Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
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 25% in our "Head Office".
So, what does that mean in the way of MOD/Abbey Wood/HQs etc?
A 25% in our "Head Office".
So, what does that mean in the way of MOD/Abbey Wood/HQs etc?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: at the end of the bar
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, I slightly misquoted, What I meant was:
means the orders haven't yet been placed.
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many a drip.... betwixt cup and lip!
XV277,
You are quite right sir - this is not an order... it's a CSR preview, like the NHS and Education had in the run up to SR 2002/04. When I see Drayson's signature on some contracts (with massive break penalities if ShipCo have any sense at all), then I'll be convinced. Follow the money!
(But with cynical mode off, it feels like good news...)
S41
You are quite right sir - this is not an order... it's a CSR preview, like the NHS and Education had in the run up to SR 2002/04. When I see Drayson's signature on some contracts (with massive break penalities if ShipCo have any sense at all), then I'll be convinced. Follow the money!
(But with cynical mode off, it feels like good news...)
S41
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cost and delivery Dates
Today is the day to note the figures so that we have a base from which to judge the cost escalation and delays!
BBC Teletext says
1. Contract £3.8 Billion
2. In service 2014 and 2016.
When we get to 2014 look back and laugh or weep, depending on your mood. Applause for an on time, on budget project is highly unlikely.
BBC Teletext says
1. Contract £3.8 Billion
2. In service 2014 and 2016.
When we get to 2014 look back and laugh or weep, depending on your mood. Applause for an on time, on budget project is highly unlikely.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Yes it is very good news and a huge boost to the UK's expeditionary warfare capability. I am watching the size of the a/c order with interest. I can only hope that te JFH structure is abolished as soon as possible and the navy's squadrons are returned to its control so that these new vessels actually have some aircraft to carry.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't believe it till its comissioned, Given British waste of spaces performance it will be late and over budget if the whole project isn't cancelled in the defence spending review or if it goes ahead how many more escorts will the Royal Navy lose to pay for the cost over runs.
Yes its fairly good news but New Labour has demonstrated its not to be trusted with defence
Yes its fairly good news but New Labour has demonstrated its not to be trusted with defence
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 59
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oops - not strictly true!
[Quote][/[So I am pleased that VT Group and BAE Systems intend to form a joint venture in naval shipbuilding and support.]
VT & BAES will form a JV for the CVF programme only, does not include Trini & Tobs OPVs, FCS, MARS, or other export opportunities like T23's for Chile etc. This JV will be much the same as Type 45 which was itself prior to 2006 a seperate JV project, therefore no LFE here then. Like 45 there'll be a seperate project office probably in the south west, but I hear that on this project the designers will be co-located with the metal bashers so maybe they did learn lessons.
Congrats to BAES, VT, Thales and Babcocks just wonder where they'll build the MARS ships needed to support CVF as they can't build them in these yards whilst building CVF, maybe Poland, Romania or Korea?
VT & BAES will form a JV for the CVF programme only, does not include Trini & Tobs OPVs, FCS, MARS, or other export opportunities like T23's for Chile etc. This JV will be much the same as Type 45 which was itself prior to 2006 a seperate JV project, therefore no LFE here then. Like 45 there'll be a seperate project office probably in the south west, but I hear that on this project the designers will be co-located with the metal bashers so maybe they did learn lessons.
Congrats to BAES, VT, Thales and Babcocks just wonder where they'll build the MARS ships needed to support CVF as they can't build them in these yards whilst building CVF, maybe Poland, Romania or Korea?
You really don't want to build MARS in UK. No "merchant" yards left and when BAE built the Wave tankers the RFA paid £120M each eight years ago! In comparison, the current going rate for a commercial tanker with the same cargo capacity is ~$40-50M (£20-25M). There are a lot of naval extras on the Wave, but £90M -worth? I don't think so.......
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Navaleye
Be careful what you wish for old salt. You just might find you have Sqn Number plates but no aircraft, no pilots or technicians, and no money to buy or train the above. In fact the whole thing will look pretty hollow at that stage.
Damn good cocktail party platform though!
Be careful what you wish for old salt. You just might find you have Sqn Number plates but no aircraft, no pilots or technicians, and no money to buy or train the above. In fact the whole thing will look pretty hollow at that stage.
Damn good cocktail party platform though!
And how much more will need to be sacrificed in order to ensure that:
"the FAA can get on with what its really paid to do."
"i.e. do some good old fashioned poncing around on the self-licking ice cream, aggressively defending itself and throwing cocktail parties in all the nicest ports of the globe....."
"the FAA can get on with what its really paid to do."
"i.e. do some good old fashioned poncing around on the self-licking ice cream, aggressively defending itself and throwing cocktail parties in all the nicest ports of the globe....."
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny Sussex
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like some crabs are going a tinge of green...
After all THERE WERE at least two crabs devoted to making sure the CVF did not go ahead. There's a rebrief there then.
After all THERE WERE at least two crabs devoted to making sure the CVF did not go ahead. There's a rebrief there then.
MM,
You said: "I'd be interested in reading Cdr Ward's views. I regret that I have yet to find anything by him which is unbiased."
Nor will you find it if you invest £3.60 in Warships.
The article which Navaleye praises is a revised reprint of Ward's intro to his book, 'Sea Harrier over the Falklands'.
Of four pages, the first three are solely about Sharkey's single handed victory in the Falklands. It has the usual disparaging guff about Hermes and 800 in particular (who hadn't learned how to get the best of the radar or to align their INSs), and who then f*cked up in spades when it came to positioning CAPs and whose many failures led to all of the big Argentine successes.
Makes one wonder how these air-to-ground obsessed amateurish air defence tyros managed to down more enemy aircraft (13) than Ward's own squadron did...... (8)
The fourth page opens with a generous tribute to the air warfare adviser to the Naval Staff who was largely responsible for the development of the SHar FA2 (Ward). The FA2 was, of course, the only aircraft in the world with a radar 'perfectly harmonised' with AMRAAM, and was the most capable air-to-air fighter/interceptor in Europe. And whatever amateurs like Jock Stirrup say, the Sea Harrier was entirely capable of defeating the threat posed by sea-skimming missiles.
Thanks entirely to Sharkey.......
You said: "I'd be interested in reading Cdr Ward's views. I regret that I have yet to find anything by him which is unbiased."
Nor will you find it if you invest £3.60 in Warships.
The article which Navaleye praises is a revised reprint of Ward's intro to his book, 'Sea Harrier over the Falklands'.
Of four pages, the first three are solely about Sharkey's single handed victory in the Falklands. It has the usual disparaging guff about Hermes and 800 in particular (who hadn't learned how to get the best of the radar or to align their INSs), and who then f*cked up in spades when it came to positioning CAPs and whose many failures led to all of the big Argentine successes.
Makes one wonder how these air-to-ground obsessed amateurish air defence tyros managed to down more enemy aircraft (13) than Ward's own squadron did...... (8)
The fourth page opens with a generous tribute to the air warfare adviser to the Naval Staff who was largely responsible for the development of the SHar FA2 (Ward). The FA2 was, of course, the only aircraft in the world with a radar 'perfectly harmonised' with AMRAAM, and was the most capable air-to-air fighter/interceptor in Europe. And whatever amateurs like Jock Stirrup say, the Sea Harrier was entirely capable of defeating the threat posed by sea-skimming missiles.
Thanks entirely to Sharkey.......
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At last !
At long last real power projection for the UK, the real shame is I shall be 57 when it is a happens and it will be the first time since I was about 20 (and one war that it could have prevented) that the UK has had such political power.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a light blue type, I'm cautiously optomistic with this news and pleased that my belief that we'd only get one has been (possibly) proved wrong. It certainly looks a lot more promising although I'm still unconvinced by the need for 65 000 ton vessels. However, we certainly need CVF so lets get it sorted!
All we have to do now is sort the J2, J6, JSF, MASC manning etc.
Regards,
MM
All we have to do now is sort the J2, J6, JSF, MASC manning etc.
Regards,
MM