In the Guardian yesterday was a piece from Richard Norton-Taylor, the papers Security Editor, in which he describes how the MoD is planning to add ‘cheaper plans and catapults’ to reduce cost from the F35B.
It’s a rehash of the F18/Rafale/F35C story from a few weeks ago and therefore likely complete nonsense, but in the pre SDSR news vacuum any bit of tat qualifies as ‘insight’
I do wonder why our defence journalists just repeat tittle tattle rather than ask questions, like these for instance
- How does changing the design and construction of CVF at this late stage save money
- How does adding several hundred million pounds for catapults save money
- How does maintaining those catapults for 40 years save money
- How do the extra catapult maintainers wages, pensions and other costs over 40 years save money
- How does the extra cost of maintaining perishable carrier operations skills save money
- How does scrapping the 3 F35B’s we have purchased as part of the operational evaluation phase save money
I am puzzled how adding cost reduces it, either in short term or long term.
Am I being thick?