Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re. F-35B MTOW, does the phrase 'ski-jump' ring any bells ?
Sure it might have to be removable if minds were changed at some future stage ( though people like the Russians & their possible customers seem to fancy the idea with conventional jets too ) , but I reckon even I could design that, given enough plastic padding & some weight figures ( everyone stand at the stern ).
Of course the relatively difficult bit might be incorporating it into the aircraft software, but come on...
Sure it might have to be removable if minds were changed at some future stage ( though people like the Russians & their possible customers seem to fancy the idea with conventional jets too ) , but I reckon even I could design that, given enough plastic padding & some weight figures ( everyone stand at the stern ).
Of course the relatively difficult bit might be incorporating it into the aircraft software, but come on...
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Romania
Age: 81
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE]
When I went through BRNC I was told that you could always tell a Banana Republic Navy by the fact that they would have more admirals than ships........
[/QUOTE
Or Air Marshalls than Aircraft, more Generals than Tanks, and the government pretty much does as it pleases!
I bet a Banana Republic's hospital wards are dirty and the roads all snarled up!
Fuel is probably a scarce and expensive commodity and mortgage rates erratic.
Glad I live in the UK
When I went through BRNC I was told that you could always tell a Banana Republic Navy by the fact that they would have more admirals than ships........
[/QUOTE
Or Air Marshalls than Aircraft, more Generals than Tanks, and the government pretty much does as it pleases!
I bet a Banana Republic's hospital wards are dirty and the roads all snarled up!
Fuel is probably a scarce and expensive commodity and mortgage rates erratic.
Glad I live in the UK
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
FT: MoD may delay carrier contract
The Ministry of Defence is examining possible delays to its £4bn contract for two new aircraft carriers as it struggles to meet Treasury demands for swingeing cuts to its budget. The MoD had been expected to agree a manufacturing contract with the industry alliance building the Royal Navy carriers as early as next week, but that now looks likely to slip.
Officials have begun to take informal soundings about the implications of a possible delay to the ships, people close to the talks confirmed last night. Scenarios under discussion range from slipping expenditure on the programme to later years – thereby staggering the cost for the MoD – to delaying the programme by up to 18 months.
The carriers are scheduled to enter service in 2014 and 2016 and had been viewed as one of the few big-ticket items to escape the impending cuts. There is no suggestion that the programme will not go ahead but the talks underline how stretched the MoD’s budget is. The carriers’ hulls are due to be assembled at Rosyth in Scotland in the prime minister’s constituency, so abandoning it would appear politically difficult.
Last July, the Treasury agreed a budget with the MoD, providing 1.5 per cent real increases every year until 2010-11, claiming this to be the best defence settlement in almost 30 years. But higher depreciation and impairment charges on equipment that has been heavily used in Iraq and Afghanistan left the MoD with only 0.9 per cent real increases for day-to-day expenditure and the requirement to make heavy cuts in many areas. Some estimates put the budget shortfall as high as £2bn. With tax revenues already falling short before the credit squeeze took hold, there is little room for additional defence funding over the next three years.
It is understood the discussions are among the reasons for the delay in the signing of a joint venture between BAE Systems, Britain’s largest defence contractor, and VT Group to put their shipyards together. The joint venture was seen as the first step towards the consolidation of Britain’s shipbuilding industry. Although the venture could go ahead without a manufacturing contract for the carriers, the companies are still waiting for a government commitment to a 15-year partnering agreement. The terms of the agreement would offer industry a guarantee to maintain jobs and technical capabilities for 15 years.
People close to the talks stressed discussions were part of the MoD’s wider review of its equipment programme and that no final decision had been made.
The MoD said: “Periodically, as part of the planning process, we consider a wide range of ideas on how we might reallocate funds. Many of these are not taken beyond initial consideration. The [comprehensive spending review] settlement allows the MoD to proceed with two new aircraft carriers . . . We need the [joint venture] to stand up as a legal entity before we sign the contract – that process is under way.”
The Ministry of Defence is examining possible delays to its £4bn contract for two new aircraft carriers as it struggles to meet Treasury demands for swingeing cuts to its budget. The MoD had been expected to agree a manufacturing contract with the industry alliance building the Royal Navy carriers as early as next week, but that now looks likely to slip.
Officials have begun to take informal soundings about the implications of a possible delay to the ships, people close to the talks confirmed last night. Scenarios under discussion range from slipping expenditure on the programme to later years – thereby staggering the cost for the MoD – to delaying the programme by up to 18 months.
The carriers are scheduled to enter service in 2014 and 2016 and had been viewed as one of the few big-ticket items to escape the impending cuts. There is no suggestion that the programme will not go ahead but the talks underline how stretched the MoD’s budget is. The carriers’ hulls are due to be assembled at Rosyth in Scotland in the prime minister’s constituency, so abandoning it would appear politically difficult.
Last July, the Treasury agreed a budget with the MoD, providing 1.5 per cent real increases every year until 2010-11, claiming this to be the best defence settlement in almost 30 years. But higher depreciation and impairment charges on equipment that has been heavily used in Iraq and Afghanistan left the MoD with only 0.9 per cent real increases for day-to-day expenditure and the requirement to make heavy cuts in many areas. Some estimates put the budget shortfall as high as £2bn. With tax revenues already falling short before the credit squeeze took hold, there is little room for additional defence funding over the next three years.
It is understood the discussions are among the reasons for the delay in the signing of a joint venture between BAE Systems, Britain’s largest defence contractor, and VT Group to put their shipyards together. The joint venture was seen as the first step towards the consolidation of Britain’s shipbuilding industry. Although the venture could go ahead without a manufacturing contract for the carriers, the companies are still waiting for a government commitment to a 15-year partnering agreement. The terms of the agreement would offer industry a guarantee to maintain jobs and technical capabilities for 15 years.
People close to the talks stressed discussions were part of the MoD’s wider review of its equipment programme and that no final decision had been made.
The MoD said: “Periodically, as part of the planning process, we consider a wide range of ideas on how we might reallocate funds. Many of these are not taken beyond initial consideration. The [comprehensive spending review] settlement allows the MoD to proceed with two new aircraft carriers . . . We need the [joint venture] to stand up as a legal entity before we sign the contract – that process is under way.”
Will they never learn. Exactly what happened three years ago.
Senior CS "Er, um, we're having some budgetary difficulties, would you mind awfully waiting another year or so for some movement from us?"
ACA players "You do realise that we'll have to either keep our project team going at our own cost (to be recovered from you), or substantially reduce it, thereby losing much of the knowledge and experience we've gained (which we'll have to charge you to regenerate later)?"
SCS "Oh but that can't be real money surely? Anyway by that time you'll have found a way to make it cheaper, using smart materials like unobtanium or some such voodoo, so no problems eh? Musn't upset the Broons"
ACA " You people really are a bunch of monkeys aren't you....."
Senior CS "Er, um, we're having some budgetary difficulties, would you mind awfully waiting another year or so for some movement from us?"
ACA players "You do realise that we'll have to either keep our project team going at our own cost (to be recovered from you), or substantially reduce it, thereby losing much of the knowledge and experience we've gained (which we'll have to charge you to regenerate later)?"
SCS "Oh but that can't be real money surely? Anyway by that time you'll have found a way to make it cheaper, using smart materials like unobtanium or some such voodoo, so no problems eh? Musn't upset the Broons"
ACA " You people really are a bunch of monkeys aren't you....."
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: at the end of the bar
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FT: MoD may delay carrier contract
[B][I]The carriers’ hulls are due to be assembled at Rosyth in Scotland in the prime minister’s constituency, so
[B][I]The carriers’ hulls are due to be assembled at Rosyth in Scotland in the prime minister’s constituency, so
Well that's wrong for a start,
And as with other CVF delays, there's the possibility that it reduces pressure on the JSF, in that a later ISD means that an uprated F135 engine - or the inherently oomphier F136 - is an option. Because at the moment a shortfall in both landing and T/O capability is on the cards, see page 6...
http://armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/...mony032207.pdf
WRT take-off... I hope that the KPP/KUR for STO weight is NOT based on the same reference mission as range (stealthed up with nothing internal), because if that is marginal, Dave B is not going to be very flexible.
http://armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/...mony032207.pdf
WRT take-off... I hope that the KPP/KUR for STO weight is NOT based on the same reference mission as range (stealthed up with nothing internal), because if that is marginal, Dave B is not going to be very flexible.
And we haven't actually definitively (ie no going back, placed the production order) for the UK Dave variant yet. My spies told me back end of 2007 was decision point, but it's still all quiet on that front.............
(please God save me from the consequences of RVLs!)
(please God save me from the consequences of RVLs!)
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: england
Age: 61
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so, two proper carriers at a cost of between what, 4.5 to 6 million, how the hell does downing street justify 12 million( with a 2.5 million " slush fund") for the 2012 olympics. oh, AND 15+ million for a new cross london rail link?
so, two proper carriers at a cost of between what, 4.5 to 6 million, how the hell does downing street justify 12 million( with a 2.5 million " slush fund") for the 2012 olympics. oh, AND 15+ million for a new cross london rail link?
NaB...
In speaking of the consequences of RVLs, are we talking about sliding into icy water with 16 tons of jet strapped to your, or something to do with Ms Widdecombe and a paper bag?
In speaking of the consequences of RVLs, are we talking about sliding into icy water with 16 tons of jet strapped to your
, or something to do with Ms Widdecombe and a paper bag?
Well as I'm unlikely ever to strap on 16 tonnes of Dave B, I regret to say it's the latter. (Gulp!)
C'mon CDP, buy Dave C and save me from this awful fate, please, please, please, please!
C'mon CDP, buy Dave C and save me from this awful fate, please, please, please, please!
In speaking of the consequences of RVLs, are we talking about sliding into icy water with 16 tons of jet strapped to your , or something to do with Ms Widdecombe and a paper bag?
, or something to do with Ms Widdecombe and a paper bag?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Anywhere there's ships and aircraft available
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The MoD briefed the press at 1200 today that this story was wrong and categorically stated that the programme was to go ahead as planned.
http://ukpress.google.com/article/AL...4vnGwAuikOnLMQ
This is very odd as normally the breifings say that the MoD always carries out varying assessments of projects to ensure vfm. I think there is bad news to come and they were keen to kill this story before the weekend journo's could get hold of it!
Si
http://ukpress.google.com/article/AL...4vnGwAuikOnLMQ
This is very odd as normally the breifings say that the MoD always carries out varying assessments of projects to ensure vfm. I think there is bad news to come and they were keen to kill this story before the weekend journo's could get hold of it!
Si