One of the things that intrigues me in connection with "Defence spending" is the oft-repeated phrase about how NOT building certain ships will be MORE expensive than building them. I assume that this would be due to "financial penalties", "cancellation clauses", and the like, and, if so, wonder how companies can get away with insisting upon such contracts - after all, if there be genuine competition for such multi-million pounds (or dollars, Euros, any other currency), should not a Government simply decide to award a contract to a bidder which does not insist on such a contract? Given that Governments can retrospectively change pension provisions, retirement ages, this that and the other when those who are affected are the Polloi/Multitude/Mob/Public at large, I suppose I'm asking naive questions.

Nevertheless, the notion of their building new Aircraft Carriers which will sail around without any aeroplanes is irresistible. Was it Spike Milligan who wrote about tanks without shells, their crew members periodically shouting "Bang!"?