beating.
The UK may be giving small amounts of money to India, but the UK earns far, far more through business operations in India, which is going through an economic frowth at a rate of around 9%. Britain wants to ensure they too get a share from that boom and these 'charities' are given by the UK to try and keep India in good humour and continue their operations there.
If you said this in India, they will tell you Britain's current wealth is largely due to the loot they made from India for 200 full years (colonial period). Don't believe this? Read 'Freedom at Midnight' (1975) by Larry Collins and you'll be shocked how much wealth India had before the Europeans came. And see what they left
- Subhash, London, 30/07/2010 23:03
Report abuse
If you check your family trees you will see that all English people in this country started as Agricultural Labourers or Church personnel,only a very few had the money to own any thing. I think it is time to go back .
- Davey_buoy, Chertsey, 30/07/2010 18:40
Report abuse
As we are part of Europe then we should have a EUROPEAN ARMED FORCES not a British , Frence, German etc armed forces. All cost are to be bourne by the European Defence council. That would be a better way of spending money rather than each country. Then even Austria and Hungry can have a Navy and Lux can have an Air Force with a deterent. Otherwise we are all twentyfing our surperfluceness.
- P A Spoors, London England, 30/07/2010 18:24
Report abuse
Nothing humilliating about it go on sell, go on sell it, we are only a small overpopulated island now and we cannot afford this rubbish let some one else go to war, not us.
Ex 12 years RN.
- Davey_buoy, Chertsey, 30/07/2010 18:20
Report abuse
With the lengthy delays in the M.o.D. defence procurement programme isn't this overconcern for a schedule that can be adjusted to meet Britain's budgetary requirements?
The present realignment of the structure of the economy together with our eventual emergence from the cyclical nature of the recession will result in changed financial conditions in the future.
We are witnessing unnecessary panic and alarm about what is affordable and what is not.
The decision about replacing Trident is not an urgent one, this defence capability is will remain effective for well over another decade. Which nations are we trying to combat with this nuclear deterrent? The USSR is no more and Russia is no longer a strategic threat. Iran and North Korea will not have the capability of Trident even with a nuclear weapon.
£20 billion will be required to replace Trident and this expenditure is not likely to be needed until approaching 2030, if at all.
If Britain wishes to retain its position in the world order for the defence league it has to plan ahead to achieve this objective. Our politicians need to be aware of this and endeavour to assist the Chief of Staffs in the M.o.D. to do it.
- pjl20, Ilkley,UK, 30/07/2010 15:13
Report abuse
This is an absolute scandal. We are a trading nation most of our imports and exports go via the sea. The Navy has already been massively depleted, weaker than it was at the time of the Falklands War and lacking in ships. Wars often begin when nations de-arm as it's seen by others as a sign of weakness. I would suggest 2 carriers must surely be the bare minimum in any case, to cover repair time etc. How can the government possibly justify the foreign aid budget when we can't even afford to defend ourselves?
- H Morgan, London, 30/07/2010 14:43
Report abuse
We either need 2 carriers or we don't! If we don't then why were they ordered?
- Tony, London, 30/07/2010 14:34
Report abuse
Keep the Carriers, just slash back on the benefit handouts
- Steve, WsM, UK, 30/07/2010 14:29
Report abuse
Ok so we sell one...so what?
If we sell it for more or the same as it costs to build, fine we just build 3 instead of 2. Meanwhile we keep all these people employed in the UK and paying taxes.
Hell if another country wants to buy one build a 4th one as well.
- Gordon, London, 30/07/2010 14:21
Report abuse
Precisely how much "defence" has our so-called "defence budget" bought us so far?
Hasn't anyone noticed? Large parts of London have already been invaded and occupied with a shot being fired.
Hey, actually USE this money for our defence, or lose it!
- Croyboy, Croydon, UK, 30/07/2010 14:09
Report abuse
Hill, UK - that is EXACTLY the first thought I had!
It's utterly ridiculous that we send aid to countries like China and India, who both have vast armies, independent nuclear weapons programmes and space programmes, (something which even we don't have). To then sell them our weapons platforms which we apparently 'can't afford' ourselves is plain ludicrous.
The Ministry of Defence budget is around 2.4% of GDP.
I refuse to believe that the defence of our nation is not worth at least 2.4 pence in the pound and that cutbacks should be made. For our safety and security cutbacks should be made elsewhere.
I don't believe people voted Tory so that they could unilaterally disarm us in the midst of an ever more dangerous and volatile world.
- John, London, 30/07/2010 13:02
Report abuse
The constant cut backs of the military threaten the whole country. We can barely defend ourselves let alone involve ourselves in dubious conflicts overseas. Get rid of the Tornados and replace them with what? That would also close a couple of bases which once closed would be lost forever if there was ever a need to subststantially increase forces.
- Paul, London, 30/07/2010 12:37
Report abuse
Considering the previous government promised the Navy these carriers in exchange for cutting the size of the fleet, it now seems very harsh to go back on that deal?!
- James, UK, 30/07/2010 12:31
Report abuse
why don't we just build 2 of them then, if nukes do start to fly we are pretty much second in line to be wiped off the planet and the americans will do more than enough retaliation to wipe out anyone that attacks us. 2 would mean even if one is being repaired we still can strike back while still having one sub to act as a suitable deterrent. I think at a time like this conventional weapons are much more important, we need that extra carrier, with it we can be in 2 places at once and give our boys abroad much better air support.
- stuart, county durham, 30/07/2010 12:26
Report abuse
Why are we even considering selling a carrier to India when we already pay them so much in aid? Woulnt it be better to just stop giving so much away when we are in financial crisis ourselves? We could then maintain our own defence capabilities rather than propping up other countrys?
- Hill, Uk, 30/07/2010 12:17
Report abuse
