Future Carrier (Including Costs)

[Capt Kremmen]

As a former serviceman in No. 40 Commando, I've got more that a foot in the door of this particular discussion - for some who do not know we are subject to the RN disciplinary code.

The sheer cost of these military toys has always seemed to me to be on the far side of excessive. I write as someone who still thinks that £20 is a significant sum. Yesterday, tweaking my sense of incredulity and passing the point of ultimate stretch, I watched a program about the building and commissioning of the world's largest, most ostentatious and most expensive cruise liner displacing some 55,000 tons and delivered at a cost of approximately £250,000,000 which sum is, I believe, around a quarter of a billion.

The magnificence of this vessel, if you like Middle Eastern Arabic boudoir style, was almost beyond belief. I cannot help but try to draw some kind of equivalence between what can be bought and paid for in cruise liner terms and the cost of just one of our 'global reach' mobile airports costing what was it ? £3.5 billion ! Or, such sum thereabouts. Ten cruise liners of the type illustrated could be built for that amount.

I am aware that there are some modest differences between an advanced man of war and a cruise liner but, if my figures quoted are even nearly correct the disparity is to my understanding barely credible. Can it really be explained by the number and quality of the systems required for what looks like an admittedly impressive flat top ?

Perhaps one answer could be to build luxurious cruise liners on the 'cheap' and equipped with a flight deck. In other words dual purpose. We'd have a huge fleet of impressive touristy warships which, on account of their numbers would not be too much missed when one or two of Mr. Putin's guided torps began circling like tummy rumbling sharks !

[Video Mixdown]

Originally Posted by Asturias56

Read the Times or the Telegraph - letter after letter, article after article........... same with the BBC

I’m with PG on this. That’s not evidence - it’s just noise. And when you resort to using the press and BBC as sources of accurate and unbiased information, many people in the UK will just laugh at you.
I’m genuinely curious about the motivation for your anti-UK defence equipment posts and the time and energy you seem to invest in them. You’re neither a UK taxpayer nor a recipient of the defence they provide, so why should it bother you?

[Asturias56]

VM

I can't see how calling for more T45's, more frigates, more SSN's and more minesweepers for the RN makes me "anti-UK defence"

As for laughing at using the press and the BBC as sources I'm sure you'd get a bigger laugh by suggesting people trust the MoD ....................... would you?

Why am I concerned (along with well over half the poster on this thread)? No man is an island - the decline of RN capability affects the whole of the Western military force. As one of the few remaining "blue water" navies it has an even bigger impact

[t43562]

Originally Posted by Capt Kremmen

I am aware that there are some modest differences between an advanced man of war and a cruise liner but, if my figures quoted are even nearly correct the disparity is to my understanding barely credible. Can it really be explained by the number and quality of the systems required for what looks like an admittedly impressive flat top ?

Perhaps one answer could be to build luxurious cruise liners on the 'cheap' and equipped with a flight deck. In other words dual purpose. We'd have a huge fleet of impressive touristy warships which, on account of their numbers would not be too much missed when one or two of Mr. Putin's guided torps began circling like tummy rumbling sharks !

People very often underestimate technical things, don't they? Isn't that why so many technical programmes are late and over budget? Obviously anyone who presents a realistic estimate won't get the contract because the people buying it, like you, think they can build once-off (or twice) bespoke things somehow for the same as things that are produced in volume (give or take some gold sink taps).

I mean, lets just be absurd and compare the price of a bulldozer and a tank? 200k for a bulldzer, lets guess, and 8 million for a tank. What a plan! "just" put a gun on a bulldozer and hey presto! I mean both have tracks so what's the problem?

[Lyneham Lad]

Originally Posted by t43562

People very often underestimate technical things, don't they? Isn't that why so many technical programmes are late and over budget? Obviously anyone who presents a realistic estimate won't get the contract because the people buying it, like you, think they can build once-off (or twice) bespoke things somehow for the same as things that are produced in volume (give or take some gold sink taps).

I mean, lets just be absurd and compare the price of a bulldozer and a tank? 200k for a bulldzer, lets guess, and 8 million for a tank. What a plan! "just" put a gun on a bulldozer and hey presto! I mean both have tracks so what's the problem?

Well, JCB certainly managed to 'militarise' their backhoe loader and won a large contract with the US Army.

[Rhino power]

Originally Posted by Lyneham Lad

Well, JCB certainly managed to 'militarise' their backhoe loader and won a large contract with the US Army.

Whilst JCB do supply mil spec versions of their regular backhoe loaders, the US Army's HMEE requirement, which JCB won, was essentially a clean sheet design and is not just a 'militarised' regular, off the shelf backhoe...

-RP

[etudiant]

Originally Posted by t43562

People very often underestimate technical things, don't they? Isn't that why so many technical programmes are late and over budget? Obviously anyone who presents a realistic estimate won't get the contract because the people buying it, like you, think they can build once-off (or twice) bespoke things somehow for the same as things that are produced in volume (give or take some gold sink taps).

I mean, lets just be absurd and compare the price of a bulldozer and a tank? 200k for a bulldzer, lets guess, and 8 million for a tank. What a plan! "just" put a gun on a bulldozer and hey presto! I mean both have tracks so what's the problem?

That discrepancy in price only buys big gains at the corners of the envelope. It does not translate to nearly proportionate increase in effectiveness,
Otherwise a group of poorly equipped guerrillas using technicals would not be more than holding their own in places such as Mali or Afghanistan.

[WE Branch Fanatic]

Originally Posted by Asturias56

In 2012 the Chief of the UK Defence Staff stated in a lecture at Oxford "One of my biggest concerns is the number of frigates and destroyers the Nay has" - at that point it had 24-26 vessels - you now have 19

How odd! Frigate and destroyer numbers were cut from 23 to 19 as part of SDSR 10, and without the carriers Cameron would have wanted to cut another five frigates, I think you might must be thinking of the wrong year. Also why ignore the role the commitment to Iraq and Afghanistan had on defence budgets, and the financial crisis?

As for NATO strength, have been looking in more detail at the HSC paper: Fire and Ice - A New Maritime Strategy for NATO's Northern Flank.

On page 39 the Cold War role of the Invincible class (with Sea Kings and Sea Harriers) is discussed, along with the advantages of the larger Queen Elizabeth class, regarding the Atlantic and GIUK gap.

On page 57 there is map of a UK carrier task group in the GIUK gap, with other NATO forces escorting shipping and moving forward towards the Russians. The description is on the following page:

By 2024, the UK will be well placed to take charge of this effort through acting as the lead nation of a rapid response ASW task group, potentially featuring:
•1 x Queen Elizabeth class carrier
•2 x Type 45 class AAW destroyers
•2 x Type 23 class ASW frigates
•5 x German/French/Dutch/Norwegian frigates and destroyers
• SSN and SSK support as required

This model would essentially represent a resurrection of the Royal Navy led ASW Striking Force of the 1980s.

Page 62 of the report discusses pushing (US) carrier groups and other forces North of the GIUK gap to engage missile platforms before they break out into the Atlantic.

Page 68 puts NATO carrier groups into the Barents Sea for offensive operations.

Page 71 mentions French and Italian carrier groups in the Mediterranean.

[ORAC]

The Times.......

“NOW EAR THIS

HMS Queen Elizabeth, the jewel in the Royal Navy’s fleet, sets sail to the US today for sea trials. Penny Mordaunt, who was scuttled as defence secretary during the recent purge, used to refer to the aircraft carrier as “Big Lizzy”, which upset some of the braided bunch, though not as much as the nickname that her sister ship has been given. HMS Prince of Wales has two towers on its flight deck, which give it a striking silhouette. Navy wags, with a nod to Prince Charles’s aural protrusions, call it “HMS Big Ears”.........

[Lyneham Lad]

HMS Queen Elizabeth's departure from Portsmouth will commence circa noon today. Some glimpses of the manoeuvres can be viewed via HMS Warrior's webcam.

[Hot 'n' High]

Thanks for that Lyneham Lad!

Nice to put all the arguments re suitability etc behind for a while and just watch her head out to sea. Brings back memories of the CVS-days for me. Certainly there was a bit more of a gap between Southsea - ship - HMS Dolphin when going in or out back then IIR! Happy days!

Cheers, H 'n' H

[Easy Street]

Off topic, but in the light of recent events I feel entitled to a smug rebuttal:

Originally Posted by pr00ne

Originally Posted by Easy Street

I've got bad news for you, Sam. The PM's senior adviser is exercising firm control of the agenda across Whitehall and has the same view of the carriers as andrewn:

He really, really is not.

Oh, he really, really is.

[weemonkey]

Apart from the quote below the article did keep one's interest going and was for the whole very well written.

"perhaps because of collapsed command and control empowering some mentally ill / on drugs local commander (America has had plenty of those in charge of nukes) "

Unnecessary yank bait.

[pr00ne]

Originally Posted by Easy Street

Off topic, but in the light of recent events I feel entitled to a smug rebuttal:



Oh, he really, really is.

Easy Street,

Well, if you think that sacking a day rate contractor for lying is "exercising firm control of the agenda across Whitehall", then you have just proved that you know nothing about how a Cabinet Government operates or how Special Advisors (Spads) working for Ministers are employed.

So, he really really REALLY isn't!

[Easy Street]

Originally Posted by pr00ne

Easy Street,

Well, if you think that sacking a day rate contractor for lying is "exercising firm control of the agenda across Whitehall", then you have just proved that you know nothing about how a Cabinet Government operates or how Special Advisors (Spads) working for Ministers are employed.

So, he really really REALLY isn't!

You appear to be confusing ‘control of the agenda’ with ‘decision-making’. And following a speculative ‘if’ with a definitive ‘then’ and a concluding ‘so’ makes for a very poor straw man indeed. Of course I was referring to the reinstatement of the spending review, the prorogation and the announcement of billions in additional funding for schools... and if you don’t think that Cummings is orchestrating all that according to his own intricately-wargamed plan* then I’d suggest it’s you who’s ill-informed.

* Yes, his plan needs Cabinet approval, but you can see the extent to which they’re involved with or understand it when our Secretary of State gets slapped down by No10 for ‘mis-speaking’ about the prorogation while on a hot mic...

[pr00ne]

Originally Posted by Easy Street

You appear to be confusing ‘control of the agenda’ with ‘decision-making’. And following a speculative ‘if’ with a definitive ‘then’ and a concluding ‘so’ makes for a very poor straw man indeed. Of course I was referring to the reinstatement of the spending review, the prorogation and the announcement of billions in additional funding for schools... and if you don’t think that Cummings is orchestrating all that according to his own intricately-wargamed plan* then I’d suggest it’s you who’s ill-informed.

* Yes, his plan needs Cabinet approval, but you can see the extent to which they’re involved with or understand it when our Secretary of State gets slapped down by No10 for ‘mis-speaking’ about the prorogation while on a hot mic...

Easy Street,
Ignoring your grammatical pedantry, I think you'll find that I am a leeeetle bit closer to this than you are...

[ORAC]

Twitter

[Asturias56]

"Super Carriers"..........

as in soopah, nice to see yah, loverlyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

or Super as in "Ford Class"?

[Asturias56]

I see they plan to announce the purchase of 5 new T31e's today - about time too.............

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...iness-49670332

[weemonkey]

Originally Posted by Asturias56

I see they plan to announce the purchase of 5 new T31e's today - about time too.............

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...iness-49670332

good. now about the manning...