Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engines,
No worries, you're questions are all valid and sensibly stated.
I'm not a FJ guy but it is my understanding that the GR4 has always had a far bigger support and logistics footprint than the GR7. I assume that the GR4 support factors are due to it being a more complex aircraft (2 x radar plus EO, 2 x crew, 2 x engines, variable geometry etc) in comparison the GR9 (single engine (despite what's required for an engine change!), single seat, EO only).
Both fleets are probably stretched by the constant reductions in spares and flying hours, and the need to maintain the trg pipeline for OCU, convex, CR and post grad tasks such as QWI etc. It's merely another symptom of how poorly our armed forces are resourced these days.
Short answer? No. Inevitably there is a latge focus on getting CVF produced. However, there is less focus upon JSF and, more importantly, it's support infrastructure. The RN doesn't even have an N2 branch and the N2/N6 to exploit the F-35's ISTAR/avionics capabilities will be considerable. Realistically of course, N2/N6 need to be looked at as J2/J6 to ensure commonality between RN and RAF units.
MASC is similarly low on the list of priorities. Realistically, the majority of CVF launched strike ops would probably be supported by a land based ISTAR matrix such as AWACS/SIGINT/ASTOR etc. But an organic MASC is absolutely essential for CVF.
2 x 65 000 ton CVF would be great and I really hope we get them. I just cannot see how the UK can afford them, the associated air wing and it's support, whilst maintaining a balanced surface and sub surface fleet.
Regards,
MM
No worries, you're questions are all valid and sensibly stated.
I'm not a FJ guy but it is my understanding that the GR4 has always had a far bigger support and logistics footprint than the GR7. I assume that the GR4 support factors are due to it being a more complex aircraft (2 x radar plus EO, 2 x crew, 2 x engines, variable geometry etc) in comparison the GR9 (single engine (despite what's required for an engine change!), single seat, EO only).
Both fleets are probably stretched by the constant reductions in spares and flying hours, and the need to maintain the trg pipeline for OCU, convex, CR and post grad tasks such as QWI etc. It's merely another symptom of how poorly our armed forces are resourced these days.
Bottom line remains - we are building two socking great carriers, but are we getting the building blocks in place to generate the 'air' from them?
MASC is similarly low on the list of priorities. Realistically, the majority of CVF launched strike ops would probably be supported by a land based ISTAR matrix such as AWACS/SIGINT/ASTOR etc. But an organic MASC is absolutely essential for CVF.
2 x 65 000 ton CVF would be great and I really hope we get them. I just cannot see how the UK can afford them, the associated air wing and it's support, whilst maintaining a balanced surface and sub surface fleet.
Regards,
MM
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Weel, if you read this, it looks like there is still confusion and disagreement of design, workshare and commonality. It would seem to make the chances of anyhting except a symbolic commitment to proceed from Mr Irn Bru Brown highly unlikely.
Workshare Debate Snarls Path to 2nd French Carrier
Workshare Debate Snarls Path to 2nd French Carrier
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC,
I very much agree that this looks like another excuse for delay - but the picture has been so cloudy now for so long that this piece, which relies heavily on French statements, does not do much to clarify things.
My take - the probable cost of UK CVF is still bigger than anything the Treasury wants to accept, and Drayson has been told to come up with a solution, using the French angle if possible. Meanwhile, BAES and VT, having been offered the CVF programme as the price for merging to form the UK 'Shipco' to build them, is waiting on the sidelines to see what he comes up with.
The nightmare scenario (for those of us who believe that SDR98 was right and CVF is the way to go) is that Drayson tries a bluff on BAES (accept giving workshare to the French or else) and BAES call it (OK, we're out, get the French to build them).
At that point, UK Government has a ready made excuse to can the project, because the real cost of the French building them would be - well, imagine nay number and double it.
Pessimistic? Only a bit.
I very much agree that this looks like another excuse for delay - but the picture has been so cloudy now for so long that this piece, which relies heavily on French statements, does not do much to clarify things.
My take - the probable cost of UK CVF is still bigger than anything the Treasury wants to accept, and Drayson has been told to come up with a solution, using the French angle if possible. Meanwhile, BAES and VT, having been offered the CVF programme as the price for merging to form the UK 'Shipco' to build them, is waiting on the sidelines to see what he comes up with.
The nightmare scenario (for those of us who believe that SDR98 was right and CVF is the way to go) is that Drayson tries a bluff on BAES (accept giving workshare to the French or else) and BAES call it (OK, we're out, get the French to build them).
At that point, UK Government has a ready made excuse to can the project, because the real cost of the French building them would be - well, imagine nay number and double it.
Pessimistic? Only a bit.
Drayson's already tried one bluff - "No Shipco, no CVF" and VT called him on it a couple of months ago......If he tries to shovel in substantial French workshare (which won't fix the major shortfall build programme) then ShipCo are entitled to tell him to shove it - particularly VT who are in a relatively enviable position. If it does fall flat, expect to hear teh Clyde shipbuilding lobby winding up in earnest later this year.......
If it's going to be announced before the summer recess (they surely wouldn't announce it to press rather than parliament first?) then Wednesday's PMQs should be it. However, we've been here before many many times, last October, March and May I think.
We can but hope that for once they'll do the right thing
If it's going to be announced before the summer recess (they surely wouldn't announce it to press rather than parliament first?) then Wednesday's PMQs should be it. However, we've been here before many many times, last October, March and May I think.
We can but hope that for once they'll do the right thing
Join Date: May 2002
Location: East Lothian
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Parliament Announcement
Local Radio (Radio Forth - Edinburgh and Fife area) announced on news bulletin this morning that Scottish MPs have been told that there will be an announcement today regarding Rosyth and 2 major defence orders.
If this is the case, it is going to be politically difficult. Announcing billions of pounds on defence, whilst having cut 14 million from flood defences.
It would be great news but, bet the government gets a slating!
It would be great news but, bet the government gets a slating!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A "should be" in the Telegraph today; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...carrier125.xml.
This made me smile, though;
On this Earth or Fullers? What we need is not what we usually get.
Widger, How true that is. Not a good week to bury good news.
This made me smile, though;
The move is likely to signal major investment in the surface fleet as more advanced Type 45 destroyers will have to be built to protect the carriers. Four are on order but there is provision for eight to be built.
Widger, How true that is. Not a good week to bury good news.
Widger
Clearly CVF will be a humanitarian platform, capable of acting as an Ark (Noah's rather than Royal) where required in support of the civil power. Surely this demonstrates the governments commitment to combining departmental spend to the best use of the community by making the MoD repsonsible for flood relief as well, thereby reducing the carbon footprint of the appropriate agencies and blah, blah blah blah......Des Browne SoS Defence, Scotland and Distaster Relief anyone?
Clearly CVF will be a humanitarian platform, capable of acting as an Ark (Noah's rather than Royal) where required in support of the civil power. Surely this demonstrates the governments commitment to combining departmental spend to the best use of the community by making the MoD repsonsible for flood relief as well, thereby reducing the carbon footprint of the appropriate agencies and blah, blah blah blah......Des Browne SoS Defence, Scotland and Distaster Relief anyone?
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: EU Region 9 - apparently
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
not yet, loads more bickering to be done. Too much of the division of work going to Scotland - they want independence, lets pull all MoD work, personnel and bases southwards 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good news at last. They will be 65000 tons as well.
Sting in the tail though...efficiencies in dockyards, ...reductions in HQs, savings, no comment on numbers of Type 45, Attack Subs or numbers of JCA all of Liam Fox's questions sidestepped.
However....it is pea
nut butter jellytime!
Sting in the tail though...efficiencies in dockyards, ...reductions in HQs, savings, no comment on numbers of Type 45, Attack Subs or numbers of JCA all of Liam Fox's questions sidestepped.
However....it is pea
nut butter jellytime!
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Some really useless CVF stats
CVF will carry over 8,600 tonnes of fuel to support the Ship and her aircraft – enough for the average family car to travel to the moon and back twelve times.
The Flight Deck area is nearly 13,000m2 - the equivalent of 49 tennis courts or three football pitches.
The hangar is 29,000m3 - equivalent to 12 Olympic swimming pools.
The Ship's Long Range radar is the same size to that of a large mobile home.
CVF has two bronze propellers of 6.7m diameter, weighing 33 tonnes each - Nearly two & half times as heavy as a double decker bus and one & half times as high.
The ships anchors will be 3.1m in height, each weighing 13 tonnes - almost as much as a double decker bus.
To think that someone was paid to work all these out, just to save a Sun/Mail journo a few minutes of Googling
To think that someone was paid to work all these out, just to save a Sun/Mail journo a few minutes of Googling
Last edited by airborne_artist; 25th Jul 2007 at 14:37. Reason: Edit of headline
The fact sheet also says that the diesel generators will weigh 220 tonnes each and produce 108 MW - does this mean that the ships will be diesel-powered, or CODLAG?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Somerset
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CVF will carry over 8,600 tonnes of fuel to support the Ship and her aircraft – enough for the average family car to travel to the moon and back twelve times.
But car's can't fly, and even if they could, I doubt they would get to the moon..
let alone 12 times!But seriously, good knews IMHO that this has been announced, good news indeed.
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
The Flight Deck area is nearly 13,000m2 - the equivalent of 49 tennis courts or three football pitches.
The hangar is 29,000m3 - equivalent to 12 Olympic swimming pools.
WE WILL NOW PLACE
see below
1
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE STATEMENT TO THE HOUSE – 25 JULY 2007:
Mr Speaker,
I am pleased to inform the House that the Ministry of Defence has agreed with HM Treasury a
Comprehensive Spending Review settlement for the next three years
The Total Departmental Expenditure Limit for Defence over the CSR period will be £34 billion
in 2008/9, £35.3 billion in 2009/10 and £36.9 billion in 2010/11. This is an additional £7.7
billion for Defence by 2011. This is a 1.5% average annual real terms increase against our
CSR baseline, excluding the costs of operations met from the Reserve and the time-limited
Defence Modernisation Fund. In addition, Treasury will continue to fund from the Reserve the
additional cost of operations over and above the Defence Budget, having already funded from
the Reserve some £6.6 billion in supporting the front line since 2001.
This settlement continues the longest period of sustained real growth in planned defence
spending since the 1980s, evidence of the Government’s commitment to defence and to the
men and women who serve with the utmost bravery in our Armed Forces.
The result of Labour’s consistent funding for Defence is that the defence budget will be
significantly higher in real terms than the budget we in inherited in 1997. On average, a billion
pounds more for defence every year, for ten years. Compare this with the last 5 years of the
Tory government, when the defence budget was being cut by around £½ billion a year.
Our priority remains success on current operations. This settlement gives the MOD the
financial certainty required to continue delivering that success. Over the last year I have been
able to announce to this House important enhancements in protected vehicles, helicopters,
and surveillance. This settlement will enable us to do more in all these areas and others. It also
allows for additional investment in the support our Service personnel deserve – building on
recent improvements in pay, in the new tax free operational bonus, in medical care for our
wounded personnel, and in accommodation.
Mr Speaker, at the same time as ensuring success on current operations, and support for our
people, this settlement also enables us to invest in those capabilities we will need for the
future.
2
I am pleased to be able to confirm today that we will now place orders for two 65,000 tonne
aircraft carriers to provide our front-line forces with the modern, world class capabilities they
will need over the coming decades. These will be named HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS
Prince of Wales.
This delivers on the Government’s promise in the 1998 Strategic Defence Review. The carriers
represent a step change in our capability, enabling us to deliver increased strategic effect and
influence around the world at a time and place of our choosing. They will be a key component
of the improved expeditionary capabilities we need to confront the diverse range of threats in
today’s security environment. They are evidence of our commitment to ensuring that our
armed forces are modern, versatile, and equipped for the future.
In parallel, we will continue to work closely with France. Our cooperation has already yielded
real benefits. We have shared the costs of developing the common baseline design to which
we are committing today and we have capitalised on our huge collective technical and military
experience. Our industries are now exploring further opportunities for mutual benefit, including
joint procurements of equipment for the carriers, and shared support arrangements. We look
forward to making a joint announcement on further co-operation in the next few months.
The carrier programme will sustain and create some 10,000 jobs across the UK, but we have
always been clear that the carriers cannot be built without change in the maritime sector. As
we set out in the Defence Industrial Strategy, we need further improvements in efficiency, to
ensure the taxpayer is getting value for money. And we need to ensure that the UK maritime
industry is the right size and shape, so that it is sustainable in the longer term. So I am
pleased that VT Group and BAE Systems intend to form a joint venture in naval shipbuilding
and support.
Mr Speaker, the creation of such a joint venture will enable the Royal Navy to work with
industry to deliver the infrastructure the Navy will need to support the fleet in the future while
retaining all three of our existing naval bases at Portsmouth, Devonport and Faslane. This will
be good news for the three communities and the Service, civilian and contractor personnel
employed at the bases. Nonetheless some reductions in the 17,600 personnel currently
employed will be necessary and will be taken forward in consultation with Trades Unions in the
usual way. .We aim to rationalise infrastructure and spare capacity, streamline processes and
build on partnering and other commercial arrangements. For example, today we are also
announcing a £1 billion partnering arrangement with Rolls Royce for the in-service support of
the Nuclear Steam Raising Plant that powers the Royal Navy’s submarines over the next
decade.
I am also determined to ensure more of our money is spent where it is really needed, reducing
overheads to put more into the front line and into supporting our people. To enhance the
spending power which this settlement gives us, we will make savings against the Department’s
overheads, including a 5% year-on-year saving in our administrative overhead over the next
three years and a 25% reduction in our Head Office. These are additional to the £2.8 billion
efficiencies delivered over the Spending Review 2004 period.
A priority through the CSR period will be the continued investment in improving
accommodation for our people and their families. We expect to spend some £550M on this
over the three year period, including plans to upgrade over 18,000 barrack-type bed spaces.
This builds upon the achievements of recent years in providing upgrades to our Service
families’ and our plans to spend £5 billion over the next ten years on upgrading and
maintaining accommodation. We also intend to explore with Treasury and the Department for
Communities and Local Government how best we can support the wishes of many Service
men and women to own their own homes.
Full details of the CSR settlement for Defence will be announced in the autumn, alongside the
outcome for all Government Departments. Today, however, I am providing a summary for the
Library of the House.
Mr Speaker, our Armed Forces are admired and respected worldwide. I am conscious that with
operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan we are currently asking our armed forces to do a lot. In
return we must ensure that the government does all it can to support them and their families.
This significant additional investment shows this Government is determined to do just that -
and to ensure they maintain their well earned and must deserved reputation for being the best
armed forces in the world in the years ahead.
see below
1
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE STATEMENT TO THE HOUSE – 25 JULY 2007:
Mr Speaker,
I am pleased to inform the House that the Ministry of Defence has agreed with HM Treasury a
Comprehensive Spending Review settlement for the next three years
The Total Departmental Expenditure Limit for Defence over the CSR period will be £34 billion
in 2008/9, £35.3 billion in 2009/10 and £36.9 billion in 2010/11. This is an additional £7.7
billion for Defence by 2011. This is a 1.5% average annual real terms increase against our
CSR baseline, excluding the costs of operations met from the Reserve and the time-limited
Defence Modernisation Fund. In addition, Treasury will continue to fund from the Reserve the
additional cost of operations over and above the Defence Budget, having already funded from
the Reserve some £6.6 billion in supporting the front line since 2001.
This settlement continues the longest period of sustained real growth in planned defence
spending since the 1980s, evidence of the Government’s commitment to defence and to the
men and women who serve with the utmost bravery in our Armed Forces.
The result of Labour’s consistent funding for Defence is that the defence budget will be
significantly higher in real terms than the budget we in inherited in 1997. On average, a billion
pounds more for defence every year, for ten years. Compare this with the last 5 years of the
Tory government, when the defence budget was being cut by around £½ billion a year.
Our priority remains success on current operations. This settlement gives the MOD the
financial certainty required to continue delivering that success. Over the last year I have been
able to announce to this House important enhancements in protected vehicles, helicopters,
and surveillance. This settlement will enable us to do more in all these areas and others. It also
allows for additional investment in the support our Service personnel deserve – building on
recent improvements in pay, in the new tax free operational bonus, in medical care for our
wounded personnel, and in accommodation.
Mr Speaker, at the same time as ensuring success on current operations, and support for our
people, this settlement also enables us to invest in those capabilities we will need for the
future.
2
I am pleased to be able to confirm today that we will now place orders for two 65,000 tonne
aircraft carriers to provide our front-line forces with the modern, world class capabilities they
will need over the coming decades. These will be named HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS
Prince of Wales.
This delivers on the Government’s promise in the 1998 Strategic Defence Review. The carriers
represent a step change in our capability, enabling us to deliver increased strategic effect and
influence around the world at a time and place of our choosing. They will be a key component
of the improved expeditionary capabilities we need to confront the diverse range of threats in
today’s security environment. They are evidence of our commitment to ensuring that our
armed forces are modern, versatile, and equipped for the future.
In parallel, we will continue to work closely with France. Our cooperation has already yielded
real benefits. We have shared the costs of developing the common baseline design to which
we are committing today and we have capitalised on our huge collective technical and military
experience. Our industries are now exploring further opportunities for mutual benefit, including
joint procurements of equipment for the carriers, and shared support arrangements. We look
forward to making a joint announcement on further co-operation in the next few months.
The carrier programme will sustain and create some 10,000 jobs across the UK, but we have
always been clear that the carriers cannot be built without change in the maritime sector. As
we set out in the Defence Industrial Strategy, we need further improvements in efficiency, to
ensure the taxpayer is getting value for money. And we need to ensure that the UK maritime
industry is the right size and shape, so that it is sustainable in the longer term. So I am
pleased that VT Group and BAE Systems intend to form a joint venture in naval shipbuilding
and support.
Mr Speaker, the creation of such a joint venture will enable the Royal Navy to work with
industry to deliver the infrastructure the Navy will need to support the fleet in the future while
retaining all three of our existing naval bases at Portsmouth, Devonport and Faslane. This will
be good news for the three communities and the Service, civilian and contractor personnel
employed at the bases. Nonetheless some reductions in the 17,600 personnel currently
employed will be necessary and will be taken forward in consultation with Trades Unions in the
usual way. .We aim to rationalise infrastructure and spare capacity, streamline processes and
build on partnering and other commercial arrangements. For example, today we are also
announcing a £1 billion partnering arrangement with Rolls Royce for the in-service support of
the Nuclear Steam Raising Plant that powers the Royal Navy’s submarines over the next
decade.
I am also determined to ensure more of our money is spent where it is really needed, reducing
overheads to put more into the front line and into supporting our people. To enhance the
spending power which this settlement gives us, we will make savings against the Department’s
overheads, including a 5% year-on-year saving in our administrative overhead over the next
three years and a 25% reduction in our Head Office. These are additional to the £2.8 billion
efficiencies delivered over the Spending Review 2004 period.
A priority through the CSR period will be the continued investment in improving
accommodation for our people and their families. We expect to spend some £550M on this
over the three year period, including plans to upgrade over 18,000 barrack-type bed spaces.
This builds upon the achievements of recent years in providing upgrades to our Service
families’ and our plans to spend £5 billion over the next ten years on upgrading and
maintaining accommodation. We also intend to explore with Treasury and the Department for
Communities and Local Government how best we can support the wishes of many Service
men and women to own their own homes.
Full details of the CSR settlement for Defence will be announced in the autumn, alongside the
outcome for all Government Departments. Today, however, I am providing a summary for the
Library of the House.
Mr Speaker, our Armed Forces are admired and respected worldwide. I am conscious that with
operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan we are currently asking our armed forces to do a lot. In
return we must ensure that the government does all it can to support them and their families.
This significant additional investment shows this Government is determined to do just that -
and to ensure they maintain their well earned and must deserved reputation for being the best
armed forces in the world in the years ahead.