Poiuytrewq wrote:will depend on the shape and direction of the UK's next Government.
I have some sympathy for what Jake is saying. Even though we are taking a detour from the thread topic, the capital upfront cost of our deterrent is whopping compared to the annual cost of running it, which then goes on for a v long period (each time after renewal).
Not even mentioning the missile renewal (not before 2040) or the atomic weapons establishment for the warheads (outsourced): in rough terms replacing the current class of nuclear submarines is expected to cost £31 billion (with another £10 billion put aside to cover any extra costs or spending over the estimate).
That’s just for the new submarines - but upfront.
Whether it is the political sensitivity (against the background of 10 yrs of austerity) or a bungling Gvmnt... I won't say, but keeping the current Trident submarines in operation for four years longer than planned, that is also expected to cost between £1.2 and £1.4 billion.
- so add that to capital costs, and over an 1/8th of the contingency already used... just about when we are only getting started
The annual
operating costs of Trident are expected to be around £2 billion.
Sorry to have bored everyone with the long intro, but the deterrence is a strategic asset,
operated by the Navy.
Hence the next Gvmnt (I have given up any hope with the current lot) should neutralise the extreme cost bump we are going to go over - already are - with it crowding out other spending, and upsetting the Force structure.
- take the current cost of Gilts, make the capital spending into "a loan" to amortise over the years out to 2060(-ish)
- and the Navy is to carry the operating costs - for the priveledge of having been "chosen"
So that was carrying on from "Hammond is tin eared, he won't"
- he just needs to restructure his spreadsheet
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)