Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,765
Likes: 3
From: UK
OAP
Joined: Aug 2014
Posts: 1,915
Likes: 4
From: New Braunfels, TX
Having spent quite some time aboard carriers, for me the interesting part of the video was the DDG passing the carrier close aboard with the high power search radar antenna rotating. Was it also transmitting? If so, there are a lot of irradiated sailors on QE.
Joined: Jun 1999
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
From: Lon UK
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,968
Likes: 102
From: Devon
Onceapilot
As Brat states, it is a family thing. 'We' refers both to the UK, and to the Royal Navy. As a member of the Naval Service - the Royal Navy in the widest sense including RM, QARNNS, RNR, RMR, and QARNNS(R) - (I am RNR), I think the entire Service has shown huge resilience in keeping the project going, and keeping both skills and doctrine alive, after the political cowardice and stupidity of SDSR 10.
Personally I am only involved on the sidelines as a supporter (although I did work with some components destined for F-35), however Reservists are involved and will be more so in the near future.
Talking of family: Her Majesty will soon name her namesake carrier
As Brat states, it is a family thing. 'We' refers both to the UK, and to the Royal Navy. As a member of the Naval Service - the Royal Navy in the widest sense including RM, QARNNS, RNR, RMR, and QARNNS(R) - (I am RNR), I think the entire Service has shown huge resilience in keeping the project going, and keeping both skills and doctrine alive, after the political cowardice and stupidity of SDSR 10.
Personally I am only involved on the sidelines as a supporter (although I did work with some components destined for F-35), however Reservists are involved and will be more so in the near future.
Talking of family: Her Majesty will soon name her namesake carrier
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 20th November 2017 at 11:25.
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,765
Likes: 3
From: UK
OAP
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 809
Likes: 428
From: Portsmouth
Except that once again, the facts do not support your opinions.
Taking the last years for which the NAO major project breakdowns are available (sadly 2015), you'll find that the top in-year spend is Typhoon at £976M from a total of £5.1Bn that year (19%). A whopping £200M below that comes QEC @ £742M at 15% of the in year total. Then comes the A400M at £706M (14%) which even exceeds the amount spent on the Astutes at a meagre £682M (13%).
Interesting that even at the end of the production run, Typhoon is still by some distance the most expensive project in the EP. Note that 2015 is also well past peak spend of the QEC programme, so that spend ranking ain't going to change much.
Of all the projects in the EP that are past MG, those supporting Air total around £37Bn (£32Bn if you exclude that allocated to F35) compared with £25.7Bn that could be attributed to the Naval service. Alternatively, the in-year EP split is still £2.5Bn vs £2.1Bn in favour of Air and that's making some generous assumptions as to the "benefit" of complex weapons spend and F35.
Your opinion on the carriers isn't going to change, but its prejudice appears to be driven entirely by the size of the ships, rather than any consideration of fact. Do at least try to support your assertions with fact rather than blaming your own personal hobby horse.
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 7,056
Likes: 2
From: London
Yeah but we get a lot of Typhoons for the money -
My issue is that it's a diversion of money, and more important, men when the rest of the navy is screaming for more investment - or even just maintenance.................
My issue is that it's a diversion of money, and more important, men when the rest of the navy is screaming for more investment - or even just maintenance.................
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 809
Likes: 428
From: Portsmouth
So let's be clear.
Are the carriers absorbing significantly more manpower than the ships they're replacing? By design, no - they're broadly similar in complement to CVS, of which we were running two up until 2010. They do require substantially more bods than Ocean and one issue appears to be that someone has made an assumption / taken a savings measure on naval manpower when we chose Ocean over Illustrious to run on as LPH, without thinking it through. That is hardly an intrinsic effect of the ships though.
Then you get into which budget all this stuff comes out of. If - as many postulate - "it's all because of the carriers", then you'd somehow expect to see the service personnel budget shrink in proportion to the EP. Unfortunately, this doesn't appear to be the case. Main Estimate budgets for service personnel (civ per is a separate budget) were £8.7Bn in the 13/14ME, £8.8Bn in the 14/15ME and are £9.5Bn in the 17/18ME. Set against a reduced number of people. Go figure.
Likewise equipment support. The figures for those three ME years are £6Bn, £6.4Bn and £6.4Bn respectively. You'd expect the latest ME to be higher, but is that attributable to the carriers? Unlikely - not least because they're not yet in service and therefore don't - yet - affect that budget.
The fact is that the carriers are barely affecting the budget - certainly compared to other platforms / services that absorb significantly more. What is actually happening is that the defence budget as a whole is not increasing in line with "defence inflation", which is leading to a resource squeeze across defence. This squeeze is being attributed to "the carriers" primarily because they're new, they're much bigger than what has gone before and therefore everyone assumes that they're consuming much more of the budget. Which doesn't actually appear to be the case - there would still be significant pain and grief across the board - the big drain on resource is not associated with large grey ships however much people would like it to be.
Are the carriers absorbing significantly more manpower than the ships they're replacing? By design, no - they're broadly similar in complement to CVS, of which we were running two up until 2010. They do require substantially more bods than Ocean and one issue appears to be that someone has made an assumption / taken a savings measure on naval manpower when we chose Ocean over Illustrious to run on as LPH, without thinking it through. That is hardly an intrinsic effect of the ships though.
Then you get into which budget all this stuff comes out of. If - as many postulate - "it's all because of the carriers", then you'd somehow expect to see the service personnel budget shrink in proportion to the EP. Unfortunately, this doesn't appear to be the case. Main Estimate budgets for service personnel (civ per is a separate budget) were £8.7Bn in the 13/14ME, £8.8Bn in the 14/15ME and are £9.5Bn in the 17/18ME. Set against a reduced number of people. Go figure.
Likewise equipment support. The figures for those three ME years are £6Bn, £6.4Bn and £6.4Bn respectively. You'd expect the latest ME to be higher, but is that attributable to the carriers? Unlikely - not least because they're not yet in service and therefore don't - yet - affect that budget.
The fact is that the carriers are barely affecting the budget - certainly compared to other platforms / services that absorb significantly more. What is actually happening is that the defence budget as a whole is not increasing in line with "defence inflation", which is leading to a resource squeeze across defence. This squeeze is being attributed to "the carriers" primarily because they're new, they're much bigger than what has gone before and therefore everyone assumes that they're consuming much more of the budget. Which doesn't actually appear to be the case - there would still be significant pain and grief across the board - the big drain on resource is not associated with large grey ships however much people would like it to be.
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 7,056
Likes: 2
From: London
Yes - but they're not really replacements - they're extra - a crew of 670+ (over twice that of Ocean) plus all the extra support and training - at a time when we haven't enough manpower to man what we already have
The budget (lack of) is the elephant in the room of course
The budget (lack of) is the elephant in the room of course
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,765
Likes: 3
From: UK
I am with you HH, the carriers are an extra capability that we should not have. They are an extra that is robbing core capabilities of the RN and RAF. Unfortunately, just because ££,£££,£££,£££ has already been spent on the saga, it does not mean that further spending is going to continue. What cannot change is that the money already spent could have bolstered core capabilities and is now lost. Now we face the prospect of half-cocked carriers and pared-down core capabilities. 
OAP
OAP
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 809
Likes: 428
From: Portsmouth
They're not replacements for Ocean and never have been - that's the misconception I referred to. They're carriers providing useable capability beyond the two CVS we routinely ran concurrently up until 2010 - and have always planned to reconstitute that capability starting in 2018 - with similar complements.
That naval personnel numbers were cut too far in 2010 - a fact recognised although not fully compensated for in SDSR2015 - is not down to the carriers. It's a complicated issue (going back to the ill-fated Topmast) involving poor assumptions about skills, retention etc in specific trades which also applies elsewhere.
Hanging that on the carriers is a bit like saying the RAF engineering manning issues are down to Airseeker or Poseidon....
That naval personnel numbers were cut too far in 2010 - a fact recognised although not fully compensated for in SDSR2015 - is not down to the carriers. It's a complicated issue (going back to the ill-fated Topmast) involving poor assumptions about skills, retention etc in specific trades which also applies elsewhere.
Hanging that on the carriers is a bit like saying the RAF engineering manning issues are down to Airseeker or Poseidon....
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 809
Likes: 428
From: Portsmouth
This reminds me a bit of "the actors" in Blackadder III. Have you got an amusing skit you have to go through every time someone says the word "carrier"?
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 1,264
Likes: 142
From: Around
Well in simplistic terms I guess he means if X hadn't been spent on the carriers, then X could have been spent on more T45, Astute, T26 and T31?
I'm no fishead but we seem to be getting awfully short of hulls IMO.
I'm no fishead but we seem to be getting awfully short of hulls IMO.
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 809
Likes: 428
From: Portsmouth
The problem with buying lots of additional T45/T26/T31 and SSN is that without carriers - or significant DCA presence provided by someone else - they are limited in what they can do and where they can go, where there is a credible air threat.
FF/DD hull numbers are not an end in themselves, in the same way that FJ sqns are not an end in themselves without all the other supporting elements.
FF/DD hull numbers are not an end in themselves, in the same way that FJ sqns are not an end in themselves without all the other supporting elements.
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 1,264
Likes: 142
From: Around
NAB
I get that. But with the numbers we have now there isn't much flex and we may need to be in more than 1 location.
I suppose the crux is what would be more useful, extra hulls or the CBG that leaves not much else to do anything else.
Or alternatively the government could choose to fund all 3 services to do what is asked of them correctly.
I get that. But with the numbers we have now there isn't much flex and we may need to be in more than 1 location.
I suppose the crux is what would be more useful, extra hulls or the CBG that leaves not much else to do anything else.
Or alternatively the government could choose to fund all 3 services to do what is asked of them correctly.
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 809
Likes: 428
From: Portsmouth
It's basically a binary choice. You either have a home defence force - FJ DCA, AEW, SH, shore ASM batteries, MPA, SSK, MCM, OPV and a rump army. Or you provide useable effect at a strategic level and in doing so, do some of the heavy lifting for your NATO allies. The "in-between" doesn't add that much for all the extra cost.
Lots of NATO countries can supply FJ, DD/FF and infantry - of varying quality, but they're not exactly scarce, even if their RoE can be constraining.
No-one else - at present - can provide the top-end naval assets in Europe, apart from the US and France (when CdG is available). Which is one reason why they're very keen for some assistance and why they've been very generous in supporting regeneration of carrier strike.
Lots of NATO countries can supply FJ, DD/FF and infantry - of varying quality, but they're not exactly scarce, even if their RoE can be constraining.
No-one else - at present - can provide the top-end naval assets in Europe, apart from the US and France (when CdG is available). Which is one reason why they're very keen for some assistance and why they've been very generous in supporting regeneration of carrier strike.
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 501
Likes: 91
From: UK
A lot depends on whether you want a navy that has the capability to deliver military effect or want to restrict yourself to assets that can essentially turn up and defend themselves. The whole rationale of the T45s for example is to escort the carriers. With escorts, the clue is in the name. NAB has called it exactly right IMHO.
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
From: The sunny South
NAB - Thanks for bringing your usual level-headedness to the party. Most informative.
Any case comprising little more than opinionated ignorance (even when written in capital letters) is no match for your logic and factual evidence.
Any case comprising little more than opinionated ignorance (even when written in capital letters) is no match for your logic and factual evidence.