Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Down West
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Australian LPH
Ivan,
Not carriers but still capable of carrying fixed wing, so they say.
Australian Defence Amphibious Ships Project
Not carriers but still capable of carrying fixed wing, so they say.
Australian Defence Amphibious Ships Project
Last edited by oldgrubber; 27th Sep 2010 at 07:56.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we have to realise that the carriers should be scrapped.
It is only nostalgia that makes us want them. A desire to be something we used to be but are no longer.
The smart choice is to scrap the carriers and the Trident replacement.
It is only nostalgia that makes us want them. A desire to be something we used to be but are no longer.
The smart choice is to scrap the carriers and the Trident replacement.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
If we have been a net importer (on a small scale) of oil for the past couple of years and will inevitably increase the amount of oil imports as the years go on, Why are we building two oil burning carriers?
It also has political ramifications, as many countries will not allow nuclear vessels into their ports
Thought that was the point, stand off the coast and terrorise them into submission?
If we have been a net importer (on a small scale) of oil for the past couple of years and will inevitably increase the amount of oil imports as the years go on, Why are we building two oil burning carriers?
It also has political ramifications, as many countries will not allow nuclear vessels into their ports
Thought that was the point, stand off the coast and terrorise them into submission?
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
David Cameron and Liam Fox at odds as navy carrier plans 'up in the air'
He's got a point. If only £1.25bn worth of contracts have been placed so far on a project expected to cost £5bn, then why won't they save £3.75bn by cancelling it? And isn't that before the cost of all the aircraft to go with it?
Plans to build two large aircraft carriers for the navy at a cost of at least £5bn are in jeopardy tonight, Whitehall officials said, after a meeting of the National Security Council chaired by David Cameron.
Cameron questioned claims by navy chiefs and the shipbuilders that cancelling the contracts would only save £1bn, according to officials.
Under existing plans, the navy will also be equipped with new frigates and destroyers. One well-placed official last night said the whole question of which ships the navy will get, and how many, was now "up in the air".
Cameron questioned claims by navy chiefs and the shipbuilders that cancelling the contracts would only save £1bn, according to officials.
Under existing plans, the navy will also be equipped with new frigates and destroyers. One well-placed official last night said the whole question of which ships the navy will get, and how many, was now "up in the air".
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The total program cost is £5.2 billion.
Of this, only £3.9 billion is the ship cost.
Another £1.3 billion was development costs, which is already spent & gone with no possibility of recovery.
Thus, you have £3.9 billion, less the £1.25 billion already contractually obligated, and you get a maximum "theoretical savings" of £2.65 billion.
However, you must then look at whatever cancellation penalties the overall ShipCo contract (the agreement between the UK government and the shipyards that was pushed through before the first contracts were placed) has, etc.
As of right now, at least half the program cost is already spent... cancellation would mean every £ was a total waste.
Any hypothetical "second-best solution" whould be a complete start from the beginning, with all-new development coasts, etc.
Or you could cancel the lot without any Invincible replacement, and place your trust in the security of the UK in the "warm, fuzzy feeling that loving the whole world and not threatening anyone will provide".
Do you really believe in the "harmless inoffensiveness" doctrine?
You know... the one that says "the only reason anyone attacks someone else is because they feel threatened, so if we don't have anything that could threaten anyone (like a military) no one will ever attack us"?
Of this, only £3.9 billion is the ship cost.
Another £1.3 billion was development costs, which is already spent & gone with no possibility of recovery.
Thus, you have £3.9 billion, less the £1.25 billion already contractually obligated, and you get a maximum "theoretical savings" of £2.65 billion.
However, you must then look at whatever cancellation penalties the overall ShipCo contract (the agreement between the UK government and the shipyards that was pushed through before the first contracts were placed) has, etc.
As of right now, at least half the program cost is already spent... cancellation would mean every £ was a total waste.
Any hypothetical "second-best solution" whould be a complete start from the beginning, with all-new development coasts, etc.
Or you could cancel the lot without any Invincible replacement, and place your trust in the security of the UK in the "warm, fuzzy feeling that loving the whole world and not threatening anyone will provide".
Do you really believe in the "harmless inoffensiveness" doctrine?
You know... the one that says "the only reason anyone attacks someone else is because they feel threatened, so if we don't have anything that could threaten anyone (like a military) no one will ever attack us"?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm beginning to see an advantage in 1SL saying gash the Carriers and keep all the other Fleet elements to strength. Then see how long it takes for the political classes to shriek at the social, industrial and economic mayhem that would follow on. It would at least expose this political SDSR sham for what it is.
OK, if the bluff is called, we might never get Carriers ever again; but we'd still have a credible Navy.
OK, if the bluff is called, we might never get Carriers ever again; but we'd still have a credible Navy.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
As of right now, at least half the program cost is already spent... cancellation would mean every £ was a total waste.
The future savings are not just the £2-3 billion involved in building the carriers, but also the costs of the aircraft planned for the air wings - F-35, MASC etc (if we only buy 60 JSF that's around £6 billion, add another couple for support) - call it £10 billion in all for procurement. But also the annual running costs of the ships, aircraft and crew; plus mid-life updates, overhauls, etc.
Over a life of 20-30 years the savings could equate to £1-2 billion a year. About the amount needed for the Trident replacement......
ORAC and PN -
Exactly. The cost of building the ships is a very small fraction of the acquisition cost of the ships, aircraft and associated equipment, and an even smaller fraction of the costs of operating them - even if all the fancy automation works, the carriers will have a vastly bigger crew than any other surface ship.
I suspect that the current calculus shows that the only way to afford the carriers in the long term is to use the carrier-based aircraft to replace part of the FJ force - which is already up for drastic reductions anyway.
If I had to guess what was being discussed, I would estimate that if the carriers are retained, the RAF/RN will get 75 Dave Bs and (if they are lucky) 100 Typhoons.
Exactly. The cost of building the ships is a very small fraction of the acquisition cost of the ships, aircraft and associated equipment, and an even smaller fraction of the costs of operating them - even if all the fancy automation works, the carriers will have a vastly bigger crew than any other surface ship.
I suspect that the current calculus shows that the only way to afford the carriers in the long term is to use the carrier-based aircraft to replace part of the FJ force - which is already up for drastic reductions anyway.
If I had to guess what was being discussed, I would estimate that if the carriers are retained, the RAF/RN will get 75 Dave Bs and (if they are lucky) 100 Typhoons.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think you'll be seeing Dave - in any form - flying off our carriers. Given how far they're going to wind our forces back. I think we'll still get the carriers, but that we'll be flying something F18-shaped off it. Or possibly Rafale?
PP
It depends how strategic they want to be, and how much pressure is applied from across the Atlantic.
The carriers will be around for a long time, so you want to be able to re-equip them with whatever the USN re-equips with, which will be CATOBAR not STOVL. Moreover, the Super Hornet will be cheaper and more capable than Dave B and the lower cost will outweigh the cost of modding the carriers.
The drawback is that CATOBAR ops require more training than STOVL, particularly with Dave B's FCS... but here comes the dream scenario.
The RN buys Super H. Next, the Brits once again move carrier operations up a notch (cf angled decks, mirror landing &c) and take the step to all-the-time carrier autolanding. Vast reduction in training costs and in aircraft lifetime usage.
It depends how strategic they want to be, and how much pressure is applied from across the Atlantic.
The carriers will be around for a long time, so you want to be able to re-equip them with whatever the USN re-equips with, which will be CATOBAR not STOVL. Moreover, the Super Hornet will be cheaper and more capable than Dave B and the lower cost will outweigh the cost of modding the carriers.
The drawback is that CATOBAR ops require more training than STOVL, particularly with Dave B's FCS... but here comes the dream scenario.
The RN buys Super H. Next, the Brits once again move carrier operations up a notch (cf angled decks, mirror landing &c) and take the step to all-the-time carrier autolanding. Vast reduction in training costs and in aircraft lifetime usage.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bury St. Edmunds
Age: 64
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frostchamber
If I was FAA I'd prefer 100 Super Hornets instead of 50 Dave B's. That would equal "more capabability" in my book. It would give force commanders many more options when deployed, allow ac to be configured for multiple roles, (tanker/recce/bomber/fighter) AND allow a training cadre to be maintained ashore, and allow for ac undergoing mods/trials etc.
It would also give you a combat reserve and most importantly - all your "eggs" wouldn't be in the same basket (sorry, I mean ship!)
The same argument could be used to support a Sea Griphen purchase but it won't be as good a tanker and it only has a single donk, not a good thing IMHO when over a wide expanse of H2O.
MB
If I was FAA I'd prefer 100 Super Hornets instead of 50 Dave B's. That would equal "more capabability" in my book. It would give force commanders many more options when deployed, allow ac to be configured for multiple roles, (tanker/recce/bomber/fighter) AND allow a training cadre to be maintained ashore, and allow for ac undergoing mods/trials etc.
It would also give you a combat reserve and most importantly - all your "eggs" wouldn't be in the same basket (sorry, I mean ship!)
The same argument could be used to support a Sea Griphen purchase but it won't be as good a tanker and it only has a single donk, not a good thing IMHO when over a wide expanse of H2O.
MB
Madbob - Maybe, though I'd be surprised if you could get 100 Shornets for the price of 50 Dave Bs, especially when you factor in the price of fitting EMALs cats and the various oncosts that go with that route. Personally I'm fairly relaxed about which way this one goes, like I say both approaches have their pros and cons.
As to Gripen, my understanding is there would be significant performance downsides.
Unlike some on here though I do think the carriers represent a sensible bet for the UK given current trends and the way geopolitics may go in the next 50 years. I might add that I also understand and respect the views of those who see it differently!
As to Gripen, my understanding is there would be significant performance downsides.
Unlike some on here though I do think the carriers represent a sensible bet for the UK given current trends and the way geopolitics may go in the next 50 years. I might add that I also understand and respect the views of those who see it differently!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With Apologies to Churchill
Never before .... has so much been sacrificed (Defence Capability in the round) for so little (2 big boats)
Hopefully the NSC will see sense.
Hopefully the NSC will see sense.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Impinger
I couldn't agree more. If the cost of the CVF programme is FF/DD "force" of 10 or 11 T23s and 6 T45s and 7 SSNs by 2015, then it's not worth it - the rest of the RN will spend their time protecting the CVF, denuding the RN of its worldwide spread. Much better to have a useful RN operating in coalition rather than a one-trick pony of a smaller version of a USN CVBG.
It's sobering to think that the SDR 98 requirement was for 32+ FF/DD and 10-12 SSN and unless I've missed something, I don't see where the tasking seems to have fallen by more than half since 1998.
Still, we could always have a quick whip round for some pitch and float VICTORY out....
S41
I couldn't agree more. If the cost of the CVF programme is FF/DD "force" of 10 or 11 T23s and 6 T45s and 7 SSNs by 2015, then it's not worth it - the rest of the RN will spend their time protecting the CVF, denuding the RN of its worldwide spread. Much better to have a useful RN operating in coalition rather than a one-trick pony of a smaller version of a USN CVBG.
It's sobering to think that the SDR 98 requirement was for 32+ FF/DD and 10-12 SSN and unless I've missed something, I don't see where the tasking seems to have fallen by more than half since 1998.
Still, we could always have a quick whip round for some pitch and float VICTORY out....
S41