Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Thread Starter
How are land based ops supplied anyway? Is it mostly be sea as in current operations in Iraq/Afgahnistan? This complicates the case presented by the anti carrier brigade and means you need to secure control of the sea anyway....which is easier when you have carriers.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
You are about 100% out on the expected WLC. The planned life of the carriers is 30 years. There is a stretch target of 50 years, but that is not funded and would probably have to include a replacement of the air wing with a new type with itīs own R&D and procurement costs. That works out at over Ģ515 million per ship per year. Since you are making comparisons the army puts the cost of an army regiment at about Ģ17.5 million a year - so thatīs the equivalent of 25 regiments gone, just to have a single carrier, just in case. I think general Dannatt would be happy with a fraction of that.... 
Select Committee on Defence, Second Report:
..........At the core of the Carrier Strike capability are the Future Aircraft Carriers (CVF), the Joint Combat Aircraft (JCA) and the Maritime Airborne Surveillance and Control (MASC) projects.[4] The United Kingdom (UK) Ministry of Defence (MoD) has selected the Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) to meet the JCA requirement. JSF is a US-led programme.[5] The current estimate of whole life costs[6] for the core projects of the Carrier Strike capability is Ģ31 billion, which includes some Ģ12 billion of acquisition costs.[7]
Select Committee on Defence, Second Report:
..........At the core of the Carrier Strike capability are the Future Aircraft Carriers (CVF), the Joint Combat Aircraft (JCA) and the Maritime Airborne Surveillance and Control (MASC) projects.[4] The United Kingdom (UK) Ministry of Defence (MoD) has selected the Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) to meet the JCA requirement. JSF is a US-led programme.[5] The current estimate of whole life costs[6] for the core projects of the Carrier Strike capability is Ģ31 billion, which includes some Ģ12 billion of acquisition costs.[7]
Suspicion breeds confidence
Once again esp49129 on the RN board has come up with a good summary of a French report on current progress with the CVF and PA2.
Latest CVF update from Mer et Marine: www.meretmarine.com/artic...?id=102723
Overall, pretty positive. The highlights:
- CVF is moving into high gear as London and Paris work to shield the project from cancellation when new governments come to power next year
- CVF-UK Main gate expected tomorrow
- CVF-FR final proposal & pricing offer by DCN and Thales due end of December
- Final go-ahead could happen at one of the European summits in March or April, before the French presidential election in May
- Both sides are emphasizing the cooperative nature of this project as well as the significant investments already made (over 200M euros on the French side alone, not including long lead item contracts that will have to be signed before the final go-ahead is given). It is unlikely either side will want to blink first: "It will be 3 carriers or none at all"
- After detailed review of the Carrier Alliance design studies (over 1400 documents), the French have confirmed that they can use the CVF-UK design
- Ongoing discussions between the Carrier Alliance and DCN have been very productive, with the British being interested in DCN's return from experience designing the Charles de Gaulle
- Following these discussions, the British have adopted some of the French suggestions for their own CVF-UK design, including:
1) Flight deck size has been increased, as the British had not left enough space for catapults & associated machinery
2) The design now features 16 Sylver launchers for Aster 15 missiles, instead of only 8 originally planned
- CVF-FR initially had 80% commonality with CVF-UK, but is on track to achieve 90% commonality following pressure from the French MoD on Thales and DCN
- Joint procurement discussions for 13 sub-systems, including propulsion, aviation equipment (elevators), electrical equipment etc, have already started to bear fruit, with the British accepting to expand the list of potential suppliers.
- Joint maintenance contracts for these sub-systems are also on the table
- The type propulsion is still up in the air. Aker Yards, DCN and Rolls Royce have proposed 2 new generation electric pods (10% more efficient than existing pods) and one shaft driven by two gas turbines. This arrangement has been successful on 100KT+ cruise ships, and is claimed to offer more maneuverability and less vulnerability. However, it hasn't been qualified on naval ships, and the alliance partners are dubious. "If the British go for it, we may follow", according to a French source.
Overall, pretty positive. The highlights:
- CVF is moving into high gear as London and Paris work to shield the project from cancellation when new governments come to power next year
- CVF-UK Main gate expected tomorrow
- CVF-FR final proposal & pricing offer by DCN and Thales due end of December
- Final go-ahead could happen at one of the European summits in March or April, before the French presidential election in May
- Both sides are emphasizing the cooperative nature of this project as well as the significant investments already made (over 200M euros on the French side alone, not including long lead item contracts that will have to be signed before the final go-ahead is given). It is unlikely either side will want to blink first: "It will be 3 carriers or none at all"
- After detailed review of the Carrier Alliance design studies (over 1400 documents), the French have confirmed that they can use the CVF-UK design
- Ongoing discussions between the Carrier Alliance and DCN have been very productive, with the British being interested in DCN's return from experience designing the Charles de Gaulle
- Following these discussions, the British have adopted some of the French suggestions for their own CVF-UK design, including:
1) Flight deck size has been increased, as the British had not left enough space for catapults & associated machinery
2) The design now features 16 Sylver launchers for Aster 15 missiles, instead of only 8 originally planned
- CVF-FR initially had 80% commonality with CVF-UK, but is on track to achieve 90% commonality following pressure from the French MoD on Thales and DCN
- Joint procurement discussions for 13 sub-systems, including propulsion, aviation equipment (elevators), electrical equipment etc, have already started to bear fruit, with the British accepting to expand the list of potential suppliers.
- Joint maintenance contracts for these sub-systems are also on the table
- The type propulsion is still up in the air. Aker Yards, DCN and Rolls Royce have proposed 2 new generation electric pods (10% more efficient than existing pods) and one shaft driven by two gas turbines. This arrangement has been successful on 100KT+ cruise ships, and is claimed to offer more maneuverability and less vulnerability. However, it hasn't been qualified on naval ships, and the alliance partners are dubious. "If the British go for it, we may follow", according to a French source.
Last edited by Navaleye; 26th Oct 2006 at 17:06. Reason: Edited to add a pic.
WEBF - welcome back. We "borrow" the fuel (repayment to host country either in cash or in kind) which means it has to be there in the first place, or we freight it in as for Kandy - you can imagine the effort that takes. The munitions generally have to be UK (clearances, MAR etc) and they get flown in as well - along with all the spares, STTE and other ASE. Course they're not vulnerable or difficult to move at all.........
Navaleye - don't put too much store in the French report. Our IAB submission was today - MG decision expected early07. As for the Sylver & propulsion bits - forget it. UK ship has never had ASTER and the suggested propulsion mod would require a COMPLETE redesign. The French have probably just cottoned to the fact that she's too slow for their liking (yes - even slower than CdG).
Navaleye - don't put too much store in the French report. Our IAB submission was today - MG decision expected early07. As for the Sylver & propulsion bits - forget it. UK ship has never had ASTER and the suggested propulsion mod would require a COMPLETE redesign. The French have probably just cottoned to the fact that she's too slow for their liking (yes - even slower than CdG).
Suspicion breeds confidence
Boffin,
Part of the reason for the French including Aster in the design for PA2 is that they have cut back their Horizon programme even more then we have done with T45. CVF is likely to get refurbished Goalkeepers from the CVS as its only active defence. Better than nothing but completely inadequate given the current threat. Granted F-35 will give CVF a much greater defensive reach than the current CVS, so the overall capability goes up, but its still a big gamble.
Part of the reason for the French including Aster in the design for PA2 is that they have cut back their Horizon programme even more then we have done with T45. CVF is likely to get refurbished Goalkeepers from the CVS as its only active defence. Better than nothing but completely inadequate given the current threat. Granted F-35 will give CVF a much greater defensive reach than the current CVS, so the overall capability goes up, but its still a big gamble.
Thread Starter
Nab I'm not properly back yet. Grrrrrrr!!!
I asked the question about current ops to make a point. I am fully aware of the role of maritime logistics. My local paper has a story about some locally based Marines responsible for defending the vehicles ashore on the long drive from Karachi............the the RN is responsible for providing protection for them whilst still at sea.
Back to the CVF topic. So was main gate actually passed? If not, then when?
As for SAMs, surely CVF will use the SAMPSON radar (and other technologies borrowed from the T45 such as the command system) so it would just be a case of installing the laucher and magazine?
As for speed the MOD does indeed seem to have developed a worrying desire for slow(er) ships. Why can our amphibious ships only do 18 knots when there meant to be at the heart of our rapid reaction forces?A faster speed would have advantages for launching aircraft, particularly STOVL.
I asked the question about current ops to make a point. I am fully aware of the role of maritime logistics. My local paper has a story about some locally based Marines responsible for defending the vehicles ashore on the long drive from Karachi............the the RN is responsible for providing protection for them whilst still at sea.
Back to the CVF topic. So was main gate actually passed? If not, then when?
As for SAMs, surely CVF will use the SAMPSON radar (and other technologies borrowed from the T45 such as the command system) so it would just be a case of installing the laucher and magazine?
As for speed the MOD does indeed seem to have developed a worrying desire for slow(er) ships. Why can our amphibious ships only do 18 knots when there meant to be at the heart of our rapid reaction forces?A faster speed would have advantages for launching aircraft, particularly STOVL.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without self-defence you have to sit further back. Every mile the CVF moves down threat is two miles the planes have to travel - they're strikers remember. The ship should be able to look after itself. Defenceless CVF with STOVL will be pitiful compared to well defended CVF with CV F-35.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: London
Age: 69
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suggest you go over to the Warships1 "Royal Navy" board if you want some more details.
"Main Gate" is a process, not a one-off event. Like tendering for a contract. As such the contractors passed the information to MOD last week and NOW the MOD will consider it. This will be an consultative process.
So Main Gate is underway
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carriers face new delay over rising cost.
Carriers face new delay over rising cost
By Russell Hotten, Industry Editor
Last Updated: 12:51am GMT 01/11/2006
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/mai...C-mcn_01112006
Final clearance to build the Royal Navy's new aircraft carriers risks slipping further behind schedule amid continuing disagreements between industry and the Ministry of Defence over rising costs. The two sides meet tomorrow to try again to resolve their financial differences after the consortium building the carriers said the price would be around Ģ300m above MoD expectations.
After years of negotiations the Aircraft Carrier Alliance, which includes BAE Systems, VT Group, Thales and MoD officials, should have submitted final price details for the long-delayed project last Thursday. Recent guidance from the MoD has been that the cost of the two vessels would be about Ģ3.5bn, which itself is up from an initial estimate of between Ģ2.8bn-Ģ3bn.
However, the consortium says the carriers cannot be built for less than Ģ3.8bn, but has agreed to work on a incentive scheme that the MoD hopes could reduce the cost to Ģ3.6bn. The consortium partners would share any cost saving.
One person linked to the alliance expressed exasperation yesterday on learning that last week's deadline for a final price had been missed. "I just can't believe that. I really thought everything had been sorted out," he said.
Another source suggested that the last-minute hitch was due to concerns that the Treasury will not agree to Ģ3.8bn. "I think that after all this time the Defence department would settle for Ģ3.8bn - but they are not the ones paying for it." Economists estimate that Ģ3.8bn is the equivalent to reducing the basic rate of income tax by 1p.
advertisement
Once the price is approved, the companies can start preparing to construct the carriers and employ staff. The MoD's latest timetable for that to start was December, with the two carriers expected to enter service in 2012 and 2015.
An MoD official said yesterday: "We are making progress on negotiations and we are optimistic that we can finalise negotiations at a price we can afford and industry can deliver."
Construction of the carriers was hailed as a new way of working for the MoD and industry, and an attempt to avoid the large cost overruns that have dogged other major defence projects.
Lord Drayson, the defence procurement minister, has demanded that industry share more of the risk should the carriers hit problems or run over budget. The defence industry now has to work to fixed prices and pay penalties fees when things go wrong.
About 60pc of the carriers' construction is being pre-allocated to UK yards at Govan and Barrow, owned by BAE Systems, the Ports-mouth shipyard run by VT Group, and the Rosyth facility, run by Babcock, where the final assembly of the vessels will take place. The remaining 40pc of the construction will be open to competition.
The carriers, each weighing 65,000 tons and 280 metres long, will be three times the size of the existing Invincible-class vessels.
By Russell Hotten, Industry Editor
Last Updated: 12:51am GMT 01/11/2006
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/mai...C-mcn_01112006
Final clearance to build the Royal Navy's new aircraft carriers risks slipping further behind schedule amid continuing disagreements between industry and the Ministry of Defence over rising costs. The two sides meet tomorrow to try again to resolve their financial differences after the consortium building the carriers said the price would be around Ģ300m above MoD expectations.
After years of negotiations the Aircraft Carrier Alliance, which includes BAE Systems, VT Group, Thales and MoD officials, should have submitted final price details for the long-delayed project last Thursday. Recent guidance from the MoD has been that the cost of the two vessels would be about Ģ3.5bn, which itself is up from an initial estimate of between Ģ2.8bn-Ģ3bn.
However, the consortium says the carriers cannot be built for less than Ģ3.8bn, but has agreed to work on a incentive scheme that the MoD hopes could reduce the cost to Ģ3.6bn. The consortium partners would share any cost saving.
One person linked to the alliance expressed exasperation yesterday on learning that last week's deadline for a final price had been missed. "I just can't believe that. I really thought everything had been sorted out," he said.
Another source suggested that the last-minute hitch was due to concerns that the Treasury will not agree to Ģ3.8bn. "I think that after all this time the Defence department would settle for Ģ3.8bn - but they are not the ones paying for it." Economists estimate that Ģ3.8bn is the equivalent to reducing the basic rate of income tax by 1p.
advertisement
Once the price is approved, the companies can start preparing to construct the carriers and employ staff. The MoD's latest timetable for that to start was December, with the two carriers expected to enter service in 2012 and 2015.
An MoD official said yesterday: "We are making progress on negotiations and we are optimistic that we can finalise negotiations at a price we can afford and industry can deliver."
Construction of the carriers was hailed as a new way of working for the MoD and industry, and an attempt to avoid the large cost overruns that have dogged other major defence projects.
Lord Drayson, the defence procurement minister, has demanded that industry share more of the risk should the carriers hit problems or run over budget. The defence industry now has to work to fixed prices and pay penalties fees when things go wrong.
About 60pc of the carriers' construction is being pre-allocated to UK yards at Govan and Barrow, owned by BAE Systems, the Ports-mouth shipyard run by VT Group, and the Rosyth facility, run by Babcock, where the final assembly of the vessels will take place. The remaining 40pc of the construction will be open to competition.
The carriers, each weighing 65,000 tons and 280 metres long, will be three times the size of the existing Invincible-class vessels.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Manchester
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RichardB has described the failure to get through MG as 'Black Thursday' - just when I was getting my hopes up again about this project, it seems like the penny pinchers could not bring themselves to push the project forward.
Suspicion breeds confidence
PPRuNe has yet again reported reported the news before it happened. On the thread here last week regarding main gate submission for CVF, a contributor reported (sorry I was unable to find the post) he had heard that CVF had failed main gate submission, only to be doubted by others including myself. It now seems that this statement was fully correct and the submission was withdrawn as it exceeded budget as highighted by the "Red Team" review. Big trouble for CVF especially with the MN wavering. Good call.
This is depressing. What with all the financial pressures of the moment and the fact that the RN has mortgaged it's future on these ships, if they don't get through MG then we might as well, turn the lights off, close the door and become plumbers or even worse, join the RAF. Without these ships there will be no point in the RN unless you are a Marine, sailing around in fantastic Logistical Ships with no defence!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Gloucestershire
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And all this with the Chinese air fleet building up, although not in our back yard thankfully.
For CVF it's the same story as everything else in UK defence. There is a price for things. If you can't afford it, you can't have it.
For CVF it's the same story as everything else in UK defence. There is a price for things. If you can't afford it, you can't have it.
To quote Douglas Adams and Corporal Jones - DON'T PANIC.
CVF is not going to be cancelled.
First, CVF is not a weapon system nor a capability. It's an aircraft platform. Dave-B by any measure is a more-than-three-times-larger investment than Liz and Charlie.
If the carriers go there is no reason for short-legs Dave-B, and indeed not much reason for Dave at all - it'll be Typhoon Tranche 3. If the big UK rat jumps from JSF, a bunch of smaller rats will follow, dealing the entire program a heavy and quite possibly fatal blow - at the very least, Dave-B will die (absurdly expensive for 250 Marine jets) and US Marine airpower will be stuffed.
Is the UK government going to do this, thereby (a) annoying the US military, Congress and executive branch simultaneously, which is no mean feat, and (b) demonstrating that the biggest pieces of its defence procurement strategy have failed?
I smell brinkmanship.
Treasury wants to cap the price. Particularly in view of the fact that there is no fixed price for Dave-B, and won't be until it is far too late to consider an alternative.
The MoD doesn't want to write a blank cheque either, but needs to get the CVF and Dave-B under way before the next election, and before the battle over Blair's throne.
BAE and Thales want the contract, but want to be sure of making money, too. They are therefore making concessions grudgingly, a few at a time, to be sure that they are getting as much money as possible, while letting the clock tick at the MoD. They can do this because there is no competition. The UKG's only alternative to the Carrier Alliance is no carriers, no Dave and the consequences mentioned above.
There is also (I'm sure) an element of theatre, particularly in the MoD/Treasury relationship. Have you ever tried to buy a car and struck a good deal with the salesman, whereupon he goes to "check it out with the sales manager" and returns with a long face saying that "the boss won't go for it"?
CVF is not going to be cancelled.
First, CVF is not a weapon system nor a capability. It's an aircraft platform. Dave-B by any measure is a more-than-three-times-larger investment than Liz and Charlie.
If the carriers go there is no reason for short-legs Dave-B, and indeed not much reason for Dave at all - it'll be Typhoon Tranche 3. If the big UK rat jumps from JSF, a bunch of smaller rats will follow, dealing the entire program a heavy and quite possibly fatal blow - at the very least, Dave-B will die (absurdly expensive for 250 Marine jets) and US Marine airpower will be stuffed.
Is the UK government going to do this, thereby (a) annoying the US military, Congress and executive branch simultaneously, which is no mean feat, and (b) demonstrating that the biggest pieces of its defence procurement strategy have failed?
I smell brinkmanship.
Treasury wants to cap the price. Particularly in view of the fact that there is no fixed price for Dave-B, and won't be until it is far too late to consider an alternative.
The MoD doesn't want to write a blank cheque either, but needs to get the CVF and Dave-B under way before the next election, and before the battle over Blair's throne.
BAE and Thales want the contract, but want to be sure of making money, too. They are therefore making concessions grudgingly, a few at a time, to be sure that they are getting as much money as possible, while letting the clock tick at the MoD. They can do this because there is no competition. The UKG's only alternative to the Carrier Alliance is no carriers, no Dave and the consequences mentioned above.
There is also (I'm sure) an element of theatre, particularly in the MoD/Treasury relationship. Have you ever tried to buy a car and struck a good deal with the salesman, whereupon he goes to "check it out with the sales manager" and returns with a long face saying that "the boss won't go for it"?
Last edited by LowObservable; 2nd Nov 2006 at 21:54.
There are NO redundant US carriers. The non-nuclear carriers that have been retired (Forrestal, Saratoga, Ranger, Independence, Constellation) are all in Cat X maintenance status (essentially left to rot) and have been out of service for between 3 and 12 years. More to the point they are all well in excess of 40 yrs old anyway and require around 3000 bodies to run excluding the airwing. The remaining two (Kitty Hawk and JFK) will retire in the next couple of years but again are sh*gged out - JFK commissioned in 67 and the USN can't wait to bin her due to her material condition.
CVF or bust I'm afraid.......
CVF or bust I'm afraid.......
