Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Future Carrier (Including Costs)

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Future Carrier (Including Costs)

Old 29th Jun 2009, 18:57
  #2121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,545
Personally I am shocked, staggered, cosmically gobsmacked and in a state of utter disbelief. However, since they haven't started to spend the money yet, this has to be a projection on someone's part, and the question is whose.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2009, 19:25
  #2122 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,830
Jacko, I'm surprised. i thought it would be at least 35% by now.
Cows getting bigger is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2009, 19:39
  #2123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 58
BBC Link

BBC NEWS | UK | Navy carriers '1bn over budget'

current predictions have it now coming in at 5 billion instead of 3.9 previously guessed at.

Well after already cancelling Soothsayer, Reaper, the E3 upgrades, 3 Nimrods and the Helix R1 upgrade according to Nimrod among MoD's 1.1bn in cuts - Public Service - that would give them the 1.1 they need

(Though at least one part of that story has been overtaken by events)
bit-twiddler is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2009, 19:57
  #2124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 36
Best news in a long time.

Cut the project and any further involvement in JSF now.

Country is "broke" and lots of "bankers" need bailing out.
jim2673 is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2009, 20:12
  #2125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Belfast
Posts: 17
Before the anti-carrier mafia get started - read the full article on the Beeb. It notes that the cost overrun is primarily driven by MoD (well Treasury as we all well know) driven delays ie. longer term material & wage inflation, change in accounting. The article notes that it is felt that the project is actually being run well. (as you would hope - they have had long enough to design & derisk the bloody things)
blandy1 is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2009, 20:13
  #2126 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: London
Age: 59
Posts: 15
ToBA

Don't think BVT and the MoD ever got round to signing a ToBA, not formally anyway.

Babcock hanging on for something similar for Devonport and Faslane. And don't forget the money ploughed into Rosyth for CVF (or the jobs).

Defence Industrial Strategy now hanging by a thread, despite the efforts of industry. Hard to blame industry if you don't do what you say you will. This is potentially very serious stuff that goes far beyond inter-service rivalry.
Chillimausl is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2009, 20:30
  #2127 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Transiting the M27
Age: 46
Posts: 277
Whatever happened to contracts that were written with a deliver-on-time-and-in-budget-otherwise-you're-fined clause?

Not the MoD's problem that wages have gone up, surely? That's for the contractor to cover, I would've thought. Or am I being completely thick on how PPP contracts work?

I've run hundred-thousand pound projects in the private sector and if a contractor came to me saying their wage bill had risen, they were running late and needed more money from me to deliver, I'd see them in court for breach of contract.
Beatriz Fontana is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2009, 20:43
  #2128 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Belfast
Posts: 17
PS Go to the article in Pestons Picks in the Business page - not the headline one.
blandy1 is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2009, 21:31
  #2129 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 76
Posts: 16,658
Originally Posted by Beatriz Fontana View Post
Whatever happened to contracts that were written with a deliver-on-time-and-in-budget-otherwise-you're-fined clause?
Fine in theory but with slim profit margins, yes really, there is not much fat for fines, I mean, that is the whole point of a tight contract. Then if you do fine them they will either up the costs elsewhere or go to the wall. As we don't have Defence Industries in Depth we would be a bit stuck.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2009, 21:35
  #2130 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North Pole
Posts: 953
How long before the carriers get scrapped?

Anyone running a book on how long before the new carriers are scrapped?

BBC reporting they are 1bn over budget so far this year!!

I know where I would put my money!!
newt is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2009, 21:49
  #2131 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
They need canning now so as to stop the waste of money.

We cannot afford these so lets stop kidding ourselves we are a force in the world anymore.
BillHicksRules is offline  
Old 29th Jun 2009, 22:01
  #2132 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Somewhere Warm
Age: 67
Posts: 61
It's About Jobs

With the number of jobs tied to this project, does anyone really believe the carriers will be cancelled before the next general election? After that, it is anybody's guess and I'm not betting.

TB
TrakBall is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2009, 07:05
  #2133 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 76
Posts: 16,658
Archimedes,

I'll go for an each-way bet.

Carriers to go - carriers will be austere and late
Typhoon to go - Typhoon to be put in to storage
Harrier to go - Harrier to be scaled back
JSF will be late -
Army will be re-focused solely for CI role - Army will be re-focused on Canadian or Dutch model
Commitments will be maintained - commitments will be ramped up.
Trident and petard!

Spot the odd one out?


It's got to be dark blue.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2009, 07:19
  #2134 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
I would sugest if the carriers go JSF will go to wether we need first strike capability or not

might we get 1 carrier? only
A400M will be cut
JSF will be reduced
Tornado replacement cancelled and retired without replacement
Nimrod MRA4 cut back to 9 airframes
Nimrod R1 retired without replacement
Puma retired without replacement
Challanger retired without replacement
warrior cut back
AS90 retired withour replacement
MLRS retired without replacemnt
Raiper retired without replacement
HVM retired without replacement
NURSE is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2009, 07:28
  #2135 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 76
Posts: 16,658
Nurse, hard to argue against that. However the inescapable logic is if it is not to be replaced then the capability is not needed so it can be scrapped now. Look at Jaguar. I said the Army to the Canadian model. Maybe a better model would be the new Zealand one.

Except keep Typhoon as the only short take-off and landing, MRCA. then bolster the transport force.

Do we need tankers? Maybe to ferry aircraft to theatre, thereafter use someone else's unless we can 'sell' spare capacity.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2009, 07:48
  #2136 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
if we go to the New Zealand model shouldn't that go for the airforce to?

Last edited by NURSE; 30th Jun 2009 at 08:08.
NURSE is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2009, 07:55
  #2137 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 76
Posts: 16,658
Nurse, quite, that is what I was thinking of. Does leave the question of Typhoon however. Fire sale to the RAAF?
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2009, 08:27
  #2138 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 336
Whatever happened to contracts that were written with a deliver-on-time-and-in-budget-otherwise-you're-fined clause?

Not the MoD's problem that wages have gone up, surely? That's for the contractor to cover, I would've thought. Or am I being completely thick on how PPP contracts work?

I've run hundred-thousand pound projects in the private sector and if a contractor came to me saying their wage bill had risen, they were running late and needed more money from me to deliver, I'd see them in court for breach of contract.
Its not just PPP contracts that work like this - Looking at this from a 3rd party contractors side, what do YOU do as a Project Manager when the scope starts to creep and its outside of your area of control? What happens when the customer changes their demands, or delays a project without providing any timescales, particularly when you have already resourced the project and committed to the materials? Or costs (fuel, materials, labour, etc) outside your control rise astronomically (as they have over the last few years)? You have to re-scope, and to me thats exactly what has happened here. This all seems like normal project management practice to me. (Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying thats exactly whats happened here, but I'm guessing certainly some of the above is likely to be the case...)

So its all very well saying on time on budget, but that doesn't take into account the realities of a project (and the world), particularly when a CUSTOMER keeps changing the timescales and the requirement and the design (as seems to be the case on defence projects, right up until the last minute), what chance does the contractor have? From my understanding and from what I've seen on here and other places, this seems to sum up defence contracts completely!

If you want something on time and on budget, then don't constantly change your mind throughout the project - accept the deliverables that were scoped, promised and agreed in the first place! That way the only person to blame for any over-runs is the contractor! Even then, there are still factors outside the control of the contractor that would require a rescope.
Postman Plod is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2009, 08:34
  #2139 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: E MIDLANDS
Posts: 284
Personally I think that the Carriers will be canned & with it JSF. The Harriers will be kept & the CVS will be refitted again (to keep the RN happy and some jobs for Babcock at Rosyth); Maybe fit them and the T45 with Tomahawk after all to give some strike capability. Tornado will go early & some Typhoon will be re-roled for a strike/ CAS function. The Army will lose AS90 and MLRS but keep the same number of infantry regiments. Allocate the AWACS aircraft to the NATO pool (& put several airframes in storage?).

Trident - Hmmm, tricky one for the politicos, but if it were me I would try to make political capital out of retiring it - disarmement etc. After all, we have always looked two faced trying to argue with Pakistan, Iran etc that they shouldn't have N weapons but its OK for us to have them.
andyy is offline  
Old 30th Jun 2009, 08:52
  #2140 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: E MIDLANDS
Posts: 284
And this report by defence experts for the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) has called for radical changes in British security and defence policy.

The think tank's report is basically a plea that Britain should stop punching "above its weight" and start punching at its proper, much lighter, weight.

BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Rethink defence, 'declining' UK urged
andyy is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.