Another contract goes over budget

pg55555

Lantern Swinger
#4
I am a great supporter of the Queen Elizabeths, but I am afraid they will now never be built.

Not only is this he wrong time for such an announcement, but there was a decade of project planning, definition and budget clarification which has, seemingly, just gone up in smoke.

If the report is true, there is no way that the carriers will be built.

BAE and/or the Project team have just scuppered the project.

.
 
#5
pg55555 said:
I am a great supporter of the Queen Elizabeths, but I am afraid they will now never be built.

Not only is this he wrong time for such an announcement, but there was a decade of project planning, definition and budget clarification which has, seemingly, just gone up in smoke.

If the report is true, there is no way that the carriers will be built.

BAE and/or the Project team have just scuppered the project.

.
I agree with you :cry: :cry: dont even think we will get 2 through deck cruiser as compensation :cry: :cry:
 
#7
If we don't get them the army and air force will be laughing their behinds off and the Royal Navy will be an irrelevance.

Might do us a favour though, if we just do APT(N) and SNMG2 with the FDPA and Gulf deployments we'll take loads of pressure off what's left of the "fleet" (more like a flotilla) and when the powers that be ask us to do something, like say recapture the Falklands, just tell them it's impossible. Perhaps we could become more like the RAF and spend 75% of our time in the UK.
 
#8
Here is a statement by Babcock, one of the members of the Aircraft Carrier Alliance:

"The increase in cost of the Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers is a direct result of the Equipment Examination review carried out by the MoD earlier this year. The review sought to balance the spend profile on major defence projects over the next few years and in the case of the new carriers it was decided to extend the length of time taken to complete the build programme. This has the effect of reducing the spend in the next four year period but will result in an increase in the overall cost of the project."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/

Reminds me of purchasing your shopping on an expensive store card...
 
#9
I say again

They will be built.

Too far along in production, too many jobs in Labour heartlands. This is once more a Journo lacking something to write about and jumping on the (by now massive) the-current-government-are-crap-and-are-going-to-wreck-the-country-in-(insert possible way here, includng and not limited to immigration, defense, NHS, schools, banking, ad infinitum)

Now what we should be worried about is the JSF - it's all very well having two 60,000 ton carriers, but they will be bugger all use if all we have to fly off them are a few knackered clapped out Harriers
 
#10
WhizzbangDai said:
I say again

They will be built.

Too far along in production, too many jobs in Labour heartlands. This is once more a Journo lacking something to write about and jumping on the (by now massive) the-current-government-are-crap-and-are-going-to-wreck-the-country-in-(insert possible way here, includng and not limited to immigration, defense, NHS, schools, banking, ad infinitum)

Now what we should be worried about is the JSF - it's all very well having two 60,000 ton carriers, but they will be bugger all use if all we have to fly off them are a few knackered clapped out Harriers
Spot on about JSF but not sure I agree about CVF. Peston can be an arse, but defence isn't his usual oeuvre. Ultimately he's got hold of an internal memo which states explicitly that they think they have a fight on their hands to save the carriers. The cost overrun notwithstanding this was always going to be a problem - the next government will be here sooner rather than later and frankly they don't give a toss about jobs in Labour heartlands.

The Conservatives won't commit themselves to the carriers and are becoming more equivocal about Trident. The other issue is of course if CVF isn't built then T45 is basically pointless; no point having an AAW destroyer if it has no capital ships to defend (unless they are simply going to look after Albion, Bulwark and the Bay class).
 

mophead

Lantern Swinger
#11
Good old MoD strikes again,how can you keep in budget when the customer keeps changing his mind?
The chances of ever seeing the carriers built is,I believe,remote.
Goernments do not like having to spend on Defense,as it is an expensive non vote winning and publicly unpopular Ministry
 
#12
HMS Queen ELizabeth - more like HMS utterly austere specification - will be built, she will replace Ocean so some Harriers and lots of Helos will fit the bill, no F-35's need apply.

HMS PoW, the one that's suppossed to have all the gucchi things like EMALS factored in will never be built IMO.
 
#13
The moment John Hutton told the house that the in-service date was going to be delayed, but the start date held (ie pretty much the same number of people working for longer) this was obviously going to happen. As the Babcocks release notes, pretty much all is down to the stretch to the programme - funnily enough the French suffered a similar effect on Charles de Gaulle which was in build for something like 12 yrs IIRC.
 
#15
mophead said:
.....the customer keeps changing his mind?.....
That would be Navy Command AKA Fleet...

But I would agree, notwithstanding the recent increases in the cost of capital, and accounting treatment as a result of the banking meltdown, a lot of the cost increase is down to the persistent delays in approval from the centre and treasury as well as routine indecision in Whale Island.
 

Allnightin

Lantern Swinger
#16
Karma said:
mophead said:
.....the customer keeps changing his mind?.....
That would be Navy Command AKA Fleet...

But I would agree, notwithstanding the recent increases in the cost of capital, and accounting treatment as a result of the banking meltdown, a lot of the cost increase is down to the persistent delays in approval from the centre and treasury as well as routine indecision in Whale Island.
Unless you can offer a specific example of FLEET insisting on a change to the CVF spec recently that the Carrier Alliance accepted (and I think that extremely unlikely) I think you will find that the budget issues are all to do with the essentially political decision within central government to stretch out the programme "to re-align the CVF and JSF programmes" which was a complete feed of chutney given that QE wasn't going to be operating JSF on initial commissioning.
 
#17
Allnightin said:
Unless you can offer a specific example of FLEET insisting on a change to the CVF spec recently that the Carrier Alliance accepted (and I think that extremely unlikely) I think you will find that the budget issues are all to do with the essentially political decision within central government to stretch out the programme "to re-align the CVF and JSF programmes" which was a complete feed of chutney given that QE wasn't going to be operating JSF on initial commissioning.
The response was to Mopheads rather simplistic suggestion that it was entirely the centre at fault. I do know from bitter experience that the lack of decision making at Fleet probably extended the length of the project quite considerably. I spent about 4 years in jobs that had an insight into the Fleet indecision process, and in that time I would say that around 12 months of delay was injected there.

One of the consequences of that was that the price of certain systems increased by around 30 percent because the UK decision cycle led to delays in other decision cycles, or bridged a decision point leading to a significant risk loading being included in the cost.

Whilst these experiences may not be specifically related to the current increase it would be somewhat disingenuous to suggest that the denizens of Whale Island (past and present) are blameless in the broader sense.
 
#18
pg55555 said:
BAE and/or the Project team have just scuppered the project.
I think you might find it has been pressure from the Treasury on the bean counters. You don't re-profile the programme cash commitments (ie delay)without incurring significant overheads. Buying the steel at the top of the commodities market can't have helped very much, either. Add to this all the expense that went into trying to involve the French in the programme.
 
#19
Passed-over_Loggie said:
pg55555 said:
BAE and/or the Project team have just scuppered the project.
I think you might find it has been pressure from the Treasury on the bean counters. You don't re-profile the programme cash commitments (ie delay)without incurring significant overheads. Buying the steel at the top of the commodities market can't have helped very much, either. Add to this all the expense that went into trying to involve the French in the programme.
Indeed, it is a trifle sad to see that the MOD in their wisdom have convinced so many in the services that any equipment failing or cock up must be the contractors fault when all so often the heart of the matter is poor descisions within the MOD /political system.

At the very heart of the matter lies our polititians who seem to have the inate ability to screw any procurement up whether it is a major national prestige affair like the Olympics, or the millenium dome or simply military procurement. If one adds to that the ineptitude of the civil service when it comes to anything that has anything to do with money and value for money it is little surprise so many things get really c*cked up. I know there are chaops in various coloured uniforms in there too, but I suspect that they have far less freedom of action than the serpentry or polititians.
 
#20
Bet that Model i saw in the " Aircraft Carrier Alliance " Marquee at Greenwich, is the only CVF that the RN will ever see :cry: :cry: :cry: Quote :oops: Proudly delivering the nations flagship through a high-performing alliance between industry and the MoD :roll: :roll:
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads