Future Carrier (Including Costs)
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
The more snippets I read hear the more I suspect the CVs are just smoke and mirrors.
No money, no orders, no aircraft, no men and now no dock.
I am not looking for flame or anything but it is looking as if the politicians may be starring at reality and not prepared to make a decision.
Some new kit is dribbling through - Type 45, Typhoon, new AT, Helios, MRA4, Brimstone, Stormshadow, FRES? but in small numbers. Future kit will be in even smaller numbers.
The reality is simply cost. The whole lot is becoming unaffordable.
No money, no orders, no aircraft, no men and now no dock.
I am not looking for flame or anything but it is looking as if the politicians may be starring at reality and not prepared to make a decision.
Some new kit is dribbling through - Type 45, Typhoon, new AT, Helios, MRA4, Brimstone, Stormshadow, FRES? but in small numbers. Future kit will be in even smaller numbers.
The reality is simply cost. The whole lot is becoming unaffordable.
The only thing Marchwood has that Pompey doesn't is a suitably large explosives licence (and rail link) to allow it to do what it does best - shift large amounts of LF logistics onto ships for onwards transit. Otherwise NavalEye is as ever correct. Marchwood's maintained depth is also nothing like that required for CVF (would need another 3m!)
I thought the Soton secondary berth was principally about using the Ocean wharves, not the dock. I still think you'd struggle to get her in KGV and then there's even less in way of engineering support there than there is in Belfast (which is now down to an office block and several outfit sheds around the big dock), they dropped the panel line and fab sheds a couple of years ago. The rest of Queen's Island is about to be redeveloped - can just see the yuppies complaining bout the cranes spoiling the view.....
PN - you're making the same mistake that those in town and at DPA make. The kit is not necessarily unaffordable - there just may not be enough money in the EP. It's a small but significant point - say something is unaffordable long enough and it'll certainly get canned. Say there is insufficient money in the EP and maybe, just maybe (yes I'm an optimist, albeit a cynical one) some extra bunce may be found. For damn sure we cannot carry on with this level of ops, replacing the systems (capabilities if you must) that were bought in the heady days of the mid 80s, with the current level of funding.
I thought the Soton secondary berth was principally about using the Ocean wharves, not the dock. I still think you'd struggle to get her in KGV and then there's even less in way of engineering support there than there is in Belfast (which is now down to an office block and several outfit sheds around the big dock), they dropped the panel line and fab sheds a couple of years ago. The rest of Queen's Island is about to be redeveloped - can just see the yuppies complaining bout the cranes spoiling the view.....
PN - you're making the same mistake that those in town and at DPA make. The kit is not necessarily unaffordable - there just may not be enough money in the EP. It's a small but significant point - say something is unaffordable long enough and it'll certainly get canned. Say there is insufficient money in the EP and maybe, just maybe (yes I'm an optimist, albeit a cynical one) some extra bunce may be found. For damn sure we cannot carry on with this level of ops, replacing the systems (capabilities if you must) that were bought in the heady days of the mid 80s, with the current level of funding.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 62
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"CVF is affordable" FOI response.
26th September 2006
“Thank you for your email dated 31 August 2006 asking a number of questions about the Future Aircraft Carriers (CVF). This is considered to be a request for information in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I am writing with a substantial reply.
On 14 December 2005, John Reid announced that the CVF project team had completed its Assessment Phase and was ready to begin the Demonstration Phase, commiting some £300 million to further work. The Demonstration Phase is focussed on delivering the maturity of design, detailed cost definition, programme risk reduction and contractual framework to allow a decision to be made to commit to manufacture. It is only at this point, when we make our main investment decision, that we are able to set the in service dates, announce the budget, begin the manufacture phase and negotiate contracts; however, as the point we can do this is dependent on progress, we cannot give a firm date.
CVF is affordable within the current Equipment Plan. The purpose of the Assessment Phase was to optimise the balance between performance, time and cost in order to maximise cost-effectiveness and deliver value for money for the capability required and within budget. Costs have been further refined during the Demonstration Phase as the design has matured.
The design being pursued is Design Delta, an adaptable design that, while fitted with a ramp to operate the STOVL (short take off and vertical landing) Joint Strike Fighter (JSF aircraft, can be altered later in its projected 40-50 year service life to accommodate catapults and arrestor gear to fly conventional carrier aircraft, should this be required.
Current planning assumes that airborne eariy warning will be provided by the Maritime Airborne Surveillance and Control (MASC) project, which is intended to replace the capability currently provided by Sea King ASaC Mk7 helicopters on the Invincible class aircraft carriers. Its primary aim will be to provide wide area sensor coverage against potential air and surface threats to the CVF and associated task groups. The MASC programme will also investigate the full Intelligence, Surveillance Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance (ISTAR) requirement to enable the whole range of CVF and JCA operations.
Future Carrier Key Characteristics (all approx.)
Displacement: 65,000 tonnes
Length overall: 280 meters
Beam: 70 meters
Draught: 9 meters
Complement: 1500 (including Joint Force Air Group (JFAG)
Total Airgroup Size: 40 (JCA, MASC and Merlin)
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) remain fully committed to delivering two CVFs - the Queen Elizabeth and the Prince of Wales - which represents a quantum step up in
military capability for the UK's armed forces. We are on course to provide the UK armed forces with the largest and most powerful warships ever constructed in the UK, and an expeditionary capability unparalleled outside of the US.”
“Thank you for your email dated 31 August 2006 asking a number of questions about the Future Aircraft Carriers (CVF). This is considered to be a request for information in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I am writing with a substantial reply.
On 14 December 2005, John Reid announced that the CVF project team had completed its Assessment Phase and was ready to begin the Demonstration Phase, commiting some £300 million to further work. The Demonstration Phase is focussed on delivering the maturity of design, detailed cost definition, programme risk reduction and contractual framework to allow a decision to be made to commit to manufacture. It is only at this point, when we make our main investment decision, that we are able to set the in service dates, announce the budget, begin the manufacture phase and negotiate contracts; however, as the point we can do this is dependent on progress, we cannot give a firm date.
CVF is affordable within the current Equipment Plan. The purpose of the Assessment Phase was to optimise the balance between performance, time and cost in order to maximise cost-effectiveness and deliver value for money for the capability required and within budget. Costs have been further refined during the Demonstration Phase as the design has matured.
The design being pursued is Design Delta, an adaptable design that, while fitted with a ramp to operate the STOVL (short take off and vertical landing) Joint Strike Fighter (JSF aircraft, can be altered later in its projected 40-50 year service life to accommodate catapults and arrestor gear to fly conventional carrier aircraft, should this be required.
Current planning assumes that airborne eariy warning will be provided by the Maritime Airborne Surveillance and Control (MASC) project, which is intended to replace the capability currently provided by Sea King ASaC Mk7 helicopters on the Invincible class aircraft carriers. Its primary aim will be to provide wide area sensor coverage against potential air and surface threats to the CVF and associated task groups. The MASC programme will also investigate the full Intelligence, Surveillance Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance (ISTAR) requirement to enable the whole range of CVF and JCA operations.
Future Carrier Key Characteristics (all approx.)
Displacement: 65,000 tonnes
Length overall: 280 meters
Beam: 70 meters
Draught: 9 meters
Complement: 1500 (including Joint Force Air Group (JFAG)
Total Airgroup Size: 40 (JCA, MASC and Merlin)
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) remain fully committed to delivering two CVFs - the Queen Elizabeth and the Prince of Wales - which represents a quantum step up in
military capability for the UK's armed forces. We are on course to provide the UK armed forces with the largest and most powerful warships ever constructed in the UK, and an expeditionary capability unparalleled outside of the US.”
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Affordable or not it is really a question of politicians wanting to afford it. not just the kit but the men too.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Of course, an order can be cancelled after its placed, but with the French on board and hot to trot, I think this project now has a momentum of its own. The 26th is just the Main Gate submission date.
Suspicion breeds confidence
rduarte,
CVF (well most of it) is a joint project. Having the MN on side was a huge boost and as soon as money started coming in to offset the devlt costs, then Main Gate was inevitable sooner or later. It would be embarrasing for the UK Govt to invite the MN to participate in a joint project and then have them stump up hard cash for a UK design only for the UK Govt to cancel it.
After many false dawns I suspect we are very close to seeing CVF confirmed. Now we want it as a proper CV design please.
CVF (well most of it) is a joint project. Having the MN on side was a huge boost and as soon as money started coming in to offset the devlt costs, then Main Gate was inevitable sooner or later. It would be embarrasing for the UK Govt to invite the MN to participate in a joint project and then have them stump up hard cash for a UK design only for the UK Govt to cancel it.
After many false dawns I suspect we are very close to seeing CVF confirmed. Now we want it as a proper CV design please.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What i would like to see/hear is someone of flag rank saying out loud what every operator and person of sound mind is desperate to hear:
That we're going to buy the CV JCA and stop pratting about with the STOVL variant which everyone knows is destined to an interesting museum piece, set alongside all those other aircraft that, whilst being incredible feats of engineering, flew in the face of common sense.
Lift fan = less petrol = less bombs = no persistance = shorter legs = less combat fuel = less survivable = less iron on target = go back and do it again tomorrow = watch while the other guy does your job better.
CVF + STOVL, don't even bother, we'll be second best to land based aviation for another generation. (Oh and this one's the last manned one apparently)
CVF + CV, now we're talking.
That we're going to buy the CV JCA and stop pratting about with the STOVL variant which everyone knows is destined to an interesting museum piece, set alongside all those other aircraft that, whilst being incredible feats of engineering, flew in the face of common sense.
Lift fan = less petrol = less bombs = no persistance = shorter legs = less combat fuel = less survivable = less iron on target = go back and do it again tomorrow = watch while the other guy does your job better.
CVF + STOVL, don't even bother, we'll be second best to land based aviation for another generation. (Oh and this one's the last manned one apparently)
CVF + CV, now we're talking.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Navaleye,
What you say is a definite, and possibly the only, plus in international collaboration. Now that we have the Typhoon we could argue that we would have had it quicker if we had not been involved with all the partner nations. OTOH we might not have had it at all.
What you say is a definite, and possibly the only, plus in international collaboration. Now that we have the Typhoon we could argue that we would have had it quicker if we had not been involved with all the partner nations. OTOH we might not have had it at all.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Pontius,
Were it not for the international (and binding) agreement on Typhoon it would have been binned a long time ago. Their has been little good news in the CVF programme and I believed it was heading the same way until the MN came on board. I do believe that it will happen, now that the French have embraced the CVF Delta design, their is simply to much political kudos at stake now. The big question is what design? The govt has hung its hat on Dave B because of the BWoS workshare. I'm hoping that because of the economies of scale in working the the MN we will (hopefully) see a CV variant and a split STOVL order (for light blue) and a CV for dark blue. I know which way the RN wants to go, but as always logic does not dictate the next course of action.
Will be on the QE in a couple of weeks, hope to see you next time you and your good lady next time you want to get your feet wet.
Were it not for the international (and binding) agreement on Typhoon it would have been binned a long time ago. Their has been little good news in the CVF programme and I believed it was heading the same way until the MN came on board. I do believe that it will happen, now that the French have embraced the CVF Delta design, their is simply to much political kudos at stake now. The big question is what design? The govt has hung its hat on Dave B because of the BWoS workshare. I'm hoping that because of the economies of scale in working the the MN we will (hopefully) see a CV variant and a split STOVL order (for light blue) and a CV for dark blue. I know which way the RN wants to go, but as always logic does not dictate the next course of action.
Will be on the QE in a couple of weeks, hope to see you next time you and your good lady next time you want to get your feet wet.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just had some work landed on my desk this afternoon, 11 other projects have just arrived too (and it is not scoping stuff!). Looks like someobody somewhere has just pressed a big green button for the CVF. Anyone out there at MB willing to confirm or deny?
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Faslane is a good choice. Certainly when Portsmouth closes the requirement for deep water will be paramount. Buzzes floating around fleet are Portland, Falmouth, Marchwood and Southampton. I have also heard a buzz that Chatham is a prime contender...now who would have thought that? HMS Pembroke open again...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5358438.stm
http://www.thenews.co.uk/ViewArticle...icleID=1775189
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5358438.stm
http://www.thenews.co.uk/ViewArticle...icleID=1775189