Future Carrier (Including Costs)
ORAC
If the "legacy industry" you are referring to is shipbuilding, then I'm afraid you are gravely misinformed. If you think there is either a commercial or European industry sitting there ready to jump in, then you need to name some names. In actual fact, the UK warshipbuilding industry is still relatively advanced (particularly where you get to the difficult, classified bits) compared to most others - particularly the US who have a shipbuilding industry best described as archaic. The ~ 12000 people and remaining facilities in the UK can still design, produce and maintain the full range of ships we are likely to need, ranging from DD/FF through carriers and amphibious ships to the really difficult things like submarines. That is why there was a Maritime Industrial Strategy, but strangely, not an "aviation" one.
If you want an example of "raping the defence budget", I suggest you look no further than Typhoon (and I am a converted supporter), where £20Bn (yes four times the eventual carrier cost) has been incurred to produce a highly capable (but limited to land-based) fighter aircraft, where UK industry is limited to elements of the design and manufacture and is not capable of full assembly. Or A400M, where our input appears to be limited to design and production of the wing section (standfast RR input to the engines). Or Sentinel / ASTOR, where we spunk billions at a useful bit of kit to then bin it in favour of Reaper?
Should we include AW and Wildcat? Almost certainly, but Chinook and Blackhawk are not the answer to every question.
The carriers are not the cause of the "black hole", however convenient it may be to think so.
If the "legacy industry" you are referring to is shipbuilding, then I'm afraid you are gravely misinformed. If you think there is either a commercial or European industry sitting there ready to jump in, then you need to name some names. In actual fact, the UK warshipbuilding industry is still relatively advanced (particularly where you get to the difficult, classified bits) compared to most others - particularly the US who have a shipbuilding industry best described as archaic. The ~ 12000 people and remaining facilities in the UK can still design, produce and maintain the full range of ships we are likely to need, ranging from DD/FF through carriers and amphibious ships to the really difficult things like submarines. That is why there was a Maritime Industrial Strategy, but strangely, not an "aviation" one.
If you want an example of "raping the defence budget", I suggest you look no further than Typhoon (and I am a converted supporter), where £20Bn (yes four times the eventual carrier cost) has been incurred to produce a highly capable (but limited to land-based) fighter aircraft, where UK industry is limited to elements of the design and manufacture and is not capable of full assembly. Or A400M, where our input appears to be limited to design and production of the wing section (standfast RR input to the engines). Or Sentinel / ASTOR, where we spunk billions at a useful bit of kit to then bin it in favour of Reaper?
Should we include AW and Wildcat? Almost certainly, but Chinook and Blackhawk are not the answer to every question.
The carriers are not the cause of the "black hole", however convenient it may be to think so.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Torres Strait
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Defence And The Strategic Deficit
Defence And The Strategic Deficit
Annonymous Author: Defence And The Strategic Deficit By…. The Phoenix Think Tank
Annonymous Author: Defence And The Strategic Deficit By…. The Phoenix Think Tank
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Willard Whyte and Green Flash...
As I posted in this very thread on page 143 (2 pages back):
http://www.pprune.org/6017887-post2853.html
As I posted in this very thread on page 143 (2 pages back):
http://www.pprune.org/6017887-post2853.html
Originally Posted by GreenKnight121
BTB... the final T-45 (the 221st, a T-45C) was delivered to the USN on 29 November 2009... so the production line has been closed for almost a year.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Not_a_boffin,
You appear to be justifying an open ended contract which will cost us more to get out than cancel, for a product unsuited to the present economic and military needs by pointing to the Typhoon.
The Typhoon contract which has been lambasted for many years for tying us into a situation where it will cost us more to cancel than to buy aircraft which we no longer need.
Personally I would have said the moral was perfectly clear and we should have learnt from it.
You appear to be justifying an open ended contract which will cost us more to get out than cancel, for a product unsuited to the present economic and military needs by pointing to the Typhoon.
The Typhoon contract which has been lambasted for many years for tying us into a situation where it will cost us more to cancel than to buy aircraft which we no longer need.
Personally I would have said the moral was perfectly clear and we should have learnt from it.
"The Typhoon contract which has been lambasted for many years for tying us into a situation where it will cost us more to cancel than to buy aircraft which we no longer need."
I think the contact for tying us to the commit numbers of aircraft was mainly due the germans back in the mid 90's when T 2 was being signed and germans want to cut numbers bought but still wanted the the same production share of building the Typhoon..
so the T3 contact was set so no one could back out of the commited numbers sign up for.
I think the contact for tying us to the commit numbers of aircraft was mainly due the germans back in the mid 90's when T 2 was being signed and germans want to cut numbers bought but still wanted the the same production share of building the Typhoon..
so the T3 contact was set so no one could back out of the commited numbers sign up for.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kilmarnock,United Kingdom
Age: 68
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC
The UK either wants to retain the capacity to build complex aircraft, warships and their support technologies or buys abroad . To choose the former but at the same time cut Defence expediture just leads to stretching out programmes as has been the case with both Typhoon and the carriers. With Typhoon the change of the users requirement from Air Defence to Swing role to justify the numbers of aircraft being bought then caused more delay and cost. Ditto the carriers and the F-35C.
The Queen Elizabeth build is now well underway with float out in 2012. After that, Bae planned to move to the second carrier. In response to the Cameron/Osborne query, it offered to do "something else" if replacement work was brought forward until the Type 26 was ready to commence around 2016. That way the "penalty clauses" would not have been invoked. So if Strategy rather than cost cutting had any place in this decision why did the Government not opt to do this!
The UK either wants to retain the capacity to build complex aircraft, warships and their support technologies or buys abroad . To choose the former but at the same time cut Defence expediture just leads to stretching out programmes as has been the case with both Typhoon and the carriers. With Typhoon the change of the users requirement from Air Defence to Swing role to justify the numbers of aircraft being bought then caused more delay and cost. Ditto the carriers and the F-35C.
The Queen Elizabeth build is now well underway with float out in 2012. After that, Bae planned to move to the second carrier. In response to the Cameron/Osborne query, it offered to do "something else" if replacement work was brought forward until the Type 26 was ready to commence around 2016. That way the "penalty clauses" would not have been invoked. So if Strategy rather than cost cutting had any place in this decision why did the Government not opt to do this!
ORAC
Not quite. The present "military need" as defined by certain quarters would essentially justify lots of pongos and Hunters if you equate it purely to Herrick and Telic, plus the ability to intercept Achmed the Awful in an Airbus or Boeing in the UK ADIZ. If you think beyond a land-centric campaign in Asia (a combination we should never sign up to long-term), then the "military need" looks a bit different.
The difference between buying a carrier and Typhoon is that aircraft of broadly equivalent performance can generally be acquired within a couple of years (if off the shelf), whereas ships generally take four or five times longer, largely as there is no equivalent shelf.
Let us be perfectly clear - the carriers are at least as justifiable as Typhoon militarily. The difference is that the funding for Typhoon was committed much earlier (as was Sentinel and to a degree A400M), so what the "economic" argument boils down to is "we've got our toys", yours are unaffordable. Yet CVF offers things Typhoon can never do - the ability to influence events beyond 500 miles from the UK. If all we want to do is defend the UK, then Hunters (or at least Lightnings) would be just fine.
Not quite. The present "military need" as defined by certain quarters would essentially justify lots of pongos and Hunters if you equate it purely to Herrick and Telic, plus the ability to intercept Achmed the Awful in an Airbus or Boeing in the UK ADIZ. If you think beyond a land-centric campaign in Asia (a combination we should never sign up to long-term), then the "military need" looks a bit different.
The difference between buying a carrier and Typhoon is that aircraft of broadly equivalent performance can generally be acquired within a couple of years (if off the shelf), whereas ships generally take four or five times longer, largely as there is no equivalent shelf.
Let us be perfectly clear - the carriers are at least as justifiable as Typhoon militarily. The difference is that the funding for Typhoon was committed much earlier (as was Sentinel and to a degree A400M), so what the "economic" argument boils down to is "we've got our toys", yours are unaffordable. Yet CVF offers things Typhoon can never do - the ability to influence events beyond 500 miles from the UK. If all we want to do is defend the UK, then Hunters (or at least Lightnings) would be just fine.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Independent: Lord Hesketh quits Babcock over aircraft carrier comment
Lord Hesketh has resigned from his post as deputy chairman at engineering group Babcock International after branding the Royal Navy's aircraft carrier programme a "disaster".
Babcock, which is building the carriers at its shipyard in Rosyth, revealed he was stepping down with immediate effect following the comments in The Daily Telegraph. Lord Hesketh was reported in the newspaper saying the £5.2 billion carrier project would make Britain a "laughing stock" following defence cuts.
Last month's defence review revealed only one carrier would operate for three years and never carry planes, while the second would not carry aircraft until at least 2020.
Babcock issued a statement earlier today distancing itself from Lord Hesketh's comments. It said: "Babcock dissociates itself from these personal comments, which do not in any respect reflect the views of the company. Babcock with its partners in the Carrier Alliance is focused on delivering this major upgrade to the UK's defence capability on time and to budget."
Lord Hesketh has resigned from his post as deputy chairman at engineering group Babcock International after branding the Royal Navy's aircraft carrier programme a "disaster".
Babcock, which is building the carriers at its shipyard in Rosyth, revealed he was stepping down with immediate effect following the comments in The Daily Telegraph. Lord Hesketh was reported in the newspaper saying the £5.2 billion carrier project would make Britain a "laughing stock" following defence cuts.
Last month's defence review revealed only one carrier would operate for three years and never carry planes, while the second would not carry aircraft until at least 2020.
Babcock issued a statement earlier today distancing itself from Lord Hesketh's comments. It said: "Babcock dissociates itself from these personal comments, which do not in any respect reflect the views of the company. Babcock with its partners in the Carrier Alliance is focused on delivering this major upgrade to the UK's defence capability on time and to budget."
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what is funny is that the newspapers that called on the MoD to signan unbreakable contract so that Labour couldn't cancel the carriers as they did in the 60's are the ones who are bleating loudest about "unbreakable contracts" now Dave and the boys have tried to pull the plug
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Always liked Lord Hesketh, but that stems mainly from his foray into F1 a few years back. Still seems a decent sort.
Last edited by Willard Whyte; 8th Nov 2010 at 15:40.
Always liked Lord Hesketh, but that stems mainly from his foray into F1 a few years back. Still seems a decent sort.
Decent sort he may be, but peddling the Sea Tiffy?
Decent sort he may be, but peddling the Sea Tiffy?
A good guy. 30+ years ago in another life I was involved with the setting up of a youth centre on the Eastern Development Area in Northampton. kids were asked who they would like as Patron and they asked for Lord Hesketh. He agreed, and even donated a Hesketh motorcycle as a draw prize to raise funds. Used to sit next to him at meetings as he doodled costings for Kylami GP.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the Independent.
I can see the headlines in Private Eye already, "Toff lets cat out of bag -- reveals how UK defence industry really works."
Lord Hesketh criticised prime contractor BAE Systems for having a "vested interest" that had caused extra expense.
"We are paying twice as much as we should to get half the capability," he said.
"We are paying twice as much as we should to get half the capability," he said.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Now they're taking the p*ss. £2.6 billion for each carrier, already designed to take the catapult as an upgrade, and they're quoting nigh on another £1 billion to actually put one in?
Babcock says Aircraft carrier changes will add up to £800m to taxpayer bill
Changes to the £5.2bn aircraft carrier programme, intended to save the taxpayer money, will add as much to £800m to the cost of each ship.
The addition of catapult and arrestor gear to the aircraft carrier means the UK does not need to buy the more costly vertical take-off and landing model (VTOL) of the F35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), which will fly off the carriers when they finally go into service in 2020. The extra equipment also means the ships can be used by US and French jets.
However Babcock, part of the BAE Systems-led consortium building the two carriers, estimates adding the equipment will cost £600m to £800m per ship, potentially taking the total bill for the vessels to almost £7bn.
At present, the Government plans to add the extra equipment to only one carrier. A "fully effective" carrier will not go into service with the Royal Navy until 2020 as a result of the changes, rather than 2016 as originally planned.
Babcock says Aircraft carrier changes will add up to £800m to taxpayer bill
Changes to the £5.2bn aircraft carrier programme, intended to save the taxpayer money, will add as much to £800m to the cost of each ship.
The addition of catapult and arrestor gear to the aircraft carrier means the UK does not need to buy the more costly vertical take-off and landing model (VTOL) of the F35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), which will fly off the carriers when they finally go into service in 2020. The extra equipment also means the ships can be used by US and French jets.
However Babcock, part of the BAE Systems-led consortium building the two carriers, estimates adding the equipment will cost £600m to £800m per ship, potentially taking the total bill for the vessels to almost £7bn.
At present, the Government plans to add the extra equipment to only one carrier. A "fully effective" carrier will not go into service with the Royal Navy until 2020 as a result of the changes, rather than 2016 as originally planned.
Maybe you get a discount if you refit both?
I hope that the Ministry got that estimate before the SDSR. If it is worth that much to avoid the care and feeding costs of the STOVL jet, with its 1500 hour engine and extra mechanicals, the O&S on that platform must be really scary.
I hope that the Ministry got that estimate before the SDSR. If it is worth that much to avoid the care and feeding costs of the STOVL jet, with its 1500 hour engine and extra mechanicals, the O&S on that platform must be really scary.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London
Age: 66
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I guess £600m is the price for the whole cat system. As I understand it all they did was leave a "trough" below flight deck, and hopefully installed cable runs or at least allowed for them in structure from engine rooms to deck.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 93
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E-cat
Does the quoted cost of fitting an "aeroplane sling" to the carriers include the development cost of the proposed electromagnetic system under development - and if so, is that for the US or the British system, which I understand hasn't yet got to full-scale tests ?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the Torygraph.
So that's clear enough, (and some might call it stating the bleedin obvious) now just how was the VTOL version ever a worthwhile prospect?
However Babcock's chief executive, Peter Rogers, said installing the catapult equipment and switching to the so-called carrier variant of the F35, rather than the VTOL version, would save the Government money in the long run.
Buying the carrier variant will allow the Ministry of Defence to greatly reduce the number of aircraft it has to buy and cut the cost of the planes by 25pc over their life-span, according to last month's Strategic Defence & Security Review.
"This version of the jet has a longer range and greater payload: this, not large numbers of aircraft, is the critical requirement for precision strike operations in the future," the review said.
Buying the carrier variant will allow the Ministry of Defence to greatly reduce the number of aircraft it has to buy and cut the cost of the planes by 25pc over their life-span, according to last month's Strategic Defence & Security Review.
"This version of the jet has a longer range and greater payload: this, not large numbers of aircraft, is the critical requirement for precision strike operations in the future," the review said.
JJ - Have you heard of Hitchcock's "Maguffin"?
It's the element in a story that drives the plot, even though it might be almost forgotten at the end of it.
The RN would never have had a CATOBAR carrier had they argued for it directly in the years leading up to the 1998 SDR. Instead (and quite sincerely) they advocated a STOVL carrier with JSF. It was only after the SDR that they realized that a practical JSF carrier was plenty big enough for CATOBAR.
And JSF itself would never have happened had the Marines and UKG not driven the development of STOVL. A different, USN/USAF-dominated aircraft might have emerged eventually, but it was the vision of the tri-service jet based on ASTOVL around which JSF came together.
So even if Dave-B ends up as a museum curiosity, we would not be talking about UK carriers at all had it never existed.
It's the element in a story that drives the plot, even though it might be almost forgotten at the end of it.
The RN would never have had a CATOBAR carrier had they argued for it directly in the years leading up to the 1998 SDR. Instead (and quite sincerely) they advocated a STOVL carrier with JSF. It was only after the SDR that they realized that a practical JSF carrier was plenty big enough for CATOBAR.
And JSF itself would never have happened had the Marines and UKG not driven the development of STOVL. A different, USN/USAF-dominated aircraft might have emerged eventually, but it was the vision of the tri-service jet based on ASTOVL around which JSF came together.
So even if Dave-B ends up as a museum curiosity, we would not be talking about UK carriers at all had it never existed.