Posted by Tony Jeffree on 10/06/2018 15:42:24:
Posted by Neil Wyatt on 10/06/2018 15:21:14:
"Jones defended the design decision by saying that it would have been “poor value-for-money” to buy ships designed to weather any temperature. "
Oh good grief… you mean the Admiralty thought we don't need warships that can cross or operate in the tropics (or even a typical British summer, it seems)…
We are governed by a bunch of idiots. Situation normal.
True, but it's useful to identify which particular bunch of idiots caused the fiasco!
Saying 'it would have been “poor value-for-money” to buy ships designed to weather any temperature' is civil-service code for "I am not allowed to tell you openly that an unexpected fault blew the budget and the Treasury refused to increase it. Also, my Minister, who knows this is daft, failed to find the money from elsewhere in the Defence pot and was unable to get new money." The statement also has to be taken in context with the Type 23 Frigate which is specifically intended to have a Global role. He doesn't mean Type 23's are a waste of money.
Spending policy is set by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, reporting directly to the PM and Cabinet. As the current incumbents promised to reduce public spending before the last election, you might blame whoever voted for them.
Unfortunately spending decisions are always going to be difficult. Meeting all possible Defence contingencies would cost more than the entire government budget and most of the money would be wasted. Argentina required strong naval forces, Afghanistan none. On the other hand Afghanistan demanded armoured helicopters and ground vehicles, both of which would have been useless on the Falkland Islands. Hard decisions have to be made, and it's easy to get them wrong.
Dave