Future Carrier (Including Costs)
All things are possible but we may be getting a little ahead of ourselves by jumping to conclusions that fit the prevailing PPruNe narrative. I'm going to wait and see what happens next.
Probably misleading to finger DE&S. The alleged issues frequently arise from decisions outwith their control. Non-compliancies in bids don't halt the process in the manner described. Last time I was told to freeze a tender and give all bidders bad news, it was due to political lobbying to award the contract to a non-bidder, in a Defence Minister's constituency. Six months later, we were told to contract that company, and to freeze for a further six months to allow them to read the specs and work out what to do.
In this case, unfortunately it is partly right to finger DE&S. Although the "requirement / budget" envelope has been set elsewhere, DE&S have managed to get themselves to a position where one bid is broadly what they asked for, price-wise, but light capability-wise, whereas the other is capability heavy, but also reassuringly expensive, not least because of its build strategy. Lord alone knows what the Boxhead team came up with, but given the paucity of UK build yards outside the two Brit teams, they're probably knackered price-wise as well. There is probably a way through this, if only MoD had sufficient technical and commercial capability to assess such disparate bids. What a shame they completely managed to stuff up the advice-side contracts a year ago.
Oh - and those who would blame this on "the carriers", ought to have a good long look at where the budget lines are that are actually eating all the money. Not holding my breath they'll understand it though....
Oh - and those who would blame this on "the carriers", ought to have a good long look at where the budget lines are that are actually eating all the money. Not holding my breath they'll understand it though....
NaB
Thanks. As you say, requirement/budget is set elsewhere. From what you say, it looks like DE&S may have just acted as a post office. You either go back to DEC and say sort out your requirement/budget; or you ignore DEC and prepare a 'clarification paper', which effectively amends the requirement into something that makes sense and doesn't defy the laws of physics.
This sounds rather like the Chinook Mk3 fiasco. A simple requirement to buy X of a known build standard; then someone splits it in two, but doesn't provide the necessary resources to manage two separate programmes. Chinook had the original team doing the top-up buy, and some poor sod given Mk3 to do in his spare time. Very similar. Poor requirements setting and a budget that took no account of development, etc.
Thanks. As you say, requirement/budget is set elsewhere. From what you say, it looks like DE&S may have just acted as a post office. You either go back to DEC and say sort out your requirement/budget; or you ignore DEC and prepare a 'clarification paper', which effectively amends the requirement into something that makes sense and doesn't defy the laws of physics.
This sounds rather like the Chinook Mk3 fiasco. A simple requirement to buy X of a known build standard; then someone splits it in two, but doesn't provide the necessary resources to manage two separate programmes. Chinook had the original team doing the top-up buy, and some poor sod given Mk3 to do in his spare time. Very similar. Poor requirements setting and a budget that took no account of development, etc.
Trouble is, it isn;t a requirement to buy a known standard. It's a requirement to buy five ships for a fixed budget. Which may (allegedly) have been the brain child of a certain senior sundodging dabber in NCHQ, who swore blind it was possible and even got an industry stalwart to say so in a certain paper. That's the requirement end.
On the procurement end, you have a PT that has (allegedly) already voided an advice-side contract competition through literal incompetence. That end of the M4 also has another sundodger in a senior role who may also have unwittingly influenced the technical direction of travel of one team to a place that was unaffordable. So you have (and this is speculation) one bid that is price compliant but capability deficient, one that is capability heavy, but busts the budget and a third bid that has no feasible UK procurement route. So you've got three wildly different options which todays team are ill-equipped to deal with. Result? It's all a bit difficult......
Which could have (and was) seen coming some time ago. Moral of the story? Gobby sundodgers should be limited to sundodging. Not shipbuilding policy.
On the procurement end, you have a PT that has (allegedly) already voided an advice-side contract competition through literal incompetence. That end of the M4 also has another sundodger in a senior role who may also have unwittingly influenced the technical direction of travel of one team to a place that was unaffordable. So you have (and this is speculation) one bid that is price compliant but capability deficient, one that is capability heavy, but busts the budget and a third bid that has no feasible UK procurement route. So you've got three wildly different options which todays team are ill-equipped to deal with. Result? It's all a bit difficult......
Which could have (and was) seen coming some time ago. Moral of the story? Gobby sundodgers should be limited to sundodging. Not shipbuilding policy.
Last edited by Not_a_boffin; 25th Jul 2018 at 21:42.
five ships for a fixed budget
There is a technical term for that sort of arithmetic sleight of hand. I believe it's called "magicking the beans". Rogers Profanisaurus describes it quite well.....
Quite prevalent in some areas of Capability and RP.
Quite prevalent in some areas of Capability and RP.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing wrong with a fixed budget- that's how most of the world works
you just have to fit your tasking to what you can afford... a rather revolutionary idea for SO's and politicians of course.....
you just have to fit your tasking to what you can afford... a rather revolutionary idea for SO's and politicians of course.....
That's true, the conundrum being striking a balance between what you judge you can afford (bearing in mind also that "affordability" reflects how you regard competing priorities, so it's not an absolute) and what the threat actually requires, which may not be the same thing. If I judge that i can only afford three quarters of a roof on my house, I am going to get wet (if it ever rains again).
Thread Starter
Does anyone know what has happened to our Australian shipmate SpazSinbad? Here is another of his informative PDF files:
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 10th Aug 2018 at 13:23.
I recall that he had a rather bitter exchange with another poster, so I assume that he ‘bingoed’ and is now ‘feet dry’.
Does anyone know what has happened to our Australian shipmate SpazSinbad? Here is another of his informative PDF files:
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/wars...767-s4420.html
Thread Starter
It seems to have become popular in some places to decry carriers and particularly our ones as being ultra vulnerable, or to claim that little effort has been put into making them able to cope with damage, or that new threats such as asymmetric attack have been ignored.
Hopefully this article, compiled from open source information, will reassure some people.
HMS Queen Elizabeth - built to survive
Hopefully this article, compiled from open source information, will reassure some people.
HMS Queen Elizabeth - built to survive
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 14th Aug 2018 at 08:20.
Mind you land bases also suffer from being in the same (known) place.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to have become popular in some places to decry carriers and particularly our ones as being ultra vulnerable, or to claim that little effort has been put into making them able to cope with damage, or that new threats such as asymmetric attack have been ignored.
Hopefully this article, compiled from open source information, will reassure some people.
HMS Queen Elizabeth - built to survive
Hopefully this article, compiled from open source information, will reassure some people.
HMS Queen Elizabeth - built to survive
"Much of the protection incorporated in the Alpha design did not feature in the Delta, although a basic level may have been retained."
Basically, we don't have any defences, but the damage control is GREAT.
Not really good enough matey. Don't sink the ship for a hath'p'orth of tar...
If only we had bought the "C", think of those lovely trackers way up there at 30K plus as a side serving..
Last edited by glad rag; 14th Aug 2018 at 22:02.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Southampton
Age: 54
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Big Liz will sail for the USA tomorrow evening (Saturday 18th) at 6pm.
This is RUMOUR CONTROL, and here are the facts:
WESTLANT18 - WHAT'S IT ABOUT & WHAT'S HAPPENING?
WESTLANT18 is the deployment title given to the imminent (longer than) 3 month deployment of HMS QE to the Eastern seaboard of the USA and other nearby areas to continue trials associated with both the Ship's capabilities and also to operate with the F35B for the first time on clearance trials. These trials using the F35B are also as much about the Ship's crew learning to operate the F35B and what detailed Ship’s procedures and limits need to be applied. Its about ship/air integration as much as the clearance of the F35B itself to use the QE class.
Remember this is not an operational deployment as the Ship and its air wing types are still in transition to clear, develop and train for the full operational capability in accordance with he MoD's Master UK CEPP Transition plan.
Here is some top level information about WESTLANT18 and some of the timetable as yet available.
The QE is believed to be escorted to the US by 1 T23 frigate (HMS Montrose) and 1 RFA Tide class FR Tanker
PRINCIPLE DEPLOYMENT TASKS:
1) Carry out First of Class F35B Flying Trials (Phase One in 2 parts - DT-1 and DT-2). There is a separate Group file available on the detail of the F35 trials.
2) Carry out hot and humid climate/warm water ship performance and reliability trials
3) Carry out UK Defence Diplomacy Activities - including visits to USN bases, the port of New York, and other ports as yet to be announced
4) Deliver or recover UK resources and equipment associated with a combined and joint (overland) UK/US exercise.
DEPLOYING & JOINING UNITS
In addition to the standard operating crew, elements of the UK CSG HQ and additional UK military observers.
INTIAL ITINERARY
The following itinerary is understood (although precise dates are not yet available publicly, partly due to security considerations.
1) Depart UK 18 Aug 18 as readiness permits, and load remaining elements (820 & 845NAS) off Cornwall
2) Proceed direct to USN Mayport, Florida for several days berthed.
3) Proceed 2nd week of Sept to Caribbean Waters for hot weather and warm sea water ship trial. (It is not yet known if the QE will approach or berth at any British or other islands during this week long period)
4) Proceed to USN Base Norfolk, Virginia for shore leave and pre-F35B FOCFT preparations and loading.
5) Carry out DT-1 FOCFT - First landings and take off trials of F35B from the QE class - planned to start during last week of September for 3 weeks. It is understood the first F35B landing on HMS QE will occur on 22 Sep 18 all relevant factors being aligned.
6) Visit New York
4) Carry out DT-2 F35B FOCFT for 3 weeks late Oct/early Nov
5) Return to USN Base Norfolk to reconfigure and reload equipment post UK/US exercise for return to the UK
6) Further possible Defence Diplomacy activities and visits - as yet unannounced - possible visit to Canada TBC.
7) Mid December at the latest - Return to Portsmouth.
Note that to ensure that DT-1 and DT-2 can be achieved and the right weather and sea states data points achieved, then the QE is expected to move around the western Atlantic as best possible to find the relevant conditions. This might alter the time taken for both trial periods too.
This is RUMOUR CONTROL, and here are the facts:
WESTLANT18 - WHAT'S IT ABOUT & WHAT'S HAPPENING?
WESTLANT18 is the deployment title given to the imminent (longer than) 3 month deployment of HMS QE to the Eastern seaboard of the USA and other nearby areas to continue trials associated with both the Ship's capabilities and also to operate with the F35B for the first time on clearance trials. These trials using the F35B are also as much about the Ship's crew learning to operate the F35B and what detailed Ship’s procedures and limits need to be applied. Its about ship/air integration as much as the clearance of the F35B itself to use the QE class.
Remember this is not an operational deployment as the Ship and its air wing types are still in transition to clear, develop and train for the full operational capability in accordance with he MoD's Master UK CEPP Transition plan.
Here is some top level information about WESTLANT18 and some of the timetable as yet available.
The QE is believed to be escorted to the US by 1 T23 frigate (HMS Montrose) and 1 RFA Tide class FR Tanker
PRINCIPLE DEPLOYMENT TASKS:
1) Carry out First of Class F35B Flying Trials (Phase One in 2 parts - DT-1 and DT-2). There is a separate Group file available on the detail of the F35 trials.
2) Carry out hot and humid climate/warm water ship performance and reliability trials
3) Carry out UK Defence Diplomacy Activities - including visits to USN bases, the port of New York, and other ports as yet to be announced
4) Deliver or recover UK resources and equipment associated with a combined and joint (overland) UK/US exercise.
DEPLOYING & JOINING UNITS
In addition to the standard operating crew, elements of the UK CSG HQ and additional UK military observers.
INTIAL ITINERARY
The following itinerary is understood (although precise dates are not yet available publicly, partly due to security considerations.
1) Depart UK 18 Aug 18 as readiness permits, and load remaining elements (820 & 845NAS) off Cornwall
2) Proceed direct to USN Mayport, Florida for several days berthed.
3) Proceed 2nd week of Sept to Caribbean Waters for hot weather and warm sea water ship trial. (It is not yet known if the QE will approach or berth at any British or other islands during this week long period)
4) Proceed to USN Base Norfolk, Virginia for shore leave and pre-F35B FOCFT preparations and loading.
5) Carry out DT-1 FOCFT - First landings and take off trials of F35B from the QE class - planned to start during last week of September for 3 weeks. It is understood the first F35B landing on HMS QE will occur on 22 Sep 18 all relevant factors being aligned.
6) Visit New York
4) Carry out DT-2 F35B FOCFT for 3 weeks late Oct/early Nov
5) Return to USN Base Norfolk to reconfigure and reload equipment post UK/US exercise for return to the UK
6) Further possible Defence Diplomacy activities and visits - as yet unannounced - possible visit to Canada TBC.
7) Mid December at the latest - Return to Portsmouth.
Note that to ensure that DT-1 and DT-2 can be achieved and the right weather and sea states data points achieved, then the QE is expected to move around the western Atlantic as best possible to find the relevant conditions. This might alter the time taken for both trial periods too.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Of course land bases are available in a few hours even if bombed to hell. "
It takes a lot more effort to render a land base unusable for any length of time than it takes to damage or sink a carrier
It takes a lot more effort to render a land base unusable for any length of time than it takes to damage or sink a carrier
I intended posting this yesterday but my better nature made me reconsider:
In an attempt to forestall the tediously inevitable one-liner by Heathrow Harry or glad rag following any positive news about the QNLZ/F-35 programme:
"It will all end in tears/we're all doomed" (or variations thereof).
"It will all end in tears/we're all doomed" (or variations thereof).