3 months in UK carrier contract 12 months late

[GH]

The Times is reporting this morning that 3 months after signing a joint contract with BAE and Thales for two new carriers, they have "given notice that the project may be running 12 months late". With an end date of 2012/2015 place your bets on actualy dates now. Costs overrun will, of course, be a seperate sweepstake.

BAE-Thales carrier deal in difficulty
By Russell Hotten


A DECISION by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to split a £10 billion aircraft carrier contract between BAE Systems and Thales has already run into problems.
Three months after the MoD said that work on the warships would be carried out by an Anglo-French joint venture, the companies have given notice that the project may be running 12 months late.

It was hoped that BAE and Thales would by now have structured the terms and work share of their controversial partnership in time for a meeting of the MoD’s Investment Appraisal Board (IAB) yesterday. The IAB received little more than a progress report.

In January, under what many saw as a compromise deal, the MoD awarded BAE the contract to build the carriers, but to Thales’s designs. That arrangement is now causing tensions.

BAE is currently assessing whether it can build someone else’s design to the price and timetable that the MoD wants. The two carriers are due to enter service in 2012 and 2015.

Sources talk of squabbling over the extent of Thales involvement and of BAE pressing the MoD to move away from a fixed-price contract towards the more flexible Target Cost Incentive Fee (TCIF). Under TCIF, BAE would share far less of the risk of cost overruns, good for its shareholders but not for the taxpayer, who would have to pick up the extra bill.

A source involved in the project said that there was “always going to be a lot to achieve, but things are just not going as hoped. There are delays and that may mean cost overruns”.

Many analysts felt that the MoD and Royal Navy preferred the Thales bid, but that awarding the contract outright to the French would be politically unacceptable. Thales, although it has extensive UK interests, is owned 30 per cent by the French Government.

Instead, the MoD announced a partnership bringing together, it said, the best of both contracts. Under the joint venture, Thales would get 30 per cent of the work and MoD officials would sit on the joint venture’s board.

Thales said that the two sides are “developing good relations”. BAE said: “We are getting along just fine.”

Which is nice.

[sprucemoose]

Well blow me, nobody saw this coming, did they!
I hardly think it can be classed as "squabbling" when Thales wants a decent level of involvement in building its own design!
Looks like we'll have our shiny new JSFs by 2012 but nothing to park them on.

[Jimlad]

I was talking to a rep from Thales recently who noted that there is no agreement whatsoever between the two companies and that splitting the contract was a really bad idea.
One can only hope sanity prevails now and that we move to a single contracter. I also think BAE are pushing their luck, if I were them I would shut up and build the thing to the contract given to me rather than trying to change it given that they arent exactyl falovur of the month right now. ...

[Zoom]

This already has all the hallmarks of another famed Euro c*ck up. Why can't we just buy a couple of American models (new or used, I don't mind) before it's too late? Any fishhead comments? :{

[Archimedes]

So - BAE Systems, having been given some input into this, wish to continue to screw the taxpayer for all they can get? Mmmm.

Methinks that a 'sort this out by x or Thales build the things' edict is required, but about as likely as the Iraqi information minister turning up to deliver the next Pentagon briefing...

[sprucemoose]

Yes Archi - remember they are cheese-eating surrender monkeys at heart, and that as such they can't be allowed to have the work. Much better that BWoS make a hash of it, then the tabloids will have lots more to write about over the coming years.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Didn't someone on PPRuNe predict this several months ago?

Why are BAE Systems allowed/expected to control and manage the entire project themselves? Would it not be more sensible for the DPA/MOD(N) to run things? There have been rumours of problems with the Astute class SSN, now CVF. Whats the likelihood the Type 45 Destroyer will be delayed/won't work properly?

Why do I get the feeling that the capability gap left by the planned retirement of the Sea Harrier will last longer than six years? (As if that wasn't bad enough.)

[Yeller_Gait]

I am sure that, a few weeks ago during the "war", the government said they were putting the Thales contract for the new carriers on "hold" or something like that, implying that is was because of the French attitude towards the "war" etc.

As for giving the contract to BWoS, this would allow them to make another major c**k up, costing us, the taxpayer, another small fortune. I am not in favour of giving the French the contract, but at least they have some recent previous of building carriers, and by all accounts CDG is a fairly good bit of kit now.

Why can the government not just bite the bullet, buy American, and at least we would have a chance of getting the carriers on spec, on time and on cost?

[ORAC]

Financial Times:BAE says it cannot build ships to budget (http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1057562361020&p=1012571727085). Lex: BAE Systems (http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1057562360384&p=1012571727085).

[maninblack]

Taking Tornado, Nimrod 2000 and Typhoon as examples seems to demonstrate that BAe couldn't assemble an Airfix Spitfire on time and to budget.

They have teams of people at Warton who would form committees to determine whether the Spitfire really only had one engine, then they would issue a specification for a glue that could fasten two submarines together in a kerosene environment. If their was a requirement to make the propellor go round they would design their own battery rather than use an off the peg PP3.

:mad:

[Postman Plod]

so yet again, MoD are going to get a third rate version of the product they, ahem, "signed up" for, 15 years behind schedule, £16bn over budget, and can hold 1 aircraft, and thats a remote controlled helicopter owned by the captain. BAE will not go out of business, and will continue to win further contacts from the government to replace the entire RAF with a budgie for £2bn (£154bn by end of programme) , the Army with a small rodent for £2.99 from Pet City (£324bn after refit programme when research into combining hamster and gerbil DNA produces a Gemster, not a Harbil) , and the rest of the Navy with an upside-down plastic bathtub with no plug. (bespoke Plug costs £16tn) :rolleyes:

So please tell me, why did BAE bid at a level it knew it could never deliver to? Oh did it do that with the Nimrod too? AND Typhoon??

[RubiC Cube]

At least this is good news for the Directorate of Naval Manpower who admit that they will have difficulty in manning the new carriers before 2015.

[steamchicken]

Jeeezzzzus......and what's this of perhaps doing a "smaller" one with only 20 a/c? So - to do it cheaper and on time, you intend to tear up the design and start afresh? And what's the point? At this rate, the Shar boys ought to practice landing-on Ocean, or perhaps the QwhatasillynameQ research trimaran they're sending the balloon up from. Or perhaps just a really big mexeflote towed behind a Type 23. Maybe Bwos could manage that one. Didn't they do that in 1918? (in fact, I think I'd get my dad's toolbox out..) ******r it. Cancel the contract, don't give 'em a penny, and give the lot to the French.

More sophisticatedly, call in Swans, Vospers, Thales, MODN, and the DCN, and ask 'em if they can do the job better. The BAe-owned yards can come in as subcontractors, on condition of no design authority and stiff penalty clauses for late/crappy delivery. Even if we didn't change horses, it might put the fear of God in 'em.

PS, I don't think the Americans have built a carrier for anyone else since 1945. Have they actually sold one in living memory?

[BlueWolf]

I have a vague recollection that at least one small decomissioned carrier was sold post 1945 to a private US buyer, if that helps. I think he was a minor entertainment personality of some sort.
Details.....no, can't remember them, sorry, but doubtless someone will. ORAC?;)

Seems to me that a couple of early-retired US carriers refitted into service as a stopgap while t'Baron has his sh1t sorted for him wouldn't be a bad solution....but then I'm only a humble foreign civilian.....:) :)

[BEagle]

Somehow I feel that the idea of 't Bungling Baron Waste o'Space getting his excretia assembled sometime within the next 50 years is perhaps somewhat porcovolant.....

Is there any evidence that he knows that 't boats actually have to float? "Sithee by 'eck, lad. It don't say as much in 't contract, tha' knows...."

As for FSTA, 2 competing consortia are bidding, 1 of whom (the 767 consortium TTSC) has the benefit of 't Baron's mob as a major member........

Hmmm - EuropHoon...MRA4....these aircraft carriers.... All of which have been on time, on spec and on budget, haven't they?

[Archimedes]

Ignoring escort carriers built for the RN in WW2, there have been some US carriers sold/loaned to other nations.

The old Spanish carrier , the Délado, was sold to Spain in 1973, after being on loan for a couple of years before that - it was the USS Cabot (CVL-28) in its previous life.

The US also loaned the French the carriers Bois Belleau and Lafeyette (formerly CVL 27, Langley & CVL-24, Belleau Wood respectively).

There was also some discussion within the Admiralty about borrowing/buying one or more of the modified Essex class after the cancellation of CVA-01. I have a dim recollection of seeing/hearing that there may have been talk of getting the USS Franklin D Roosevelt as well, but I could well be making that up.

[juliet]

Yanks sold one of the smaller Forrestall (?) ones to Australia. Australia called it the Melbourne and used it to run down and sink the rest of its navy.

[Archimedes]

Juliet, the Melbourne was one of the British Majestic class - I think it might have been the name ship. Melbourne was a light fleet carrier design - a tad smaller than the Forrestals!

[The Nr Fairy]

Of course, the simplest interim solution is to buy this one :

http://www.frenchcreekboatsales.com/details.asp?File_Number=BOP12

[Archimedes]

Mmmm.... you may be onto something. If we buy Vikrant from the Indians, we'd have a brand new(ish) two-ship class of aircraft carriers, all for less than a JSF. Brilliant!

[soddim]

Past performance is no guarantee of future performance - except, of course, in the case of BWoS.

[Zoom]

'....smaller and less sophisticated ships.... the FT report says. Now wait a minute, hasn't the Navy got 3 of those already? :ok:

[Huron Topp]

Archimedes, believe that carrier is the Minas Gerais (Brazil?), not the Vikrant.

[Archimedes]

Sorry, Huron. I wasn't quite clear in what I meant.

The carrier in the advert is indeed the Minas Gerais (aka HMS Vengeance)

My point was that if we were to buy the Vikrant as well (it's also up for sale at the moment, AIUI, but not advertised on the web) we'd have two new carriers - CV(P) as opposed to CV(F)...

If the figures I've seen for the Vikrant's air wing are reasonably correct, they'd carry a larger air wing than the Invincibles, too.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Archimedes - I thought that the reason the CVS was designed to carry so few aircraft routinely was politics/economics? I seem to remember occasions when they carried more than usual. Does anyone know how many Sea Harriers Invincible carried during the Falklands? Would I be right in thinking she carried twelve, plus a full load of ASW Sea Kings? I could go and check, I've got Sharkey Ward's book on my bookshelf but I'm feeling lazy....

RubiC Cube - Manning will indeed be a problem, and somehow I doubt that Topmast will help.

The intended demise of the Sea Harrier will have implications for the CVF project, including losing pilots - and losing the air defence skillls of pilots, fighter controllers, and operations room teams from HM ships, which would take time and effort to regain. Smaller carriers with smaller air groups may well appeal to our politicians, allowing them to cut the F35 order.

Would I be right in thinking the FAA will be particularly vulnerable to this sort of cutting? After 2006 there will be no officers of Flag rank to exclusively dedicated to naval aviation. We have already seen some of the consequences of the FAA being treated as part of the RAF? Incidently, how come shipborne naval aircraft come under Strike Command but certain Army units attached to 3 Commando Brigade come under CINCFLEET? Did the politicians really have long term sinister intentions?

Just because the future carriers were mentioned in the SDR doesn't make them safe from cutbacks. The SDR contained other commitments that have been quietly dropped - including the Sea Harrier, a minimum of 32 destroyers/frigates (now we have less than 32), 21 Nimrod MRA4, and a minimum level of FIVE air defence Torndao F3 squadrons.....

Now as for BAE Systems...........I despair. I really do. They employ so many really talented people but their management seems to be utterly incompetent. I am refering to MRA4 thread(s) where it seemed when it seemed that the problems were due to bad management rather than technical problems. As long as such organisations are run by accountants and pen pushers instead of engineers and scientists I doubt things will change.

For BAE Systems (or any other company) to get COMPLETE control over such an important project, instead of the relavent service, is a mistake. Allowing them to write the specifications for various systems can only lead to problems. Commercial pressures, empire building and poor management are very real risks and can only lead to delays and cost over-runs. Put the MOD(N) back in charge say I! Or the relevent part of the MOD for other projects. Whenever I have spoken to members of HM Forces about procurement the main complaint is ALWAYS that there is a lack of user input....

I suppose we should be grateful that its not a PFI.

Sorry if some of my points seem controversial but these are things that need to be discussed. I haven't got the answers, I'm just a simple yokel - very much a single issue dullard.

[Archimedes]

WEBF,

Yes, the size was all to do with politics.

CVS was meant to be a helo carrier to complement CVA-01. At one stage, it was intended that the class should be fitted with Exocet! Once it was clear that the choice was STOVL ac aboard CVS or nothing, CVs was chosen.

There was no chance that CVS would be any bigger, not least since it was sold to the politicians as the infamous 'through deck cruiser', so that's why the air group is relatively small.

[pr00ne]

Archimedes,

CVS came along long after CVA-01 had been cancelled. It was called a 'Through Deck Cruiser' to save the blushes of a certain Mr Healey who had declared that we no longer needed carriers after the pull out from the Far East was complete.

The Tories then vaccilated for years over whether to put Sea Harrier on it or not.
It was designed as an ASW command ship for the North Atlantic and was sprimarily to be a helo platform. SHAR was carried originally in squadrons of 5 ac merely to act as a deterrent to Bears and the like to deter them from shadowing and ASM missile targeting.

WEBF,

The DPA is running the CVF programme NOT BAE Systems.

[BEagle]

Pull out from East of Suez? Riiiigghhhtt - a sound political move. Someone remind me where Iraq and Afghanistan are?

[Archimedes]

Pr00ne,

forgive me - over-simplification of the process on my part:

CVS's origins can be said to stem from 1962 - VCNS asked 'what if we don't get CVA 01?', and his staff produced recommendations for ships with VSTOL & ASW helo. The studies were then put on the shelf.

While planning for CVA 01 was underway, plans for a 'Command Cruiser' (CCH) were also being studied - drawing on the conclusions of the 1962 study (although perhaps coincidentally) - hence my point about CVS being intended to complement CVA 01 - I should have said 'helo cruiser' rather than 'carrier'.

This plan envisaged a ship that could carry 9 ASW helos plus guided missiles. Both a conventional and 'through deck' layouts were mooted for the cruiser, although the latter notion seems not to have been particularly heavily considered at the time.

Then, with the cancellation of CVA 01, the RN had a future study group that concluded that carriers were needed. They were told that this was not the correct answer (the career of the Admiral heading the group was ruined as a result), but it was soon realised that, well, actually... Meanwhile, the through deck design began to be pursued with more vigour over the winter of 1966 and 1967; by 1969, the Navy Minister (Owen) was talking about the possibility of using RAF Harriers off the CCH (although they'd need higher-rated engines, apparently - something to do with hot and high conditions...).

Politics - particularly inter-service politics - then got in the way about operation of aircraft from the carrier, since the RAF were concerned about carrier aircraft representing a threat to the MRCA. This was overcome partly because the size of CCH/CVS meant that it was clear that the air group wouldn't be very big. Also, as you say, the role for the carrier's aircraft (once it was finally agreed that it could carrier SHAR) was for hacking down Badgers (et al).

This meant that the concept of having organic air aboard small carriers, with the task of protecting the fleet and little else, as espoused by Sir Thomas Pike when he was CAS, was, in effect realised. No threat to MRCA there, therefore, the service politics issue was effectively resolved. The RN had, to all intents and purposes, ended up with a carrier of roughly the sort of conception that Pike had suggested in the mid-60s.

My point, therefore, was that the CVS design as we have it now is rooted in concepts laid down even before CVA 01 was cancelled, so size limitations would obviously apply to the end result.

The size of the air group, therefore, wasn't politically driven per se, but was dictated by the size of the ship - and that was politically driven.

[timzsta]

Let us face it - there will be no CVF. It will never happen. The cost will spiral and it will become unaffordable. The JSF project, with all its complexity, will run into technical difficulties.

Recent military ops in Afghanistan/Iraq show that the future for airborne RN ops will be in amphib warfare. That is why there is talk of a sister ship for ocean and Ark Royal will be scrapped early.

Type 45 will end up as no more then 6 ships and remaing Type 22's will go in next defence review following Labour re-election in about 2005, without replacement.

Astute will be over budget, under spec and only two hulls will be completed.

[soddim]

Perhaps this is the political way to do the cancelling without annoying MOD - give the project management to BWoS and the project becomes history.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

In addition to drawing attention to the issues I made reference to in my last posting (which nobody seems to have discussed), I will suggest that the following web sites/pages may be of interest (particulary to you visiting journalist types)......

http://www.warshipsifr.com/pages/in...w_alanWest.html
http://www.harrier.org.uk/history/h...ARdownunder.htm
http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static...6158_635_0.html

Like my post on the previous page, these sites may be considered controversial, but I think that these are all issues that the media and public ought to be more aware of. The last few links are particularly interesting with respect to CVF.

and http://www.parliament.the-stationer...694/3062503.htm

You might find this next PPRuNe thread interesting too:

Ski Jumps (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=111712)

[Archimedes]

WEBF,

The last two links (the 'richardcoolfreepage' ones) don't seem to work. Get something about 'terms violations' coming up when I try to access them.

[Edited to add] - and for http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/148.html I get an HTTP 404 Not Found...

I saw something in the Western Daily Press this morning about the MoD insisting that the CV(F) be delivered for £2bn per copy to the original design, while BWoS (and Thales?) seem to have replied along the lines of 'Yes. Right. Very.... interesting.' I'll see if I can't find a link.

[and edited again to add]

The WDP link is here (http://www.westpress.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=127642&command=displayContent&sourceNode=127641&contentPK=8241648)

In summary, seems to confirm that the Queen Elizabeth will enter service at least 12 months later than planned, while the MoD will protest considerably until BWoS make clear that the MoD will get £2.4-worth of carrier no matter how much they fuss.

You can just see this turning into another CVA01 debacle, when either:

a) someone in Dark Blue will decide the cash has to come out of the Light Blue, starts arguing this, the RAF fights back to protect JSF/FOAS/the RAF itself and the winner turns out to be the Treasury

b) someone in Light Blue will decide that the Dark Blue will be looking for money to be taken from the RAF to fund the carrier, and starts [you can fill in the slightly modifed version of (a) that fits here yourself] and the winner turns out to be the Treasury.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Sorry about the duff links, it was a rehash of an old post. Sorry!
Links now removed.

This topic is of course closely related to that of the Sea Jet (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=98152) .

The issue of the premature retirement of the Sea Harrier is, in my opinion, relevent because.....

1. Delays to the CVF project will mean that the gap in which the Royal Navy does not have organic air defence will be longer than six years. Any cutbacks to the size of the surface fleet will make it worse.

2. Losing the Sea Harrier means that a lot of people with lose air defence skills. Pilots will obviously lose skills, as will Fighter Controllers, Anti Air Warfare Officers, and future task group commanders. It will take time and money to get them back up to speed.

3. If we get through the period between Sea Harrier and JSF unscathed the usual suspects will try to argue not to rebuild of capability for Fleet Air Defence. If the worst does happen they may try to use it as an argument for scrapping CVF and/or other projects.

4. As the Sea Jet issue demonstrates, the public are very unaware of the Fleet Air Arm. This puts them at of penny pinching.

[NURSE]

And the Navy will continue to sacrifice frigates, destroyers, Carriers and probably soon their new amphibious vessels to get the CVF. Doing the govts dirty work for it to cut the Fleet back to a fishery protection force. The RAF will help by sacrificing JSF to save some project or other and Labour will have succeded in 10 years of winding up the armed forces. Oh yes the army will continue to sacrfice regiments for beter ISTAR assets.

The whole project is the usual camel type project (a horse designed by commitee) It should have gone to 1 shipyard like Harland and wolff in Belfast who have a history of delivering a well made and mechanically sound ships to the Royal Navy. Look at HMS Eagle she was in better condition than Ark Royal. Fearless kept on in service when intrepid was knackered. HMS Belfast the only British WW2 cruiser left.

[BEagle]

Why do I get the feeling that it's pretty unwise to expect any ship made by 't Bungling Baron Waste o' Space actually being able to float, let alone fight.

If we really must have the Queen Liz and Queen Charlie, then they shoukd be built as specified, not as BWoS propose after they've taken their cut of profit for shareholders and 't Baron...

[Small Spinner]

I agree with Nurse the order should have gone to a single shipyard like H & W.

On the BAE side, I won't defend some of the crass mistakes they have made in the past and will still make, however many see the problems within projects, and are more than willing to see them put right. The problem is that management doesn't lift a finger to make changes until new contracts are signed.
Everyone is so scared of getting screwed by each other that decisions for the good of projects get delayed, and delayed and delayed.
In the meantime those working for the best can see where they need to go, but aren't allowed to change direction.
Project management just makes it worse as the customer is able to watch progress (in the wrong direction) in minute detail and hold the company to milestones, sometimes of no value to the overall project.

Communication and flexibility are the keys to good projects, and both industry and the DPA are not good examples of where these attributes can be found.

Lastly I am totally amazed that a company that holds so many meetings can have such poor communications amongst those who really matter.

Still - Happy Christmas to all and may the Mighty Hunter rise from Mother Earth and prove that she continues to rule the skies.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Question: Is there a shipyard in the UK that is capable of building a ship of this size?

Pre fabricating sections of a ship and then fixing them together has been one for years. American experience has shown that different yards can make different sections which can be integrated succesfully. However neither BAE Systems nor the MOD procurement people are stars at things like configuration control or project managment - worrying.

As NURSE says, to get the carriers (and the capability that they will bring) the RN is having to suffer other cuts, like possibly losing more frigates/destroyers, and retiring the Sea Harrier early. This despite the fact both of these things are threats to CVF. See my edited post above.

See this article on shipbuilding. (http://frn.beedall.com/crisis.htm)

[BEagle]

Well, when the costs begin to escalate and the delays mount over these future carriers - as surely they will - , without Earl Mountbottom to back pusser's case this time, what chance will they have of ever getting their keels wet?