2 carrier contracts awarded.

[Al R]

BBC News - Figures reveal cost of new aircraft carriers decision (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11274060)

<<Contracts worth about £1.25bn have been awarded for building two aircraft carriers even though the project may not go ahead, figures have revealed. HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales are due to launch in 2016 and 2018 respectively.>>

Perhaps, to keep it all nice and fair, one of 'em could be called RAF Prince of Wales.

[alfred_the_great]

The moment that the Carriers were confirmed, every possible contract was signed withing 24 hours. No point hanging around, plus it made them much harder to cancel.

I do wonder if the BBC has any commercial sense at all; why would these contracts not be signed?!

[Not_a_boffin]

The point that is often missed about the contracts is that the "confirmation" process - essentially a succession of SofS & MinDefs arguing within MB and with the Treasury - took so long the price continually rose. The best example being when the ISDs were slipped by a couple of years with no change to start date or reduction in people on the project something north of £800m was added to cost, purely to stay within near-term budget DELs, which is just plain barking. How much time and effort do you think has been spent by DE&S and industry waiting for MB to sh1t or get off the pot? I know one bloke who's been in the IPT or Alliance since 1998! The amount of the "£5Bn" spent on staffing, concept and assessment phase "studies", constituting and reconstituting IPTs is I suspect somewhere north of £400M over the twelve years we have spent faffing about.

Industry has also been waiting for this but has contracted to a point where it's now or never. The exam question remains - do we need maritime air (not can we afford it) or not? If the answer is no, then we don't actually need a Navy capable of going outside territorial waters. Nor do we need "global" capabilities for the RAF or Army either, so no Amphibs, DD/FF, SSN, AT (strat or tac), strike, armour, ISTAR - perhaps other than E3D, just AD, MCMV (and minelaying) and loads of AH?

If we do need maritime air - strike, sea control (and some form of AD), then the price we have to pay is what's on the table, because one thing is for sure (whatever the small ship fantasists say), two ships will not, ever, however small you make them, get cheaper than what is on offer now. One can play games with the airwing costs (and people will do), but the overall cost diff is unlikely to be significant over the life of the vessel. Canning Dave (of whatever variant) for F18 will save near-term cost, but will need a replacement sooner fifteen, twenty years hence.

The FoI request unsurprisingly comes from the Dunfermline MP, just more of the lobbying until mid Oct...........

[Ivan Rogov]

In answer to your "exam Question"? air power can be provided from land bases (host nation support) in the majority of what if scenarios that will be on the table at MOD, it is all down to how much risk they are willing to take on the few cases that aren't covered.
Stating that we don't need carriers then we don't need anything else is rubbish, how many nations cope quite well without?

[Widger]

Sigh!!!!!!!

It is not JUST about flying aircraft from a platform. It is about all the other Defence tasks including Defence Diplomacy, Support to civil and military communities, projection of UK industry, protection of overseas territories and the resources they hold, persistence, poise, presence, all of which cannot be done with 7000 ft of tarmac. CVF is not just about Air Defence or dropping bombs, the platform has much more utility than that.

[NutLoose]

Perhaps, to keep it all nice and fair, one of 'em could be called RAF Prince of Wales.

I would go with the other one if I were you, the way this numpty sticks his nose in about "being Green", modern achitecture etc, you may end up with the worlds first wooden sustainable carrier powered by the wind and utilising a huge georgian style house as the bridge superstructure...... :p

[Bismark]

air power can be provided from land bases (host nation support) in the majority of what if scenarios that will be on the table at MOD

Ivan,

I suspect you are 180deg out on this. Given the known unpopularity of the US and UK in their expeditionary warfare I suspect HNS in future wars will be even less likely in the early days of diplomacy failure....this is exactly where the CV comes into its own - both the US and (to a much smaller extent) the UK found this to be the case in Afgh.

It is interesting to note that in virtually every conflict since WW2 carrier based air has been needed and where it has been absent the UK has had difficulty in the early days of that conflict (particularly with negotiations for HNS).

The QE Class represent a very low risk option for HMG which is why they will not be cancelled.

[the funky munky]

In terms of support to authorities, the US sent carriers loaded with helicopters in support of Katrina and to Indonesia post the Tsunami, the Italians did the same in response to the Haiti earthquake. This is only one aspect of the carrier equation, another part being the old adage of 90,000 tons of diplomacy!

Principally the raw materials to build the carriers were bought about 5 years ago, due to the perceived worldwide shortage of steel that India and China were hoovering up. About 60,000 tons of steel were bought as I recall.

Too much money has been invested to cancel both carriers, more likely only sufficient aircraft will be procured to equip a single air wing thus leaving the other carrier empty except for rotary wing assets and the odd refit.

[vecvechookattack]

Widger is absolutely correct. Having Aircraft carriers is not about having the ability to move your airfield. Its all about power projection and any Government that decides against power projection is committing political suicide.

[Pontius Navigator]

any Government that decides against power projection is committing political suicide.

Is it? ..

[NutLoose]

According to BBC the contracts are signed, but they are still pending the review which could cancel them.

[LFFC]

Gen Sir Richard Dannatt's recollections (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/7996621/Gen-Sir-Richard-Dannatt-autobiography-Fighting-at-the-cutting-edge.html?)of the decision to procure the two carriers are most interesting.


The final decision to emerge from the Defence Review, which popped up at almost the last moment, was to procure two new aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy. The purpose was to provide air cover over deployed land forces. Of course, as an Army person I was delighted by this, but somewhat puzzled by the lack of debate as to whether such air cover was best provided by aircraft launched from carriers at sea or otherwise launched from friendly land airbases with range extended by air-to-air refuelling where necessary. But the aircraft-carrier decision was brilliant news in public terms and very clever in political terms.

By announcing that the two vessels would come into service in 2012 and 2014, the New Labour government could take all the credit for a very visionary statement of national resolve and intent without the near- to medium-term worries about funding the project. In any event, the decision created great headlines at the time. The implications for the rest of defence, and perhaps other parts of the Royal Navy, would be felt later.

[glad rag]

Quote:
Originally Posted by vecvechookattack http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/427187-2-carrier-contracts-awarded.html#post5929998)
any Government that decides against power projection is committing political suicide.

Is it? ..

Indeed, if the RN is to be re-organised as a costal defence force, the RAF to loose it's Strike capability, and the British Army to be emasculated, would any of the current population actually give a flying "F" as they see the impending implosion of both the public sector and the benefits system??

[soddim]

The Swiss seem to do rather well!

[Obi Wan Russell]

General Dannatt does seem to suffer selective amnesia, he says the army was deprived of funds to pay for the carriers, and yet he forgets that the RN sacrificed it's Shar force, delayed the ISD of the CVFs by several years and dropped six T45s to pay for the Pongo's trip to the 'Stan... The picture he paints is very biased. The light blue have also gone without for the same reasons in favour of the Army so let's read his whining with a little more balance?

[minigundiplomat]

to pay for the Pongo's trip to the 'Stan...


I don't think the Army pick their wars. To suggest otherwise shows a lack of understanding with regard to the fundamentals of defence. It also exposes a huge chip on your shoulder.

[vecvechookattack]

Bismarck is of course absolutely correct. If this Government wants to intimidate other nations then it needs Aircraft Carriers. If this Government wants to implement its foreign policy by use of force then it needs Aircraft carriers. They are a low risk option and of course they are needed by all of our Armed Forces not just the RN.

[minigundiplomat]

They are a low risk option


From a defence/foreign policy perspective, I broadly agree. From a financial perspective, they are a huge risk. They will suck up huge amounts of funding, both in outlay and running costs.

This is fine if we end up retaking the Falklands in 5 years (in which case the financial cost is justified - hence why I broadly agree with you), but if the government has no appetite for foreign adventures, as it seems, then they run the risk of being a huge financial white elephant.

That is a political, as well as financial risk.

[Obi Wan Russell]

Quote:
"I don't think the Army pick their wars. To suggest otherwise shows a lack of understanding with regard to the fundamentals of defence. It also exposes a huge chip on your shoulder."

Not at all. I never suggested they pick and choose their wars. I was refuting Dannatt's assertion that only the Army was suffering cuts to it's frontline, and this was purely to fund the Navy, when in fact the Navy had taken a lot of pain to fund the Army. It's the politicians who are ultimately to blame, and inter service mud slinging is exactly what the politicians want. I want all three armed services properly funded, not just one as the General seems to.

[Bismark]

From a financial perspective, they are a huge risk. They will suck up huge amounts of funding, both in outlay and running costs.

In terms of big ticket procurements the CVs are not huge and not high risk. if you want to talk about huge and high risk let's look at MRA4 (wrong procurement choice), Typhoon (wrong era, old design, wrong role), FRES (will the army ever make up its mind, v expensive already), FSTA (will it ever work). The CVs are bang up to date, relevant for today, have a life way beyond any of the above (50yrs planned life) and ar efull of low risk technology.

[minigundiplomat]

relevant for today


We are currently fighting a war in a landlocked desert, so it isn't particularly relevant for today. However, I take your point, and would hope it is relevant for the future.

[Tester07]

Just to clarify, carriers are partly about

projection of UK industry

which

cannot be done with 7000 ft of tarmac

hmm. Methinks some of your arguments are being padded out with slightly tenuous points.

I wonder if UK industry is aware that they cannot project themselves on a tarmac runway, and need an aircraft carrier?

[Wrathmonk]

The CVs are bang up to date, relevant for today, have a life way beyond any of the above (50yrs planned life) and are full of low risk technology

and quite possibly devoid of any fixed wing aircraft :suspect:

[Agaricus bisporus]

Oh! If only they'd come to their senses and scrap this daft £multi-billion limited payload, very limited number, ultra high-tech swiss-watch F35 and just fit cats, traps and a sensible number of F18s, some Hawkeyes and a COD capability...

Just who are we going to come up against that might require the esoteric limits of an F35 and that the best traditions of FAA training, tactics and practicality could not solve with F18s, and for a saving ot what, £Billions?

Leaving us able to add a sensible RM helo-borne force too.

Am I being naiive?

[Entaxei]

F18 Super Hornet at guaranteed cost and delivery, far lower than postulated and unknown for F35 costing.
Available for; Hawkeye surveillance onboard.
Onboard Tankers.
COD capability.
Full Rotary capability (including ASW).
Plus a couple of hooked Warthogs to take out pirates (low cost effective solution)
Even, dare I say it - a couple of Harrier Mk2 2+ to allow for ops where no tarmac exists.
Ability to take onboard other nations aircraft as needed.
Power projection - Diplomatic visiting trade shows with Sunset Marines.
(Continues HMS Britannia's role that was so effective and would be very appropriate to HMS Queen Elizabeth)

Cost Effective & Versatile - the name of the game!!

(Just another view !!)

[Widger]

Time after time after time, we have on this forum, armchair strategists spouting complete drivel. The worst of which, is the Guardian's attitude that we should retrench ourselves into an insular country, with a small coastal/UKADR defence force/dad's army. They completely miss the point that the UK's future wealth is tied up in several, far flung lumps of rock, which have huge, as yet untapped mineral resources. The Falklands was not fought over the rights of a small few people, it was fought because of the oil, the fish, the minerals and the fact that it is the closest deep water port and airfield to the most massive reserves of unexploited oil and minerals in the world........Antarctica! There are a dozen nations in the world who all lay claim to this continent or parts of it. Only those nations with the military and economic resource will be placed to exploit those resources when the time comes....which it will. You only have to look at the Russian and US and Canadian posturing in the Arctic, to see the future.

The future is not about Afghanistan...if we want to be poor, then let us squander the legacy left for us by generations of Britons who fought and died to make this country what it once was and still can be.

[minigundiplomat]

F18 Super Hornet at guaranteed cost and delivery, far lower than postulated and unknown for F35 costing.
Available for; Hawkeye surveillance onboard.
Onboard Tankers.
COD capability.
Full Rotary capability (including ASW).
Plus a couple of hooked Warthogs to take out pirates (low cost effective solution)
Even, dare I say it - a couple of Harrier Mk2 2+ to allow for ops where no tarmac exists.
Ability to take onboard other nations aircraft for as needed.

Yep, let's save money on the main aerial platform, and then hose it up against the wall on a myriad of other types, and the associated costs. Let's buy 8(?) A-10's and live with the support costs, because they may come in handy one day.

Seriously, a lot of people on this thread seem to be inhabitants of some parallell universe where there is no £150 Billion deficit.

[Not_a_boffin]

Land-based air away from UK is only available in a politically permissive environment and even then, subject to some fairly obvious restrictions (or vulnerabilities) in terms of logistics. Depending on geography, it's also a fairly major drain on tasking.....

If we want to play "globally", then we need a global set of capabilities with all the kit. If we don't want to play globally, then the capability requirement decreases exponentially. There is no point having a bunch of DD/FF if we are not playing globally. Similarly, if we're not playing globally, why have any sort of strategic AT, high readiness infantry etc. If folk think they're gaining "influence" by pitching in half a sqn of GR4 or a Battn of infantry, then all well and good, but don't expect to have a speaking part.

Decision time is upon us (or rather the brains trust in MB:{.....)

[hulahoop7]

Is this such a big suprise?? QE is half built. They'd have to break up whole hull blocks with engines fitted if they were to scrap them now ......
Home - Aircraft Carrier Alliance (http://www.aircraftcarrieralliance.co.uk/)

[Wrathmonk]

a lot of people on this thread seem to be inhabitants of some parallell universe

Well put MGD - the SDSR will be looking to save money not redistribute the current overdraft on an alternative way of achieving the same capability.

Like it or not there has got to be a reduction in capability/global player aspirations to make the books balance. The 'we can get more with the same money by buying off the shelf' won't work. Whether it is the carriers, JFH, the GR4, FRES, ceremonial commitments, FSTA, E3D the Red Arrows, BBMF, PTIs, RAF Regt, heavy armour, Trident or whatever - one or more of them is going to take a hit (and it will be more than a 'capability holiday').

Trouble is will the decision ever me made or will we continue to "salami slice" and "hollow out" what we've got and hope nobody calls our bluff ..... again:ouch:

[Entaxei]

Seriously, a lot of people on this thread seem to be inhabitants of some parallell universe where there is no £150 Billion deficit.

Yes - George Brown springs to mind among many others !!

OK - If you're being picky - drop the Warthogs!

BUT

Don't forget - the other elements are options - pick & mix - now and later.

AND

The F18 option does recognise very much the cost of the F35
(Even if Congress allow the Rolls engine)

[Entaxei]

P.S. Apologies to all for all the formatting, got carried away, have only just realised how to do it on the posts - will keep it under control now.

[SL Hardly-Worthitt]

...."George Brown"........brilliant!!!!

[RumPunch]

Sorry for topic change, we have a £150 Billion defecit, is anyone like me wondering when the banks are going to pay back the £57 Billion they owe the country, that kind of helps the situation but I guess somewhere that will be forgotten about.

The next few weeks are going to be fuelled with rumours and rubbish, but the day the SDR is announced its going to be one huge beer call

[Obi Wan Russell]

The banks are due to pay back our money no later than 2015, which funnily enough is when the ConDems have said the next General Election will be, as they favour five year fixed term Parliaments. We are not bankrupt, we just gave all out money to the banks, who are now doing very nicely thank you.

[Al R]

MGD said: .. if the government has no appetite for foreign adventures, as it seems, then they run the risk of being a huge financial white elephant. That is a political, as well as financial risk.

Agreed.

As much as anything, they only reflect the justification for the cause, the political intent and then, they respond to it. They don't create the conditions but they do need the social and political framework to justify themselves. Its not about how good a design they are - its about what we, as a Nation, want to use them for, or might have to use them for, and if we are able and happy to live with the consequences.

Thing is, do you want to gamble on the consequences of not having them? A billion here or there is probably nothing in the grand scheme of things at the moment, or the consequences of losing out with something far greater, because we didn't have the option when we needed it.