2 carrier contracts awarded.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2 carrier contracts awarded.
BBC News - Figures reveal cost of new aircraft carriers decision
<<Contracts worth about £1.25bn have been awarded for building two aircraft carriers even though the project may not go ahead, figures have revealed. HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales are due to launch in 2016 and 2018 respectively.>>
Perhaps, to keep it all nice and fair, one of 'em could be called RAF Prince of Wales.
<<Contracts worth about £1.25bn have been awarded for building two aircraft carriers even though the project may not go ahead, figures have revealed. HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales are due to launch in 2016 and 2018 respectively.>>
Perhaps, to keep it all nice and fair, one of 'em could be called RAF Prince of Wales.
The moment that the Carriers were confirmed, every possible contract was signed withing 24 hours. No point hanging around, plus it made them much harder to cancel.
I do wonder if the BBC has any commercial sense at all; why would these contracts not be signed?!
I do wonder if the BBC has any commercial sense at all; why would these contracts not be signed?!
The point that is often missed about the contracts is that the "confirmation" process - essentially a succession of SofS & MinDefs arguing within MB and with the Treasury - took so long the price continually rose. The best example being when the ISDs were slipped by a couple of years with no change to start date or reduction in people on the project something north of £800m was added to cost, purely to stay within near-term budget DELs, which is just plain barking. How much time and effort do you think has been spent by DE&S and industry waiting for MB to sh1t or get off the pot? I know one bloke who's been in the IPT or Alliance since 1998! The amount of the "£5Bn" spent on staffing, concept and assessment phase "studies", constituting and reconstituting IPTs is I suspect somewhere north of £400M over the twelve years we have spent faffing about.
Industry has also been waiting for this but has contracted to a point where it's now or never. The exam question remains - do we need maritime air (not can we afford it) or not? If the answer is no, then we don't actually need a Navy capable of going outside territorial waters. Nor do we need "global" capabilities for the RAF or Army either, so no Amphibs, DD/FF, SSN, AT (strat or tac), strike, armour, ISTAR - perhaps other than E3D, just AD, MCMV (and minelaying) and loads of AH?
If we do need maritime air - strike, sea control (and some form of AD), then the price we have to pay is what's on the table, because one thing is for sure (whatever the small ship fantasists say), two ships will not, ever, however small you make them, get cheaper than what is on offer now. One can play games with the airwing costs (and people will do), but the overall cost diff is unlikely to be significant over the life of the vessel. Canning Dave (of whatever variant) for F18 will save near-term cost, but will need a replacement sooner fifteen, twenty years hence.
The FoI request unsurprisingly comes from the Dunfermline MP, just more of the lobbying until mid Oct...........
Industry has also been waiting for this but has contracted to a point where it's now or never. The exam question remains - do we need maritime air (not can we afford it) or not? If the answer is no, then we don't actually need a Navy capable of going outside territorial waters. Nor do we need "global" capabilities for the RAF or Army either, so no Amphibs, DD/FF, SSN, AT (strat or tac), strike, armour, ISTAR - perhaps other than E3D, just AD, MCMV (and minelaying) and loads of AH?
If we do need maritime air - strike, sea control (and some form of AD), then the price we have to pay is what's on the table, because one thing is for sure (whatever the small ship fantasists say), two ships will not, ever, however small you make them, get cheaper than what is on offer now. One can play games with the airwing costs (and people will do), but the overall cost diff is unlikely to be significant over the life of the vessel. Canning Dave (of whatever variant) for F18 will save near-term cost, but will need a replacement sooner fifteen, twenty years hence.
The FoI request unsurprisingly comes from the Dunfermline MP, just more of the lobbying until mid Oct...........
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In answer to your "exam Question"? air power can be provided from land bases (host nation support) in the majority of what if scenarios that will be on the table at MOD, it is all down to how much risk they are willing to take on the few cases that aren't covered.
Stating that we don't need carriers then we don't need anything else is rubbish, how many nations cope quite well without?
Stating that we don't need carriers then we don't need anything else is rubbish, how many nations cope quite well without?
Last edited by Ivan Rogov; 12th Sep 2010 at 19:24.
Sigh!!!!!!!
It is not JUST about flying aircraft from a platform. It is about all the other Defence tasks including Defence Diplomacy, Support to civil and military communities, projection of UK industry, protection of overseas territories and the resources they hold, persistence, poise, presence, all of which cannot be done with 7000 ft of tarmac. CVF is not just about Air Defence or dropping bombs, the platform has much more utility than that.
It is not JUST about flying aircraft from a platform. It is about all the other Defence tasks including Defence Diplomacy, Support to civil and military communities, projection of UK industry, protection of overseas territories and the resources they hold, persistence, poise, presence, all of which cannot be done with 7000 ft of tarmac. CVF is not just about Air Defence or dropping bombs, the platform has much more utility than that.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,037
Received 2,912 Likes
on
1,247 Posts
Perhaps, to keep it all nice and fair, one of 'em could be called RAF Prince of Wales.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
air power can be provided from land bases (host nation support) in the majority of what if scenarios that will be on the table at MOD
I suspect you are 180deg out on this. Given the known unpopularity of the US and UK in their expeditionary warfare I suspect HNS in future wars will be even less likely in the early days of diplomacy failure....this is exactly where the CV comes into its own - both the US and (to a much smaller extent) the UK found this to be the case in Afgh.
It is interesting to note that in virtually every conflict since WW2 carrier based air has been needed and where it has been absent the UK has had difficulty in the early days of that conflict (particularly with negotiations for HNS).
The QE Class represent a very low risk option for HMG which is why they will not be cancelled.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: SW England
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In terms of support to authorities, the US sent carriers loaded with helicopters in support of Katrina and to Indonesia post the Tsunami, the Italians did the same in response to the Haiti earthquake. This is only one aspect of the carrier equation, another part being the old adage of 90,000 tons of diplomacy!
Principally the raw materials to build the carriers were bought about 5 years ago, due to the perceived worldwide shortage of steel that India and China were hoovering up. About 60,000 tons of steel were bought as I recall.
Too much money has been invested to cancel both carriers, more likely only sufficient aircraft will be procured to equip a single air wing thus leaving the other carrier empty except for rotary wing assets and the odd refit.
Principally the raw materials to build the carriers were bought about 5 years ago, due to the perceived worldwide shortage of steel that India and China were hoovering up. About 60,000 tons of steel were bought as I recall.
Too much money has been invested to cancel both carriers, more likely only sufficient aircraft will be procured to equip a single air wing thus leaving the other carrier empty except for rotary wing assets and the odd refit.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Widger is absolutely correct. Having Aircraft carriers is not about having the ability to move your airfield. Its all about power projection and any Government that decides against power projection is committing political suicide.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,037
Received 2,912 Likes
on
1,247 Posts
According to BBC the contracts are signed, but they are still pending the review which could cancel them.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gen Sir Richard Dannatt's recollections of the decision to procure the two carriers are most interesting.
The final decision to emerge from the Defence Review, which popped up at almost the last moment, was to procure two new aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy. The purpose was to provide air cover over deployed land forces. Of course, as an Army person I was delighted by this, but somewhat puzzled by the lack of debate as to whether such air cover was best provided by aircraft launched from carriers at sea or otherwise launched from friendly land airbases with range extended by air-to-air refuelling where necessary. But the aircraft-carrier decision was brilliant news in public terms and very clever in political terms.
By announcing that the two vessels would come into service in 2012 and 2014, the New Labour government could take all the credit for a very visionary statement of national resolve and intent without the near- to medium-term worries about funding the project. In any event, the decision created great headlines at the time. The implications for the rest of defence, and perhaps other parts of the Royal Navy, would be felt later.
By announcing that the two vessels would come into service in 2012 and 2014, the New Labour government could take all the credit for a very visionary statement of national resolve and intent without the near- to medium-term worries about funding the project. In any event, the decision created great headlines at the time. The implications for the rest of defence, and perhaps other parts of the Royal Navy, would be felt later.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by vecvechookattack
any Government that decides against power projection is committing political suicide.
Is it? ..
Indeed, if the RN is to be re-organised as a costal defence force, the RAF to loose it's Strike capability, and the British Army to be emasculated, would any of the current population actually give a flying "F" as they see the impending implosion of both the public sector and the benefits system??
Originally Posted by vecvechookattack
any Government that decides against power projection is committing political suicide.
Is it? ..
Indeed, if the RN is to be re-organised as a costal defence force, the RAF to loose it's Strike capability, and the British Army to be emasculated, would any of the current population actually give a flying "F" as they see the impending implosion of both the public sector and the benefits system??
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Southampton
Age: 54
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
General Dannatt does seem to suffer selective amnesia, he says the army was deprived of funds to pay for the carriers, and yet he forgets that the RN sacrificed it's Shar force, delayed the ISD of the CVFs by several years and dropped six T45s to pay for the Pongo's trip to the 'Stan... The picture he paints is very biased. The light blue have also gone without for the same reasons in favour of the Army so let's read his whining with a little more balance?
to pay for the Pongo's trip to the 'Stan...
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bismarck is of course absolutely correct. If this Government wants to intimidate other nations then it needs Aircraft Carriers. If this Government wants to implement its foreign policy by use of force then it needs Aircraft carriers. They are a low risk option and of course they are needed by all of our Armed Forces not just the RN.
They are a low risk option
This is fine if we end up retaking the Falklands in 5 years (in which case the financial cost is justified - hence why I broadly agree with you), but if the government has no appetite for foreign adventures, as it seems, then they run the risk of being a huge financial white elephant.
That is a political, as well as financial risk.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Southampton
Age: 54
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
"I don't think the Army pick their wars. To suggest otherwise shows a lack of understanding with regard to the fundamentals of defence. It also exposes a huge chip on your shoulder."
Not at all. I never suggested they pick and choose their wars. I was refuting Dannatt's assertion that only the Army was suffering cuts to it's frontline, and this was purely to fund the Navy, when in fact the Navy had taken a lot of pain to fund the Army. It's the politicians who are ultimately to blame, and inter service mud slinging is exactly what the politicians want. I want all three armed services properly funded, not just one as the General seems to.
"I don't think the Army pick their wars. To suggest otherwise shows a lack of understanding with regard to the fundamentals of defence. It also exposes a huge chip on your shoulder."
Not at all. I never suggested they pick and choose their wars. I was refuting Dannatt's assertion that only the Army was suffering cuts to it's frontline, and this was purely to fund the Navy, when in fact the Navy had taken a lot of pain to fund the Army. It's the politicians who are ultimately to blame, and inter service mud slinging is exactly what the politicians want. I want all three armed services properly funded, not just one as the General seems to.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From a financial perspective, they are a huge risk. They will suck up huge amounts of funding, both in outlay and running costs.