Public Accounts C'tee: Carrier Strike: The 2012 Reversion Decision

#1
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmpubacc/113/113.pdf

"Summary

In October 2010, the Ministry of Defence (the Department) decided on the basis of deeply flawed information to change the type of aircraft to be flown from the two aircraft carriers under construction for the Carrier Strike programme. In 2012, when the Department realised that this decision would result in additional costs and delay, it decided to revert to the original choice of aircraft. Despite this change of mind, the Department still faces major challenges to the affordability of the Carrier Strike programme, particularly with the uncontrolled cost growth in the aircraft and carriers, and the misalignment of essential capabilities such as the radar system needed to protect the carriers. In addition, the Department might not have the skills or capability to manage the programme despite having some 400 staff working on it."
 
Last edited:

Purple_twiglet

War Hero
Moderator
#6
Interesting to note in the depths of the report that while its made out 400 civil servants are running it and screwing things up, 250 of the team are actually military personnel.

Read the full report and it becomes clear that the MPs are pushing an agenda and not listening in depth to the answers they were given.
 
#8
But if you go back in time PT .....Rear Admiral Amajad Hussain and the PUS Ursula Brennan , were making the decisions and calling the shots!!!! Her salary was more than Dave C.....and she has since had a sideways move, no doubt keeping her salary in tack, not sure what Amajad is now doing, you might be able to enlighten me?
 
#9
OK .. slightly confused here not knowing anything about STOVL vs Cat/Trap. I understand that since we shot shot of our Cat/Trap aircraft (I presume Buccs and Phantoms) and moved over to Harriers then someone tossed away the manual and henceforth we cannot learn the process again - yet other NATO member stats use cat/trap e.g. Uncle Sam and the Frogs therefore presumably we could use their expertise and learn it from them?? Or is that not joined up thinking??? I thought that was what we were doing anyway!

If we use STOVL then if I read the report correctly ... its going to cost £74M more ... but is that just for the aircraft or does that include the change to the carrier fit i.e. fitting cat/traps as well???

Whats confusing me is that if we fit cats/traps could we not use any cat/trap aircraft (presumably with the capabilities of the deck length in mind) if so why do we have to wait until 2020 for the aircraft to be ready???
 

CrashCrew

Lantern Swinger
#10
Mg we actually have a couple of teams of Handlers from the uk working/learning how to operate cat & trap decks with the Spams now. Somebody somewhere must have a little foresight.........
 

cjg375

Lantern Swinger
#12
The problem isn't relearning how to do cat/trap aviation, which you are right we could go to the frogs or yanks to do. It's the fact that we've spent the last umpteen years moving the RN away from having an steam systems onboard. Traditional cats and taps need a shed load of steam which the yanks have in abundance from their nuclear plants. Our design for the CVF doesn't. They thought electromagnetic systems might work but the technology is not advanced enough yet or really proven. Our politicians made the decision without asking people in the know then had to reverse it when it all proved to be a pipe dream.


Posted from the Navy Net mobile app (Android / iOS)
 

sgtpepperband

War Hero
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#14
A fantastic article, worthy of inclusion in its entirety:

Britannia rules the ...oh.

Allow me to draw you a picture.

It is a picture of a ship. It is a big ship, designed to strike fear into the hearts of enemies and provide succour for those in need.

It is a ship that was first thought of about 12 years ago, when it was decided our existing ships were knocking on a bit and would need replacing.

The first thing we thought we would put on the ship was some aircraft, as they would make the ship more fearsome and the wars we were likely to fight in the future would probably involve places where we didn't have any handy land bases.

We agreed to build some whizzy fighter jets with our friends the Americans, and they would be capable of taking off on a ski ramp at the end of the ship and landing vertically.

The ship would last for 50 years, we predicted, and might one day have more modern planes than the ones we were building and which would take off and land using hi-tech elastic bands. So the ship would need to be able to cope with both kinds of aircraft.

What an amazing ship that would be.


After four years of faffing about we announced we would definitely build the new ship. In fact, we could afford to have two, which would cost a total of £3.9billion. Two really big, advanced, fearsome, useful ships which would last 50 years, for less than two billion each. Not a bad deal, all told, and it would be ruling the waves by 2018.

TWO AMAZING SHIPS!

We decided how big the ships should be, and how many aircraft they should take, with the help of our American friends who told us what they'd find most useful.

Then we set to, and the ships began to be built at dockyards around the country. We handed out contracts for air traffic control software (£5m), desalination equipment (£1m), and lots of steel (£65m). It gave work to 10,000 people from 90 companies and six shipyards.

Then in 2009 some of the military began to worry if we had the right kind of plane. A year later there was a change of government and the new one felt the old plans were too expensive. They decided we didn't need two ships and that we would put one of them into storage, to be used only in emergencies or for holiday cover. Then they decided we had the wrong planes all along and we needed to have different ones.

One slightly less amazing ship. Hmm.

And because the ships had been designed, from scratch, to provide a sea base for a certain kind of plane, changing the planes would mean changing quite a lot of the ship.

The new government was in a rush and came up with this idea only at the very end of the 2010 Strategic Defence Review, so the officials asked to come up with a cost for it had no time to check their sums. The whole thing was discussed in secret at a committee chaired by the Prime Minister, which meant that people who might want to pipe up didn't get the chance.


So they told the government that entirely redesigning the two biggest warships this nation had ever constructed would cost a mere £800m, and the government thought it was a jolly good idea in order to save money and improve the things the ship could do.

An amazing ship again! Hurrah!

The government did not stop to ask itself, at any point, if £800m didn't sound a bit low to rip out two ski jumps, reconfigure two landing decks, install some big rubber bands and buy a whole new load of bombing accessories from the Americans. It also forgot to include VAT and inflation.



It took 18 months before the government realised it would cost £2bn and would mean we couldn't use the ship until 2023. It was all very embarrassing, so we changed the plans back to what they were originally.

Um. Ships! Hooray!

In the meantime, the planes we wanted to land vertically had been delayed and would not be ready until 2020. We had also just given away our last lot of vertically-landing planes, thinking we didn't need them.

The faffing about had also cost us £74m - almost a whole Gareth Bale, or enough to pay for eight Olympic-sized swimming pools each filled with 13m bags of Skittles. It might even be more.

On top of that, a radar early-warning system for use in the ship's helicopters has been delayed and won't be working until 2022. This will stop the ship going to some places, and mean we have to rely on the French and Americans for help.

As an extra problem, we have yet to sort out the costs of maintenance contracts to run the whole thing when it's launched.

The total cost is now £5.9bn, and according to their contracts the companies working on it are allowed to overspend by a further £2.5bn before incurring penalties.

Because it's now so expensive, we cannot afford to update or replace the frigates, destroyers, submarines, aircraft, supply vessels and minesweepers which the big amazing ship will be relying on and which will be 30 years old by the time she gets to sea.

And even though in order to save money we need to use both ships with the original aircraft to help balance the budget, we're still planning to mothball one of them and barely, if ever, use it.

There are 400 people paid to oversee the whole thing in the Ministry of Defence who might not have the right skills and be wasting their time in "bureaucracy and duplicated effort".

The ship launches next year, with sea trials scheduled for 2017.

So what's the picture we've got here? Two of the biggest ships we've ever built, one of which we never intend to use, costing us 150% of the original estimate and probably more.

They won't have any planes, and they won't have radar to keep them safe, for two years after they could have started work. The contracts to build them are a licence to print money and the people overseeing the whole thing don't know what they're doing.

To add insult to injury we scrapped our penultimate aircraft carrier two years ago for a mere £3m and are sending the last one - a rickety bucket of bolts that's 35 years old - to Syria in a laughable effort at making a dictator think that we're hard, and we're scrapping her anyway in the next 12 months.

It will be another eight years, at least, before we have anything to replace her.

Stand back for a moment. Squint. Put your head on one side. Does that look like an omnishambles of epic proportions to you?

It's taken 12 years to inflate our costs, hogtie the Royal Navy and fart about while achieving the square root of naff all except exposing the vast incompetence at the heart of the system that runs the bloody place.

Yet when HMS Illustrious - our final carrier - was built, it took a mere two years from order to launch and another four for active service. What's gone so horrendously wrong that it now takes six times as long?

Well, constant cutbacks and the death of the shipbuilding industry probably don't help, but there's little we can do about them. What we could do is put an accountant in charge of the Ministry of Defence and get them to go through the invoices. I'll bet you a fiver they find we're being charged for £10,000 spanners and a squillon-dollars-worth of consultants.

Then we could ban politicians from farting around with our defence, and accept that, as a nation, we're always going to want two aircraft carriers, a dozen frigates and destroyers, and at least six submarines. When one wears out we replace it and sod what the Lib Dems say.

More importantly we could end the meaningless kerfuffle of Strategic Defence Reviews which are aimed only at cutting costs while pretending all future wars will somehow be different to the last ones. They're not. Wars are all the damned same - inhospitable people in inhospitable places doing inhospitable things to one another.

Lastly, we're going to need to keep our fingers and everything else crossed that the rest of the world is nicely behaved between now and 2022.


Will you tell or them or shall I?​



[Source: Fleet Street Fox] fleet street fox: Britannia rules the ...oh.
 

cjg375

Lantern Swinger
#15
Gerald Ford class carriers are having EMALs fitted!!!!
They did the first test launches in Dec 2010. By that point the first carrier was at a point where to fit EMALs would have caused massive delays and that's what would have cost the huge amounts extra. It's a very new technology and although the yanks seem to have it working there's no guarantee they'd have sold us it so we might have needed to develop it ourselves. Maybe a task for Qinetiq? Oh no. Thats right. We sold that off. However to return to my point there wasn't enough time to retrofit the QE with EMALs which have not been fully proven at sea and could still have massive problems once in service (we all know how we'll new technology normally works when first fitted) if the decision was made in 2010. The yanks obviously decided much earlier as USS Gerald Ford was started in 2007 and designed to have EMALs from the start.


Posted from the Navy Net mobile app (Android / iOS)
 

Similar threads