Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by soleil, Apr 28, 2011.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
BBC News - Aircraft carriers cost rises by at least Â£1bn
Changing your mind costs you - if we'd done this properly from the off they would have kept the budget down....
I think this is the cost of adding cats and traps. Latest rumour is that both will be fitted with the EMAG catapaults. Gives us the option of launching UAVs with the US carriers cannot at this moment.
Now all we need is the plethra of aircraft like Hawkeye, F35C, AWACS, SAR etc.....
Altering the design, at this stage does add costs, BUT the most significant uplift (as was predicted at the time) comes from delaying the work programme. This was fully costed and accepted as a consequence of the decision to delay the build.
This is a non-story that will sadly reopen the whole carrier debate debacle.
For interest at the moment (unless I missed it) we are still faffing over the choice of EMALS or a UK variant instead of conventional steam catapults as they will be too difficult and costly the build, plus are 50s technology.
Just to add to your above WD . When i visited the Alliance Carrier Build Marque at Greenwich last year , for the FAA 100yr Celebration. I asked the Grown ups about cat and traps and AEW Capability. To be told with , we dont need them, as we have a ramp and all aircraft will be VSTOL, and AEW will be provided by the Sea Kings!!!! Im thinking what a cock.
My RN colleagues and I argued for a 'Cat & Trap' CVF right from the start. If your replacement carrier is going to be that big, you might as well exploit its size by having more capable CTOL (Conventional Take-Off and Landing) aircraft on it. However, the RAF lobbied for a STOVL (Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing) version of JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) to replace its Harriers for Cold War operations from autobahns, forest clearings and other makeshift FOBs (Forward Operating Bases) in Germany. The USMC also needed the STOVL version of JSF to replace the Harrier AV-8Bs on its mini-carriers.
Having taken into account the RAF's demands, the 'special relationship' and economies of scale supposedly available as a result, the Government (MoD) opted for the increasingly more costly F-35B Lightning II. This meant a STOVL version of CVF even though its design still included the option of conversion to CTOL.
After the RAF's requirement for a STOVL aircraft lapsed (viz the early retirement of Harrier GR9s), a CATOBAR (Catapult-Assisted Take-Off But Arrested Recovery) version of the Queen Elizabeth class carriers was back on the cards. The original cost of this has never been in question. Unfortunately, successive government delays, deferments and changes in specification have added billions to the project in the interim and the rest is history.
P.S. One possible saving grace is that the purchase of CTOL aircraft (either the 5th Generation F-35C or the much cheaper, well-proven 4.5 Generation F/A-18E/F Super Hornet) is likely to be at least £1bn cheaper than buying the much more costly F-35B STOVL variants. However, with the RAF's jaws now locked so tightly onto the land-constrained Eurofighter Typhoon to the exclusion of all else, it's anyone's guess as to what will happen next.
just watched this on the BBC News, and the phrase 'why do we need aircraft carriers, we are doing ok without them..' i knew that this would be brought up as soon as the government binned the Ark... sadly this country could end up paying the cost of the Governments stupidity...
Separate names with a comma.