Head of Royal Navy threatens resignation over push to scrap Harriers
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would love to know what the Govt of this country is taking to make them so self-delusional. We are a piddly little tin pot economy in today's world, increasingly dependent on the support of other nations to achieve anything in the wider world. Flash, of course, thinks he is the only decent economist amongst the pack but he now has no dosh to spend to keep up with them.
So how on earth do his military advisers think we are going to project power with our little piggy bank and still be able to afford to look after our own? They must be taking the same drugs - or are they simply trying to keep their pet projects alive.
The last thing we should be spending precious defence money on is carriers.
Time to act according to the needs of UK PLC - not to delay the CVFs but to cancel them.
So how on earth do his military advisers think we are going to project power with our little piggy bank and still be able to afford to look after our own? They must be taking the same drugs - or are they simply trying to keep their pet projects alive.
The last thing we should be spending precious defence money on is carriers.
Time to act according to the needs of UK PLC - not to delay the CVFs but to cancel them.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 48
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whether they do or don't is irrelevant.
The country is F****** either way, so they may as well crack on and piss up the wall what they have left.
They'll all be in different departments by the time it comes on top, pensions safe, new kitchens and goldfish bowls adorning their weekday residences.
I'm surprised anyone cares any more, there's nothing you can do about it apart from watch. The old fellas in the outsized crinkly grey suits covered in dandruff that umm and yar on the back rows can't even save us now.
Turn off the news, Job Jobbed.
The country is F****** either way, so they may as well crack on and piss up the wall what they have left.
They'll all be in different departments by the time it comes on top, pensions safe, new kitchens and goldfish bowls adorning their weekday residences.
I'm surprised anyone cares any more, there's nothing you can do about it apart from watch. The old fellas in the outsized crinkly grey suits covered in dandruff that umm and yar on the back rows can't even save us now.
Turn off the news, Job Jobbed.
Not a Boffin,
Not a mathematician, either, clearly.
The Tranche 2 Typhoon costs £37 m a pop, if you're talking flyaway/unit production price - in order to get a comparable figure to US prices.
We know that the Tranche Two global contract was was "worth €13 Bn" for al 236 Tranche 2 aircraft. That’s €55.08 m each. On 17 December 2004, when that contract was signed, the €/£ rate was 0.68545, so €55.08 = £37.76 m. For interest, that was then equivalent to $73 m (you can look up the exchange rates for that day at: FRB: H.10 Release--Foreign Exchange Rates--December 20, 2004).
The NAO changed the basis on which it calculates what it calls a UPC a few years back, so that it's no longer a true UPC (it includes fixed costs for all three tranches, but is divided by only on-contract aircraft in T1 and T2, it includes what would go into a US unit weapons system cost, etc.).
That's closer than you'd expect to the Super Hornet price (we wouldn't get them for $55m a pop!), and it's a sight less than $122 m for an F-35B.
If you want a second FJ, go Gripen. They've landed it on a carrier in their sim already......
So if we dumped CVF and bought a simulated carrier.....
Not a mathematician, either, clearly.
The Tranche 2 Typhoon costs £37 m a pop, if you're talking flyaway/unit production price - in order to get a comparable figure to US prices.
We know that the Tranche Two global contract was was "worth €13 Bn" for al 236 Tranche 2 aircraft. That’s €55.08 m each. On 17 December 2004, when that contract was signed, the €/£ rate was 0.68545, so €55.08 = £37.76 m. For interest, that was then equivalent to $73 m (you can look up the exchange rates for that day at: FRB: H.10 Release--Foreign Exchange Rates--December 20, 2004).
The NAO changed the basis on which it calculates what it calls a UPC a few years back, so that it's no longer a true UPC (it includes fixed costs for all three tranches, but is divided by only on-contract aircraft in T1 and T2, it includes what would go into a US unit weapons system cost, etc.).
That's closer than you'd expect to the Super Hornet price (we wouldn't get them for $55m a pop!), and it's a sight less than $122 m for an F-35B.
If you want a second FJ, go Gripen. They've landed it on a carrier in their sim already......
So if we dumped CVF and bought a simulated carrier.....
Jacko
We've done the costing argument before. NAO says this, Jacko says the other, DoD says something else, I say that. As you rightly identify, there are different components in each. My actual point was more along the lines of impact on the EP - which appears to be your bugbear.
On that basis, according to NAO which uses the EP lines (no matter how much you might like to quibble) 20 Tiffy's a year at NAO UPC is £1.4Bn pa for what, 6 years for the T1 and T2 buy? Compare that to £4bn over 8 years (contract cost, inclduing all the bits like dredging Pompey and Rosyths dock and crane). Even my elementary maths has that at £500M pa or one third TIffy (which we need to buy).
Now add T3 for which there is no agreed UPC yet and I agree is cast iron locked in and who's distorting what? Incidentally, have you ever wondered whether BVT negotiated a similar cancellation penalty to T3 during the merger? Restructure your entire business and leave it dependent on an easily cancellable contract?
Wait - I hear you cry, what about Dave?
Very true. But don't the RAF want Dave too for FOAS or whaever it's called this week? If you want it you've got to pay for it - it appears to be the £500M pa for ships you object to.
It's only simulated money anyway, lets be honest.
We've done the costing argument before. NAO says this, Jacko says the other, DoD says something else, I say that. As you rightly identify, there are different components in each. My actual point was more along the lines of impact on the EP - which appears to be your bugbear.
On that basis, according to NAO which uses the EP lines (no matter how much you might like to quibble) 20 Tiffy's a year at NAO UPC is £1.4Bn pa for what, 6 years for the T1 and T2 buy? Compare that to £4bn over 8 years (contract cost, inclduing all the bits like dredging Pompey and Rosyths dock and crane). Even my elementary maths has that at £500M pa or one third TIffy (which we need to buy).
Now add T3 for which there is no agreed UPC yet and I agree is cast iron locked in and who's distorting what? Incidentally, have you ever wondered whether BVT negotiated a similar cancellation penalty to T3 during the merger? Restructure your entire business and leave it dependent on an easily cancellable contract?
Wait - I hear you cry, what about Dave?
Very true. But don't the RAF want Dave too for FOAS or whaever it's called this week? If you want it you've got to pay for it - it appears to be the £500M pa for ships you object to.
It's only simulated money anyway, lets be honest.
Not a Boffin,
You were comparing a US type UPC with a very different cost for Typhoon. I supplied a directly comparable figure.
Luckily, the UPC for Tranche 2 Typhoon doesn't need to be argued. The value of the T2 production contract was set in stone, and is known. Divide that by the number of aircraft and you have the UPC.
The NAO figure IS NOT A UPC.
We don't have a UPC for Tranche 3, but EF GmbH have always said that each successive Tranche would be cheaper in terms of UPC, and have succeeded in achieving that, so far.
With some UK-unique elements and weapons system costs included, RAF Tranche 1 jets cost £49 m or £45 m. Tranche 2 cost £42 m calculated in the same way. You might therefore expect Tranche 2 to come in at about £39 m on the same basis.
You won't save much by cancelling them.
F-35 is a different matter.
I want to save £1 Bn on Harrier, £5 Bn on ships (and we all know that they'll cost way more than that) and whatever JSF ends up costing, plus the high running costs.
You were comparing a US type UPC with a very different cost for Typhoon. I supplied a directly comparable figure.
Luckily, the UPC for Tranche 2 Typhoon doesn't need to be argued. The value of the T2 production contract was set in stone, and is known. Divide that by the number of aircraft and you have the UPC.
The NAO figure IS NOT A UPC.
We don't have a UPC for Tranche 3, but EF GmbH have always said that each successive Tranche would be cheaper in terms of UPC, and have succeeded in achieving that, so far.
With some UK-unique elements and weapons system costs included, RAF Tranche 1 jets cost £49 m or £45 m. Tranche 2 cost £42 m calculated in the same way. You might therefore expect Tranche 2 to come in at about £39 m on the same basis.
You won't save much by cancelling them.
F-35 is a different matter.
I want to save £1 Bn on Harrier, £5 Bn on ships (and we all know that they'll cost way more than that) and whatever JSF ends up costing, plus the high running costs.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
£5 Bn on ships (and we all know that they'll cost way more than that)
THS
Err, that commodity is necessary for ALL ops (land, sea, air) and if you look at what they've bought it's all non-developmental. The alternative led to a lot of cost escalation with CdeG.
Jacko
Whether the NAO figure is a UPC or not, I can't see an argument that doesn't have a £1Bn-plus impact on the EP every year for Tiffy, which I believe was your point.
As for costing more than £5Bn, as one who has spent nearly 20 years in the shipbuilding industry, I can tell you that MoD was being seen off good and proper at £4Bn. The delay will certainly ensure that they do cost £4Bn though. However, there aren't enough systems in the ship to escalate by another billion - not to say BVT won't try obviously.
Err, that commodity is necessary for ALL ops (land, sea, air) and if you look at what they've bought it's all non-developmental. The alternative led to a lot of cost escalation with CdeG.
Jacko
Whether the NAO figure is a UPC or not, I can't see an argument that doesn't have a £1Bn-plus impact on the EP every year for Tiffy, which I believe was your point.
As for costing more than £5Bn, as one who has spent nearly 20 years in the shipbuilding industry, I can tell you that MoD was being seen off good and proper at £4Bn. The delay will certainly ensure that they do cost £4Bn though. However, there aren't enough systems in the ship to escalate by another billion - not to say BVT won't try obviously.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
THS
Err, that commodity is necessary for ALL ops (land, sea, air) and if you look at what they've bought it's all non-developmental. The alternative led to a lot of cost escalation with CdeG.
Err, that commodity is necessary for ALL ops (land, sea, air) and if you look at what they've bought it's all non-developmental. The alternative led to a lot of cost escalation with CdeG.
F-76 is the most expensive 'standard' fuel the British military use* by a fair margin and the price of diesel derivatives will rise considerably again in the future as nations such as China and India once again develop a thirst for them.
F-35 on the other, whilst also experiencing price rises, is still considered a comparatively cheap fuel and you can run diesel vehicles on it, though not marine craft unfortunately.
It seems a little strange that we as a nation can be planning a new generation of nuclear powered submarines yet somehow fitting a nuclear power plant to the carriers is a huge leap in costs. Couldn't the costs somehow, I don't know, be shared between the projects?
* My information was correct as of October 07.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hypothetically speaking - genuine question...
Does anyone know the cost per hour (or similar meaningful metric) over dear old 'ghanners' of a Super Hornet flying from 'somewhere off the coast' as compared to a GR4 flying from KAF? (Future proofed question - well hopefully anyway!)
What if we factor in the logistics train required to keep KAF going, the air bridge, the 14000 people at KAF that seem to 'add very little'? the FP required etc etc?
Whilst I am acutely aware that opinion is everything and facts are nothing - and that views on CVS/N/F are entrenched and non-negotiable I am genuinely interested. How much does a FARP/TFOL/ air base cost compared to a CV..various? Anyone know?
And just in case this benign question wasn't inflammatory enough, how many times has a CVN stopped flying due to hostile action? How many times has KAF or the COB ceased Ops due to IDF?
Here's where I am. CVS - absolute waste of rations. CVN/F great bits of kit if used properly and adequately funded. Typhoon - two wars, no show, what's the story?
regards, orca.
What if we factor in the logistics train required to keep KAF going, the air bridge, the 14000 people at KAF that seem to 'add very little'? the FP required etc etc?
Whilst I am acutely aware that opinion is everything and facts are nothing - and that views on CVS/N/F are entrenched and non-negotiable I am genuinely interested. How much does a FARP/TFOL/ air base cost compared to a CV..various? Anyone know?
And just in case this benign question wasn't inflammatory enough, how many times has a CVN stopped flying due to hostile action? How many times has KAF or the COB ceased Ops due to IDF?
Here's where I am. CVS - absolute waste of rations. CVN/F great bits of kit if used properly and adequately funded. Typhoon - two wars, no show, what's the story?
regards, orca.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems a little strange that we as a nation can be planning a new generation of nuclear powered submarines yet somehow fitting a nuclear power plant to the carriers is a huge leap in costs. Couldn't the costs somehow, I don't know, be shared between the projects?
Good point HS
Good point HS
Orca,
"Typhoon - two wars, no show, what's the story?"
You need five fighter squadrons for UK AD, QRA and Falklands.
We now have two F3 Squadrons and two Squadrons of Typhoons.
There's just no 'slop' for long term dets and deployments yet, even if you believe that the Austere A-G capability is yet as mature as the July OED might make is assume.
Now if it had been me as CAS, I'd have sent a four-ship to Kandahar for a Rafale-style flag-waving PR exercise, to get that 'tick in the box' - operationally justifiable or otherwise.
With aircraft being diverted to Saudi, and with the production rate slowed to avoid costly gaps at the end of Tranche 1 (and again for the end of Tranche 2) it will be a very long time before there is a third Typhoon squadron, let alone the fourth and fifth, and the sixth and seventh, that would allow the Typhoon force to do what it was bought for - which was to replace five squadrons of F.Mk 3s AND three squadrons of Jags.
Not a Boffin,
Canning CVF would leverage a big enough saving to fund proper SH, but I'd agree that the big savings come from cancelling JSF. I'm not suggesting that we bin one, but not the other.
"Typhoon - two wars, no show, what's the story?"
You need five fighter squadrons for UK AD, QRA and Falklands.
We now have two F3 Squadrons and two Squadrons of Typhoons.
There's just no 'slop' for long term dets and deployments yet, even if you believe that the Austere A-G capability is yet as mature as the July OED might make is assume.
Now if it had been me as CAS, I'd have sent a four-ship to Kandahar for a Rafale-style flag-waving PR exercise, to get that 'tick in the box' - operationally justifiable or otherwise.
With aircraft being diverted to Saudi, and with the production rate slowed to avoid costly gaps at the end of Tranche 1 (and again for the end of Tranche 2) it will be a very long time before there is a third Typhoon squadron, let alone the fourth and fifth, and the sixth and seventh, that would allow the Typhoon force to do what it was bought for - which was to replace five squadrons of F.Mk 3s AND three squadrons of Jags.
Not a Boffin,
Canning CVF would leverage a big enough saving to fund proper SH, but I'd agree that the big savings come from cancelling JSF. I'm not suggesting that we bin one, but not the other.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: NSW
Age: 64
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Canning CVF would leverage a big enough saving to fund proper SH, but I'd agree that the big savings come from cancelling JSF. I'm not suggesting that we bin one, but not the other.
You just don't get it do you?!
For one claiming to be knowledgeable and well informed (with all the apparently reasoned information you are putting out in this thread), you should know that within MOD cancelling a programme definitely does not release funds for another project. Cancellation means the money is never spent and never existed. What has already been spent is wasted. The whole military shrinks! If you lose CVF and JSF, your SH will still have to make do with whatever they've got. They certainly will not get any more funding! And the Typhoon fleet won't get any bigger either. When you lose something, all that really happens is the cost cutting knives re-focus on another project and expose a whole new tranch of entrenched positions and back biting.
The idea that everyone is competing for limited funds is driven by folk who would prefer to spend nothing on Defence. These are the people you are working for. You and your ilk picking a pet project or two and attacking the funding of everyone else is by far the biggest threat to your national security. Your argument for cancellation does not just apply to the projects you are attacking. It applies to the whole British Military!
Whilst the UK Armed Forces are out their doing there damnedest to keep things running and to achieve their nationally appointed missions within the constraints placed upon them by your leaders, I suggest no-one over there really wants to "bin" anything other than your ranting. If you believe in the British Military and want to help, back off!
Last edited by DBTW; 12th Dec 2008 at 03:46.
Orca
Good thinking - but to get a representative figure, in the AFG example, you would also need to include the differences between the running costs (fuel / fatigue life etc / manpower costs) of having to maintain 24/7 CAPs from the CVF (over AFG)on "a just in case basis because we're too far from the fight to be able to react quickly" (and it is the transit hours / fatigue that is really hurting certain OS fleets) against being able to maintain a ground alert posture by being in-country and only launching when required. Just to keep the argument balanced. And of course the FP issues remain to a certain extent for the sea-basing option (USS Cole?) so it's not just one CVF theres all the picket ships, resupply ships etc. Perhaps may be close to 14000 personnel!
Good thinking - but to get a representative figure, in the AFG example, you would also need to include the differences between the running costs (fuel / fatigue life etc / manpower costs) of having to maintain 24/7 CAPs from the CVF (over AFG)on "a just in case basis because we're too far from the fight to be able to react quickly" (and it is the transit hours / fatigue that is really hurting certain OS fleets) against being able to maintain a ground alert posture by being in-country and only launching when required. Just to keep the argument balanced. And of course the FP issues remain to a certain extent for the sea-basing option (USS Cole?) so it's not just one CVF theres all the picket ships, resupply ships etc. Perhaps may be close to 14000 personnel!
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Up North
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we are all missing the point. We only have defence to
1. Keep Wastelands and BAe Systems in business
and
2. Have something for the spotters to take photos of.
Whats Defence of the realm and providing the forces with good kit on time at a good price got to do with it.
Wiretensioner
1. Keep Wastelands and BAe Systems in business
and
2. Have something for the spotters to take photos of.
Whats Defence of the realm and providing the forces with good kit on time at a good price got to do with it.
Wiretensioner
DBTW,
Nice try, but wrong.
Money has to be saved.
I'd rather see it saved by cutting nice-to-have, big ticket, prestige programmes that deliver only a niche capability than see it saved by shaving money from day to day essential capabilities.
Those who most damage the defence of the UK are the people who push for disproportionate spending on pet programmes which do not deliver value for money or cost effective delivery of effect.
The RN needs to push for what is best for Britain, not to fight narrow, single-service interest turf wars.
Nice try, but wrong.
Money has to be saved.
I'd rather see it saved by cutting nice-to-have, big ticket, prestige programmes that deliver only a niche capability than see it saved by shaving money from day to day essential capabilities.
Those who most damage the defence of the UK are the people who push for disproportionate spending on pet programmes which do not deliver value for money or cost effective delivery of effect.
The RN needs to push for what is best for Britain, not to fight narrow, single-service interest turf wars.
Jacko
And so does the RAF. Which I don't think it is fully doing at the moment. As posted elsewhere I think CAS could be far smarter about the way he is trying to take Air Power forward (and without pi55ing off the other Services who also frequent the air domain).
And I'm Air Force myself before I'm accussed of being a narrow minded WAFU, sun dodger, skimmer or any other relevant Jack-speak persona
The RN needs to push for what is best for Britain, not to fight narrow, single-service interest turf wars.
And I'm Air Force myself before I'm accussed of being a narrow minded WAFU, sun dodger, skimmer or any other relevant Jack-speak persona
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Next question
I note that whilst we seem to 'agree' on the copy cost of a Typhoon or F-18E, no-one actually knows how much carrier aviation costs as compared to land based aviation in a 'cost per hour of CAS' or similar. Interesting that this should be so in such an emotive argument. I 'know' that CVF is costing 3.8 Billion or there abouts, but no-one 'knows' how much KAF costs, or Bastion for that matter. I am sure we could fall out at great length about what was actually in the 'cost' and what wasn't.
First point, if we don't know the cost delta, how are we even starting X costs more than Y arguments. Bear in mind we don't even know which war we're talking about yet...
I would also like to ask what we do with KAF when it's all over, do we ship it home overland or by jingly to the coast and then by ship? Surely it's ours, we paid for it..didn't we? Where are we going to put it? Brawdy? Are the USN faced with the same problem or do their flat tops get used in subsequent fights, or are they perhaps biodegradeable/ recyclable? Just interested from a cost point of view.
If i may quickly revisit ther 'whole typhoon thing'. Why do we have lord-high-crab and OC this-that-or-the-other sqn banging on about it, combat ready this, fully capable that. If we don't have the sqn numbers to deploy it, it ain't combat ready. I am happy to believe its ace at everything, and the chaps must be itching to actually employ weapons - but until it drops a bomb, air-to-ground wise it's a zero not a one. And a genuine question to finish, has Typhoon done a Red Flag yet?
Sorry to bear questions and no answers.
Regards, Orca.
First point, if we don't know the cost delta, how are we even starting X costs more than Y arguments. Bear in mind we don't even know which war we're talking about yet...
I would also like to ask what we do with KAF when it's all over, do we ship it home overland or by jingly to the coast and then by ship? Surely it's ours, we paid for it..didn't we? Where are we going to put it? Brawdy? Are the USN faced with the same problem or do their flat tops get used in subsequent fights, or are they perhaps biodegradeable/ recyclable? Just interested from a cost point of view.
If i may quickly revisit ther 'whole typhoon thing'. Why do we have lord-high-crab and OC this-that-or-the-other sqn banging on about it, combat ready this, fully capable that. If we don't have the sqn numbers to deploy it, it ain't combat ready. I am happy to believe its ace at everything, and the chaps must be itching to actually employ weapons - but until it drops a bomb, air-to-ground wise it's a zero not a one. And a genuine question to finish, has Typhoon done a Red Flag yet?
Sorry to bear questions and no answers.
Regards, Orca.