Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Exiled in England
Age: 48
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And this rolling goat f**k of a procurement process sums up our country totally.
Millions of office weenies with shiny arses and huge salaries meddling in the process from day one....
here's how you do it.
1. work out what you want. - This means I want an interceptor, multirole, aircraft carrier, nuclear powered shoe shiner etc
2. Tell the engineers and designers to leave a bit of space, capability etc for future upgrades and improvements
3. let the build it
4. give them money, take the keys and drive it away.
30% deposit.
20% on reciept
25% on commisioning
15% on final handover post snag fixes
10% at contracted point after all targets met
Then give a bonus if warranted - industry std
and to all those who say it cannot be done - balls. Just because "we have always done it this way" is your mantra doesn't mean it has to stay that way.
Also - stop making new technology backwards compatible - it is cheaper to upgrade the old to the new or start again than make 21st century widgits talk to stuff from the 50's
Millions of office weenies with shiny arses and huge salaries meddling in the process from day one....
here's how you do it.
1. work out what you want. - This means I want an interceptor, multirole, aircraft carrier, nuclear powered shoe shiner etc
2. Tell the engineers and designers to leave a bit of space, capability etc for future upgrades and improvements
3. let the build it
4. give them money, take the keys and drive it away.
30% deposit.
20% on reciept
25% on commisioning
15% on final handover post snag fixes
10% at contracted point after all targets met
Then give a bonus if warranted - industry std
and to all those who say it cannot be done - balls. Just because "we have always done it this way" is your mantra doesn't mean it has to stay that way.
Also - stop making new technology backwards compatible - it is cheaper to upgrade the old to the new or start again than make 21st century widgits talk to stuff from the 50's
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Is that a verbatim quote of Fox, or is it journalistic interpretation? Strikes me as an unusual choice of words not least because, as Mick points out, it suggests that none of the ways forward is acceptable.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I understand the detail correctly, HMS QE is probably too far along to be converted until its first major refit, but HMS PoW can be completed with cats'n'traps (which is what the RN - entirely sensibly - wanted all along as far as I can work out). Well, we'll find out next week... S41
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Bristol
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As the two new carriers are the biggest ships the RN have ever had, why cannot they be fitted with conventional steam cat. and arrester gear to operate conventional aircraft and give inter-operabality with our allies? There appears to be plenty of room for an angle deck for landing.
Dixie
bear in mind that the military actually wanted conventioanl take off & landing (with cats & traps) F35s right from the start. BAE & R-R threw their toys out of the pram & persuaded the Minister (Hoon) that British industry was best served with the STOVL version.
Sod the military requirement.
bear in mind that the military actually wanted conventioanl take off & landing (with cats & traps) F35s right from the start. BAE & R-R threw their toys out of the pram & persuaded the Minister (Hoon) that British industry was best served with the STOVL version.
Sod the military requirement.
"...Using QE initially with the Harriers and then equipping the PoW with cat 'n' traps for the F-35C..."
Sounds possible I guess, but depending on when a CATOBAR PoW with F35C would achieve initial operating capability, it would involve running Harrier on for an awfully long time. Is that plausible?
Also even if PoW is the cheaper ship, the currently quoted bill for the two will take account of that. Conversion to cat and trap would send the current figure northwards, and further delay would presumably add more still.
Given Fox's words I'm even more intrigued to see how this particular circle will be squared
Sounds possible I guess, but depending on when a CATOBAR PoW with F35C would achieve initial operating capability, it would involve running Harrier on for an awfully long time. Is that plausible?
Also even if PoW is the cheaper ship, the currently quoted bill for the two will take account of that. Conversion to cat and trap would send the current figure northwards, and further delay would presumably add more still.
Given Fox's words I'm even more intrigued to see how this particular circle will be squared
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frostchamber
Harrier has a theoretical OSD of 2018, which would make it feasible for HMS QE to serve her first commission (2015-18) in the STOVL role and then be converted to CATOBAR for a commission around 2020/21. (What sort of use HMS QE would be with a slack handful of GR9/GR9As on board is beyond me, especially if the LPJ heads back to the 'Stan to replace the GR4s if Tornado gets binned in toto next week...
)
Under this sort of "plan" (and Mr Boffin will shortly pop up to correct me, I hope) HMS PoW could then be complete in 2017/18 to replace it as CATOBAR, either with an early UK Dave-C airgroup, or, depending on what happens with Cameron - Sarkozy in a few weeks' time (see: Anglo-French defence co-operation: Entente or bust | The Economist), conceivably with an Aeronavale airwing, especially if CdG is under overhaul.
And at least Dave-C looks good on the ground and airborne - just looks better to me than Dave-A (and much much better than Dave-B to my eyes) http://www.jsf.mil/video/f35test/10-...ght_B-Roll.wmv .
Just my ill-informed 0.02...
S41
Harrier has a theoretical OSD of 2018, which would make it feasible for HMS QE to serve her first commission (2015-18) in the STOVL role and then be converted to CATOBAR for a commission around 2020/21. (What sort of use HMS QE would be with a slack handful of GR9/GR9As on board is beyond me, especially if the LPJ heads back to the 'Stan to replace the GR4s if Tornado gets binned in toto next week...
)Under this sort of "plan" (and Mr Boffin will shortly pop up to correct me, I hope) HMS PoW could then be complete in 2017/18 to replace it as CATOBAR, either with an early UK Dave-C airgroup, or, depending on what happens with Cameron - Sarkozy in a few weeks' time (see: Anglo-French defence co-operation: Entente or bust | The Economist), conceivably with an Aeronavale airwing, especially if CdG is under overhaul.
And at least Dave-C looks good on the ground and airborne - just looks better to me than Dave-A (and much much better than Dave-B to my eyes) http://www.jsf.mil/video/f35test/10-...ght_B-Roll.wmv .
Just my ill-informed 0.02...
S41
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London
Age: 66
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I understand it both ships are being built with a clear well for the cat to sit in and I doubt they are assembling the flight deck yet so should be no problem for QE to have it fitted if is ordered now. you could at least lay the power in to the well.
As I understand it both ships are being built with a clear well for the cat to sit in and I doubt they are assembling the flight deck yet so should be no problem for QE to have it fitted if is ordered now. you could at least lay the power in to the well.
WillDAQ,
I don't think it would take much to put a steam boiler and reservoir on board.
Electric cat will require a huge amount of electricity if we are talking linear motors and all the lights will go dim when it's used.
You can store an awful lot of energy built up over time with high pressure steam.
I don't think it would take much to put a steam boiler and reservoir on board.
Electric cat will require a huge amount of electricity if we are talking linear motors and all the lights will go dim when it's used.
You can store an awful lot of energy built up over time with high pressure steam.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: crewe
Age: 77
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have the grown ups, figured out. How they will be able to train a fully worked up Flight Deck crew ??? like FDOs,Chockheads,Badgers etc. The knowledge required, is sadly no longer present in todays FAA. Maybe a trip over the pond is on the cards.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
They could always learn the hard way. As they had to initially all those years ago. And in so doing, learn (the hard way) not to let your skills disappear.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"learn not to let your skills disappear"
Give us a break with this nonsense.
Why would we have wasted money for the last 30 years training flight deck crew in CATOBAR operations??
If we get CATOBAR-equipped carriers we are certainly not going to have a problem getting our colonial cousins (and perhaps the French) to get us back up to speed in plenty of time.
Give us a break with this nonsense.
Why would we have wasted money for the last 30 years training flight deck crew in CATOBAR operations??
If we get CATOBAR-equipped carriers we are certainly not going to have a problem getting our colonial cousins (and perhaps the French) to get us back up to speed in plenty of time.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: crewe
Age: 77
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LEARN THE HARD WAY!!! I hope not, its a long way down from the flight deck, to the oggin, some 80ft. Hope they get caught up in the scramble nets, from the downdraught. As there is no SAR Planeguard aircrewman diver, to help out in todays FAA
Cheers Squirrel. It strikes me as a bit ambitious to imagine deploying an airgroup of F35C from PoW in 2018, but we shall see.
As to an Aeronavale airgroup instead - hmm - good to practice, potentially interesting if we needed to do something with them in anger?
As to Tornado geting binned in toto next week, the numbers just wouldn't stack up. I'd be less surprised by another cut in number of sqns and early retirement once all the Phoon sqns are in place (all 5 of them...)
Snr Rduarte - have a sniff of this pretty flower in my buttonhole.
As to an Aeronavale airgroup instead - hmm - good to practice, potentially interesting if we needed to do something with them in anger?
As to Tornado geting binned in toto next week, the numbers just wouldn't stack up. I'd be less surprised by another cut in number of sqns and early retirement once all the Phoon sqns are in place (all 5 of them...)
Snr Rduarte - have a sniff of this pretty flower in my buttonhole.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frost,
I'm sure that 2018 for Dave-C is tight, and that's before we get to the cost of the jets from 2015-onwards. Liam Fox's piece in The Times today is the strongest signal yet that it'll be (tiny numbers) of Dave-C over Dave-B (
- and about time too!), which is why French or American jets could make up a training airwing - indeed, if we're in the area of really odd ideas, we could do worse than to lend it to the USN to use for their training and CV-quals as CVT.
This would release a USN CVN to do something more useful, would train our guys up, and (wait for it) could be based in Mayport, Florida for a couple of years. (Boo-hoo, how tragic!
) I seem to remember that the USN has contract an SSK from Italy (??) to be based on the east coast to provide an SSK target for ASW training, and the US is paying the whole cost - crews, families, running costs, the lot - for 3 years. I doubt it's doable, but this is the sort of idea that the MoD and the Treasury could agree on....
What we need to avoid (unless it's a very, very good deal - a la the Aussie's F-4E lease in the early 70s which was practically free IIRC) is taking F-18s until Dave-C arrives. We can't afford the costs of another tiny fleet, IMHO.
S41
I'm sure that 2018 for Dave-C is tight, and that's before we get to the cost of the jets from 2015-onwards. Liam Fox's piece in The Times today is the strongest signal yet that it'll be (tiny numbers) of Dave-C over Dave-B (
- and about time too!), which is why French or American jets could make up a training airwing - indeed, if we're in the area of really odd ideas, we could do worse than to lend it to the USN to use for their training and CV-quals as CVT. This would release a USN CVN to do something more useful, would train our guys up, and (wait for it) could be based in Mayport, Florida for a couple of years. (Boo-hoo, how tragic!
) I seem to remember that the USN has contract an SSK from Italy (??) to be based on the east coast to provide an SSK target for ASW training, and the US is paying the whole cost - crews, families, running costs, the lot - for 3 years. I doubt it's doable, but this is the sort of idea that the MoD and the Treasury could agree on....What we need to avoid (unless it's a very, very good deal - a la the Aussie's F-4E lease in the early 70s which was practically free IIRC) is taking F-18s until Dave-C arrives. We can't afford the costs of another tiny fleet, IMHO.
S41
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAF fight to save Tornado fighter-bombers
from the guridian:
Full article: RAF fight to save Tornado fighter-bombers | UK news | The Guardian
Air force chiefs were tonight mounting a dramatic fight to save the RAF's fleet of ageing Tornado fighter-bombers in a last-minute move that could have a significant impact on the strategic security and defence review to be revealed on Tuesday, according to government officials.
The intensity of negotiations were also thrown into relief when the RAF suggested axing the Harrier squadrons now shared with the navy. This would leave a huge question over the future of the first of the two aircraft carriers which ministers this week finally agreed should be built.
If the Harriers fall victim to the Tornados, there may be no suitable aircraft available to fly from the first carrier, the Queen Elizabeth, which is due to enter service in 2016. The alternative – expensive, US F35 Joint Strike Fighters – will not be ready in time, leaving the navy with the prospect of a large new carrier equipped only with helicopters.
The intensity of negotiations were also thrown into relief when the RAF suggested axing the Harrier squadrons now shared with the navy. This would leave a huge question over the future of the first of the two aircraft carriers which ministers this week finally agreed should be built.
If the Harriers fall victim to the Tornados, there may be no suitable aircraft available to fly from the first carrier, the Queen Elizabeth, which is due to enter service in 2016. The alternative – expensive, US F35 Joint Strike Fighters – will not be ready in time, leaving the navy with the prospect of a large new carrier equipped only with helicopters.