Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All very promising, until you read the bit that effectively says, no industry consolidation to "Shipco", no CVF production order.....
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 62
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep- I think we are almost there 
Oh and heres the vid of HMS Dauntless being launched today
http://www.baesystems.com/dauntless/index.htm
And Adm West discussing the fleet with Lewis Page on "Today" this morning:
www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/toda...070123.ram
Oh and heres the vid of HMS Dauntless being launched today
http://www.baesystems.com/dauntless/index.htm
And Adm West discussing the fleet with Lewis Page on "Today" this morning:
www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/toda...070123.ram
Given VT's relatively healthy financial position and the potential liabilities that BAe have on their books, setting a price that both boards and shareholders can agree with, might just be a little bit more difficult than the great and the good are assuming.......
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given VT's relatively healthy financial position and the potential liabilities that BAe have on their books, setting a price that both boards and shareholders can agree with, might just be a little bit more difficult than the great and the good are assuming
Agreed - should happen. My point is that it may not be as easy as the floppy-haired fool thinks. Many would profoundly disagree with the assumption that Shipco is needed to deliver CVF and may be counter-productive in the longer term. Using CVF as the blunt instrument to coerce VT and BAe to merge is a very high risk and IMHO unneccessary strategy.
On the front page of this months “Preview”, the in-house Defence Acquisition propaganda rag, Lord Drayson is quoted as stating one of his (3) priorities for 2007 is;
“…progress on the Carrier” (singular)
One hopes this is a typo.
“…progress on the Carrier” (singular)
One hopes this is a typo.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
defencenews.com: French, U.K. Defense Chiefs To Discuss Carrier
French Defense Minister Michèle Alliot-Marie plans to contact her British counterpart shortly to discuss concerns over whether the U.K. government will go ahead with its aircraft carrier program. Recent press reports that London may ax plans to build two new CVF carriers have been taken seriously here, raising questions on what that might mean for France’s Porte-Avions 2 (PA2) carrier program.
Alliot-Marie said at her New Year’s press conference Jan. 16 there was an indispensable need for a second carrier, and a future government should maintain defense spending to ensure France maintains its standing in the world, by backing up diplomacy with military means. Alliot-Marie said she hoped to meet with or talk on the phone with British Defence Secretary Des Browne to clear up concerns about the U.K. carrier program.
France wants to build its PA2 in cooperation with the United Kingdom, using the British carrier design and to achieve economies of scale. A cancellation by London would affect French industry. DCN and Thales are the contractors leading French industry’s efforts to build the PA2.
A French government official said the ministry planned to move from the design stage to the realization phase of the PA2 program, although a launch contract was not expected to be signed before the national elections in March. Going to the realization phase would involve ordering long-lead items such as the two U.S.-built 90-meter steam catapults. Such purchases and moving ahead on PA2 would make it harder for a new government to cancel the carrier program. If Britain cancels its carrier program that would not mean France would cut the PA2, the official said. France had planned to build a second carrier before the idea developed of a cooperative venture with Britain, he said.
Budgetary pressure on the Royal Navy has led to second thoughts on going ahead with the CVF ships, British newspapers have reported. British Defence Procurement Minister Lord Drayson told the House of Lords Jan. 18 that he was aware of the speculation, but said the government remained committed to the program. Drayson said progress on the project was being made, including work with France on a common design. The minister said the Labour government was still haggling with industry over a final price.
The British recently said they will not award a production contract for the carriers until a restructuring of the naval shipbuilding industry is complete. BAE Systems and the VT Group are engaged in shipyard merger talks, and Drayson said good progress was being made......
French Defense Minister Michèle Alliot-Marie plans to contact her British counterpart shortly to discuss concerns over whether the U.K. government will go ahead with its aircraft carrier program. Recent press reports that London may ax plans to build two new CVF carriers have been taken seriously here, raising questions on what that might mean for France’s Porte-Avions 2 (PA2) carrier program.
Alliot-Marie said at her New Year’s press conference Jan. 16 there was an indispensable need for a second carrier, and a future government should maintain defense spending to ensure France maintains its standing in the world, by backing up diplomacy with military means. Alliot-Marie said she hoped to meet with or talk on the phone with British Defence Secretary Des Browne to clear up concerns about the U.K. carrier program.
France wants to build its PA2 in cooperation with the United Kingdom, using the British carrier design and to achieve economies of scale. A cancellation by London would affect French industry. DCN and Thales are the contractors leading French industry’s efforts to build the PA2.
A French government official said the ministry planned to move from the design stage to the realization phase of the PA2 program, although a launch contract was not expected to be signed before the national elections in March. Going to the realization phase would involve ordering long-lead items such as the two U.S.-built 90-meter steam catapults. Such purchases and moving ahead on PA2 would make it harder for a new government to cancel the carrier program. If Britain cancels its carrier program that would not mean France would cut the PA2, the official said. France had planned to build a second carrier before the idea developed of a cooperative venture with Britain, he said.
Budgetary pressure on the Royal Navy has led to second thoughts on going ahead with the CVF ships, British newspapers have reported. British Defence Procurement Minister Lord Drayson told the House of Lords Jan. 18 that he was aware of the speculation, but said the government remained committed to the program. Drayson said progress on the project was being made, including work with France on a common design. The minister said the Labour government was still haggling with industry over a final price.
The British recently said they will not award a production contract for the carriers until a restructuring of the naval shipbuilding industry is complete. BAE Systems and the VT Group are engaged in shipyard merger talks, and Drayson said good progress was being made......
Thread Starter
I have tried looking on the internet for MASC related information - and have not found much. It appears to not be mentioned much on either the RN or MOD websites.
Back in 1990 there was a publication called Firepower, and one edition was about a carrier air wing. It made the point that although the E2 Hawkeye might not seem as glamorous as the F14, F18 et al it was probably the most important aircraft carried. In the digital age, with things such as CEC, that is more obvious.
Therefore MASC is key to achieving information superiority. However, it would seem that it has not received the attention from the MOD or parliamentary scrutiny it deserves. Why not?
Back in 1990 there was a publication called Firepower, and one edition was about a carrier air wing. It made the point that although the E2 Hawkeye might not seem as glamorous as the F14, F18 et al it was probably the most important aircraft carried. In the digital age, with things such as CEC, that is more obvious.
Therefore MASC is key to achieving information superiority. However, it would seem that it has not received the attention from the MOD or parliamentary scrutiny it deserves. Why not?
masc
WEBF
If I may play Devil’s Advocate, the lack of an AEW capability was recognised as soon as Gannets were chopped. It took the Falklands to ram this home, and even then it was probably more of a political decision to hastily create the AEWs. While a phenomenal feat in management and engineering terms, the result was nothing like the capability the RN needed or wanted. Mk2 was upgraded piecemeal throughout the 80s and early 90s, but nothing substantial (except FN1110). It took until 2002/3, 20 years on from the Falklands, to deliver what the RN wanted (in fact, very much more than they asked for). I’m afraid the attitude in some influential beancounting quarters will be, you’ve got what you wanted (bearing in mind the RN INSISTED on retaining Sea King) so be happy – others haven’t got the basics, never mind a world leading capability.
Another factor will be industrial impact. At the time the (what is now called) ASaC was being contracted it was well publicised that the winning bid (which is a quite different thing from the best or most cost effective bid!) anticipated over 100 overseas sales. Have they achieved that? Make no mistake, the Industrial Impact Paper is one of the most important in the submission to the Equipment Approvals people (Ministers in this case). The time, cost and performance mantra becomes meaningless in the face of political lobbying. Given that overseas sales generate commercial exploitation income, not to mention jobs, someone in the Treasury is still waiting for their promised return on investment.
Something more basic. What is now ASaC was originally intended to be a relatively minor Radar upgrade to the AEW Mk2. At that point it was simply a modification to a legacy platform, and the resultant “mission system” was to have transferred to FOAEW, which was seen as the new platform/capability – perhaps Merlin or Osprey. As we know, AEW Mk2 evolved through many iterations into what, in some quarters, is seen as that new platform/capability. This may explain why MASC gets little attention – the ASaC programme is, in many ways, a victim of its own success. The RN has a brand new capability called ASaC, so lets consider that a success and look elsewhere to spend money. You may think this simplistic, but it’s the way people think.
Finally, who knows what the RN is actually asking for through their Constraints Working Groups? If current ASaC capability is not seen as a Critical operational constraint (and given the positive comments we read of, this is unlikely), then I’m afraid MASC drops down the pecking order. For as long as I can remember, the golden rule has been – if it’s not a “critical” you don’t get money, and even then its not guaranteed. It would surprise you how few criticals there are.
Like I say, Devil’s Advocate. I don’t necessarily agree with the short term view much of the above represents, but this is a fact of life in today’s political climate, where most of our forces are living from hand to mouth.
If I may play Devil’s Advocate, the lack of an AEW capability was recognised as soon as Gannets were chopped. It took the Falklands to ram this home, and even then it was probably more of a political decision to hastily create the AEWs. While a phenomenal feat in management and engineering terms, the result was nothing like the capability the RN needed or wanted. Mk2 was upgraded piecemeal throughout the 80s and early 90s, but nothing substantial (except FN1110). It took until 2002/3, 20 years on from the Falklands, to deliver what the RN wanted (in fact, very much more than they asked for). I’m afraid the attitude in some influential beancounting quarters will be, you’ve got what you wanted (bearing in mind the RN INSISTED on retaining Sea King) so be happy – others haven’t got the basics, never mind a world leading capability.
Another factor will be industrial impact. At the time the (what is now called) ASaC was being contracted it was well publicised that the winning bid (which is a quite different thing from the best or most cost effective bid!) anticipated over 100 overseas sales. Have they achieved that? Make no mistake, the Industrial Impact Paper is one of the most important in the submission to the Equipment Approvals people (Ministers in this case). The time, cost and performance mantra becomes meaningless in the face of political lobbying. Given that overseas sales generate commercial exploitation income, not to mention jobs, someone in the Treasury is still waiting for their promised return on investment.
Something more basic. What is now ASaC was originally intended to be a relatively minor Radar upgrade to the AEW Mk2. At that point it was simply a modification to a legacy platform, and the resultant “mission system” was to have transferred to FOAEW, which was seen as the new platform/capability – perhaps Merlin or Osprey. As we know, AEW Mk2 evolved through many iterations into what, in some quarters, is seen as that new platform/capability. This may explain why MASC gets little attention – the ASaC programme is, in many ways, a victim of its own success. The RN has a brand new capability called ASaC, so lets consider that a success and look elsewhere to spend money. You may think this simplistic, but it’s the way people think.
Finally, who knows what the RN is actually asking for through their Constraints Working Groups? If current ASaC capability is not seen as a Critical operational constraint (and given the positive comments we read of, this is unlikely), then I’m afraid MASC drops down the pecking order. For as long as I can remember, the golden rule has been – if it’s not a “critical” you don’t get money, and even then its not guaranteed. It would surprise you how few criticals there are.
Like I say, Devil’s Advocate. I don’t necessarily agree with the short term view much of the above represents, but this is a fact of life in today’s political climate, where most of our forces are living from hand to mouth.
Can't argue with any of the above, which certainly seems to be the most pragmatic and likely view. I suspect that the IAB category of the project as originally envisaged was B or below, which would have made it easier to fold into the ship project, which is where they are now.
For those of a conspiracy theorist persusasion, one might also ponder whether the system that meets the original MASC requirement (as opposed to simply FOAEW which is how it started out) is so obvious as to almost mandate choice of ship configuration and therefore implicitly JCA choice......the wrong choice politically.
For those of a conspiracy theorist persusasion, one might also ponder whether the system that meets the original MASC requirement (as opposed to simply FOAEW which is how it started out) is so obvious as to almost mandate choice of ship configuration and therefore implicitly JCA choice......the wrong choice politically.
Last edited by Not_a_boffin; 30th Jan 2007 at 14:14.
Hmmmm. Buy an aircraft designed for trooplift/assault and Combat SAR/SpecOps, with a folding mechanism that defies description, fit it with a UK-specific radar and comms / datalink fit and bring it into service in limited numbers as (probably) the only type operator in the world? Not obvious at all, I'm afraid SaN. Not at all sure that she'll be fast enough or with sufficient endurance to do the full MASC role either.
Or.......buy a proven, in-service aircraft, designed for the MASC task, compatible with our principal allies (and the French!), with all the speed and endurance you'll need and a funded development path to keep it in service for at least another 25 yrs.
Or.......muddle around, take a very good set of avionics with some very good capabilities and integrate them into a rotary wing platform that is either antediluvian or with a limited airframe capability in terms of speed and endurance at height.......oh b8gger!
Or.......buy a proven, in-service aircraft, designed for the MASC task, compatible with our principal allies (and the French!), with all the speed and endurance you'll need and a funded development path to keep it in service for at least another 25 yrs.
Or.......muddle around, take a very good set of avionics with some very good capabilities and integrate them into a rotary wing platform that is either antediluvian or with a limited airframe capability in terms of speed and endurance at height.......oh b8gger!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not-a-B
Your last sounds suspiciously like the usual fiasco... does anyone actually know the difference in cost and performance between CTOL CVF with Dave C and E-2D and STOVL CVF with Dave B and Super-Bag?
In terms of missions generated and radius of action, I would've thought that CTOL had a sufficiently clear lead that the cost differential would pale in comparison, especially on a through-life basis.
Someone in Main Building must have done these tradeoff calculations - whether or not they actually inform policy, is of course another matter.
S41
Your last sounds suspiciously like the usual fiasco... does anyone actually know the difference in cost and performance between CTOL CVF with Dave C and E-2D and STOVL CVF with Dave B and Super-Bag?
In terms of missions generated and radius of action, I would've thought that CTOL had a sufficiently clear lead that the cost differential would pale in comparison, especially on a through-life basis.
Someone in Main Building must have done these tradeoff calculations - whether or not they actually inform policy, is of course another matter.
S41
I could be wrong, but I'd not be at all surprised to find that an integrated CVF/JCA/MASC CTOL vs STOVL comparison has never been done. I do recall once being told that the MASC requirement would not be allowed to dictate the choice of ship type, but that was some years ago.
As I recall, the CTOL / STOVL debate was always mainly driven by assumptions about ship cost (ie cat n trap vastly more expensive than STOVL). The cost comparisons were mainly aimed at finding out whether a CTOL variant fallback option would be prohibitively expensive should the puffa-jet variant fail to make it through EMD. Once they'd figured out that at the size of ship being talked about, the cost differential wasn't that great, the argument was parked and it became a "simple" issue of politics and industrial muscle (ie workshare & expertise for BAE and particularly RR). All sorts of studies were commissioned to back up the desired argument, including the relative operating windows in the SWAPPS to inform available training days based on deck motion limits, but IMHO, there has never been a comprehensive capability v cost study considering all the CVF/JCA/MASC options for CTOL vs STOVL.
As I recall, the CTOL / STOVL debate was always mainly driven by assumptions about ship cost (ie cat n trap vastly more expensive than STOVL). The cost comparisons were mainly aimed at finding out whether a CTOL variant fallback option would be prohibitively expensive should the puffa-jet variant fail to make it through EMD. Once they'd figured out that at the size of ship being talked about, the cost differential wasn't that great, the argument was parked and it became a "simple" issue of politics and industrial muscle (ie workshare & expertise for BAE and particularly RR). All sorts of studies were commissioned to back up the desired argument, including the relative operating windows in the SWAPPS to inform available training days based on deck motion limits, but IMHO, there has never been a comprehensive capability v cost study considering all the CVF/JCA/MASC options for CTOL vs STOVL.
Last edited by Not_a_boffin; 30th Jan 2007 at 18:59.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hampshire
Age: 62
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boffo,
If the CVF's remain as STOVL and the RN wants to upgrade from SeaKings, the choice will either be a Merlin baggy or Osprey- which in a decade will have had all the bugs ironed out by the Yanks.
If the CVF's remain as STOVL and the RN wants to upgrade from SeaKings, the choice will either be a Merlin baggy or Osprey- which in a decade will have had all the bugs ironed out by the Yanks.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Since the UK would have to pay 100% of the development cost of a 6 airframe AEW Osprey, I think its a non-starter. The Osprey even in its current troop transport form is too expensive for the UK. So the choice once again wittles down to what can we get for the least amount of money.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Evidence Based Policy v Policy Based Evidence
N-a-B,
Fascinating - and appalling! No surprise that "Evidence Based Policy" has been binned in favour of "Policy Based Evidence", however.
If the costs are sufficiently similar, then we should be able - and Ministers should demand - the full trade off calculations. If the answer is that we want to give a large bung to RR, then let's at least be honest about it.
As it is, we stand to spend the best part of £4bn on CVF + substandard airwing which will then be tasked to deliver what it isn't designed to, solely because of the STOVL option. Pathetic!
Navaleye
IIRC V-22 is unpressurised - is this true? If so, it would presumably be little better than a helicopter based solution.
S41
Fascinating - and appalling! No surprise that "Evidence Based Policy" has been binned in favour of "Policy Based Evidence", however.
If the costs are sufficiently similar, then we should be able - and Ministers should demand - the full trade off calculations. If the answer is that we want to give a large bung to RR, then let's at least be honest about it.
As it is, we stand to spend the best part of £4bn on CVF + substandard airwing which will then be tasked to deliver what it isn't designed to, solely because of the STOVL option. Pathetic!
Navaleye
IIRC V-22 is unpressurised - is this true? If so, it would presumably be little better than a helicopter based solution.
S41