Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Boffin,
Had the buy been eight instead of six....would that have mitigated the current problems by having two additional ships to fill the holes in the Schedule....assuming they could get underway on Ops themselves?
Had the buy been eight instead of six....would that have mitigated the current problems by having two additional ships to fill the holes in the Schedule....assuming they could get underway on Ops themselves?
Yes. But we didn't. Because a certain one-eyed Scottish financial genius decided that we could fight two land wars simultaneously, way above the planning assumptions in terms of both duration and scale, on the same budget......
I've met him - quite a strange personality TBH
Of course he also decided to spend a fortune on 2 carriers to be assembled in his own back yard .
What was needed was more T45's & more Astutes
Of course he also decided to spend a fortune on 2 carriers to be assembled in his own back yard .
What was needed was more T45's & more Astutes
"the Department to meet its operational requirement to have five ships at sea at any one time. This requirement remains unchanged despite the cut in numbers to six. The Department cannot commit to always maintaining this level of availability. It told the Committee that it will be able to maintain four ships at sea, and while there is very high probability of maintaining five, there is a small risk it will not."
Well that was wrong on all counts - that's the problem with any risk based analysis - small chances can still occur but if you have enough units it's not critical. It's when the outliers happen and you have no depth that you are stuffed
Well that was wrong on all counts - that's the problem with any risk based analysis - small chances can still occur but if you have enough units it's not critical. It's when the outliers happen and you have no depth that you are stuffed
Except you can't actually describe what they would do in the context of what the Navy is supposed to deliver.....
"the Department to meet its operational requirement to have five ships at sea at any one time. This requirement remains unchanged despite the cut in numbers to six. The Department cannot commit to always maintaining this level of availability. It told the Committee that it will be able to maintain four ships at sea, and while there is very high probability of maintaining five, there is a small risk it will not."
Well that was wrong on all counts - that's the problem with any risk based analysis - small chances can still occur but if you have enough units it's not critical. It's when the outliers happen and you have no depth that you are stuffed
Well that was wrong on all counts - that's the problem with any risk based analysis - small chances can still occur but if you have enough units it's not critical. It's when the outliers happen and you have no depth that you are stuffed
But that all reflects the mantra of the time - "Do more, with less, because we tell you to...."
"Except you can't actually describe what they would do in the context of what the Navy is supposed to deliver....."
wel whatever tehy were supposed to do it required " the need to have five ships operational at all times,"
I think we can all agree that one available is sub-optimal?
wel whatever tehy were supposed to do it required " the need to have five ships operational at all times,"
I think we can all agree that one available is sub-optimal?
...a certain one-eyed Scottish financial genius decided that we could fight two land wars simultaneously, way above the planning assumptions in terms of both duration and scale, on the same budget......
Two Land Wars at one time?
That is thinking of an Idiot.....pure and simple!
That the UK Military Senior Officers did not convince him otherwise is very worrisome at best.
Did they try or do they think the same?
The sad reality is the UK Military cannot fight one Land War by itself and do anything but lose.
Your expeditionary capability has been so reduced that you are better used to defend the Home Land than set off on a land war somewhere away from home.
The only function you play is to be an important partner of a coalition of a large force.
Indeed we can - which as noted up thread is the confluence of short term funding decisions in the teens and the need to conduct a PIP.
It's almost as if people have forgotten that stuff can go wrong with new ships. It took till ship 8 (Westminster) for the T23 to have a fully functioning combat system. That was probably down to the carriers too. Oh wait......
It's almost as if people have forgotten that stuff can go wrong with new ships. It took till ship 8 (Westminster) for the T23 to have a fully functioning combat system. That was probably down to the carriers too. Oh wait......
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
It's almost as if people have forgotten that stuff can go wrong with new ships.
To be fair given the glacial build rate some of them ARE new - but the problems are systemic to the design - quite HOW they finished up with engines that don't work properly in warm water will have to wait 50 years for the truth
Again, if only you understood what the issues actually were. The engines do exactly what they were designed to do. Even in warm waters.
Suspicion breeds confidence
My understanding is that the WR-21s have good reliability record but the intercoolers have had issues which have largely been addressed. The PIP is about adding greater redundancy through additional diesel capacity.
Yes my understanding is that more and bigger diesel units will allow the ships to use the diesels for routine running most of the time - the existing diesels were only really meant to provide harbour power. So once the PIP is complete the GTs and the intercoolers, which as you say have themselves undergone a lot of remedial work, will only have to be fired up on the rare occasions that dash speed is required, as opposed to being run constantly.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
My only concern over solutions like that is the only time you'll find out they don't work is when you really need them most....
Back in the 1980s the UKADGE unit connections for both both radar and comms were provided by BT megastream. BT boasted of a 98% availability.
The only problem was that the 2% when they failed was when they were put under load during major live exercises - when they failed 100% of the time*. All complaints to BT were met by BT pointing out they met the availability requirement in the contract..
*If any one is geeky enough to be really interested I'll explain why....
Back in the 1980s the UKADGE unit connections for both both radar and comms were provided by BT megastream. BT boasted of a 98% availability.
The only problem was that the 2% when they failed was when they were put under load during major live exercises - when they failed 100% of the time*. All complaints to BT were met by BT pointing out they met the availability requirement in the contract..
*If any one is geeky enough to be really interested I'll explain why....
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,742
Received 2,726 Likes
on
1,159 Posts
Looks like someone is working on upgrades for RAF operations, 
https://www.autoevolution.com/news/w...s-165943.html#
I quite like the ski slope
https://www.zenger.news/2021/07/23/y...-luxury-yacht/
https://www.autoevolution.com/news/w...s-165943.html#
I quite like the ski slope
https://www.zenger.news/2021/07/23/y...-luxury-yacht/
Suspicion breeds confidence
"Except you can't actually describe what they would do in the context of what the Navy is supposed to deliver....."
wel whatever tehy were supposed to do it required " the need to have five ships operational at all times,"
I think we can all agree that one available is sub-optimal?
wel whatever tehy were supposed to do it required " the need to have five ships operational at all times,"
I think we can all agree that one available is sub-optimal?
It used to be the mindset of the US Army that it would be capable to two Conventional Wars at the same time but that has changed as our force size has been diminished over time and even the dullards at the Pentagon currently have had to admit to themselves that is no longer remotely possible.
If the allegations against Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld are to be believed....the shift to Iraq resulting in ignoring Afghanistan in the process....then your Military Leaders need to wake up and smell the coffee.
We never really prosecuted Afghanistan like a real War.....sadly for the Troops who gave so much for so long while fighting there.
If the allegations against Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld are to be believed....the shift to Iraq resulting in ignoring Afghanistan in the process....then your Military Leaders need to wake up and smell the coffee.
We never really prosecuted Afghanistan like a real War.....sadly for the Troops who gave so much for so long while fighting there.
"We never really prosecuted Afghanistan like a real War....."
The Russians did and look how that finished up - and the first 3 British Afghan Wars weren't fought with hands tied behind backs and they finished up in the same horrible mess.
We have to face it that the Afghans really don't like foreign intervention and, unlike many places, are willing to fight for their country whatever the cost in human life.
The Russians did and look how that finished up - and the first 3 British Afghan Wars weren't fought with hands tied behind backs and they finished up in the same horrible mess.
We have to face it that the Afghans really don't like foreign intervention and, unlike many places, are willing to fight for their country whatever the cost in human life.
