Observing Comments in the Old Kingdom

A letter by Ian King is getting some play across the pond, because as it turns out in the end everyone on all sides ultimately agreed with his argument. The Telegraph has the long story, but here is the short version.

George Osborne, the Chancellor, released Mr King’s letter, saying the carrier contract was “probably the greatest problem” the Coalition inherited from Labour.

Mr King told Mr Cameron that if both carriers were completed the cost would be £5.25 billion. If the second carrier was cancelled the “direct cost” of the programme would be £4.8 billion.

He added: “However, in these circumstances, and under Treasury rules and the agreements I have outlined, there will be consequential costs, including those related to rationalisation, which we estimate would amount to £690 million.”

Mr King added that cancelling a carrier would force him to close three shipyards by early 2013, “with the loss of more than 5,000 jobs in BAE Systems and many more across the UK in hundreds of companies in the supply chain”.

He said: “In practice, that means the end of the UK's capability in complex warships and would bring the sector to a halt.”

Mr King concluded: “I have no doubt that there may be skepticism about some of this analysis. But I fully stand behind it.”

Imagine that, in a strategic debate it turns out that 'costs' other than financial costs in the future appears to have actually been a winning argument. Let my sarcasm drip off the page.

The other interesting article from across the great pond comes as a tip from a reader - quite humorous really - where the an Irishman (yes, those Irish) are mocking the Royal Navy.

The two countries should have accepted the permanent geopolitical reality of the power-shift: instead, they clearly still hanker to have their flags fluttering over distant seas -- hence the tragi-comedy of the aircraft carriers. The sad and sorry Charles de Gaulle is permanently in dry-dock, and a British carrier, if it ever finally goes to sea (don't worry, it won't) will run out of puff after 10,000 miles. Unlike US carriers, the proposed UK carriers are not nuclear.

You might have read of French aircraft one day landing on British carriers. Forget it. They'll be cancelled as the cost of each exceeds the value of Scotland. And that's before the most expensive lawsuit in aeronautical history virtually bankrupts the British state.

For 18 months ago, the British signed a contract with Lockheed-Martin of the US to co-develop the F35B, a crazy vertical take-off, supersonic, stealth-aircraft which, at British insistence, also functions as a lawnmower. Now the British say they don't want it, and tears of covetous joy trickle down the cheeks of Lockheed-Martin's attorneys.

Moreover, such is British amnesia that no one seems aware that in 1942, the last time the Royal Navy simultaneously had two vessels called Prince of Wales and Queen Elizabeth, they were lost within a week of one another, the latter being the only enemy-battleship the Italians have EVER sunk.

But even if the carriers are ever launched, they'll simply join the Charles de Gaulle in a seagoing citrus-grove of EU lemons with flight-decks. This will enable Europe to project global-reach in much the same way that Zaire's ballistic-missile programme keeps Mongolian children awake at night. However, the Chinese have already perfected a ballistic missile that is somewhat more impressive than Zaire's. Its sole purpose? To destroy an aircraft-carrier, anywhere in the world, and at any time. Zut alors, as they say in Peking.

It is a very clever and entertaining editorial - almost Jon Stewart worthy. Before you get too worked up about it, keep in mind the Irish have been waiting centuries for the chance to stab back at the Royal Navy. Well done Kevin Myers, very funny Friday stuff.