Telegraph: "Cost Of Refitting Royal Navy Aircraft Carrier Trebles"

Discussion in 'The Fleet' started by soleil, Mar 12, 2012.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. The entire saga is pitiful in the extreme. It makes sad reading, woul d have been better to have sold the Ark to the US and then rented it back off them with some of the harriers. Or we could get the Chinese to build one or two at a knock down price. What a total cock up!
     
  2. maybe they will go back to the B variant..
     
  3. Pull up the drawbridge and attend to our own business, we are not a major military power and should stop acting as though we were.
     
  4. There's a good chance that I'm talking nonsense but I seem to remember reading something a few years back saying that CVF was designed to allow cats and traps to be retrofitted fairly easily should the need arise. If that's the case why is it proving to be such a problem? Is it cos I'm talking a load of old arse?
     
  5. No, you're right, they however, where lying.
     
  6. I love it when that happens
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Pity is doesn't happen more often then! Don't you ever think on why that is? ;)
     
  8. silverfox

    silverfox War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    We just can't afford single service vanities anymore. The RAF mortgaged everything to get Typhoon and while it is an extremely capable platform, we no longer require air parity over western Germany. They could have bought off the shelf to achieve the same effect now and spent the change in areas that they should really be concentrating such as strategic transport and tactical battlefield lift. But whilst the top jobs in the RAF are only open to fighter pilots, this kind of change in vision is never going to happen.

    Likewise in our service - the powers that be hark back to the days of the old Ark etc and see the CVF as re establishing naval prominence. Just not appropriate anymore and we have taken part in at least one campaign without the use of organic fixed wing. Its lovely to have, don't get me wrong, but we don't seem to be equipping to likely missions.

    It is a great shame that at a time when cooperation and understanding between the three services is greater than it has ever been at junior/middle management levels, that the top floor are still stuck in the tribal wars of the 70's/80's. And the lack of coordinated approach allows the Treasury to play all ends against the middle. I will be interested to see how the creation of the 4* Joint Force Commander as the overall enabler helps to combat these entrenched views, a banging of heads at an appropriately starred level is long overdue in my opinion....
     
  9. I suppose the powers-that-be see the CVFs as power projection in a future world where we have to fight for acess to mineral resources. It was in the past and such are the causes of war.

    The dreadnought fleet was paid for by the empire, over which the fleet protected. It was sorta chicken and egg thing: we needed a fleet to protect the empire (read as trade routes), the empire paid for the ships to protect it. Since we don't have the empire anymore, we don't need the fleet or have the money for the ships.

    1st and 2nd world wars were caused by Germanys threat to encroach on established commerial areas, indeed, at one point early in the 20 century we had plans to fight with america. Again, saw as a commercial competitor/threat.

    Am I right? partly right? or talking bollocks?

    This future world: China is building a CVF fleet! Such a fleet has only one purpose.
     
  10. It sounds like the R&D, Testing and Acquisition system in place in the UK isn't any different than the United States. We are on the same downward slide that you fellows on the other side of the Atlantic have been dealing with since the end of the cold war. We (as in the UK and USA) have put way too much stock in technology and it has really bitten us hard. I could go on and list the numerous weapon systems that cost billions and don't really deliver the capability, longevity, robustness and utility that they promised. I will say that because it is relevant to both nations that the F-35 is not worth the money, but we are so far into it that we pretty much have to follow through with the damned thing. And, much of that is because of politics and as a boost to local economies where components are being built.
    I don't know what the future holds, but it is going to be one with a much leaner and in my opinion less capable military. The Royal Navy has a very strong tradition of fighting spirit, valor and downright guts that is the basis of how almost EVERY Navy in the world has operated since the early 19th century. Speaking for myself as a former sailor, I have the highest respect and admiration for the Royal Navy.
     
  11. Warning! Warning! Warning!
     
  12. Seaweed

    Seaweed War Hero Book Reviewer

    I do wonder how many of those who are being sent for cross-training will still be serving when their skills are actually needed. Do they have to sign some sort of return-of-service chit?
     
  13. I understand from the article that the shortfall is roughly £300m per year. Perhaps we could delay JSF orders (£90m each) and lease some F18's?

    The carrier saga has been badly managed but they are a fantastic joint asset. So much of our energy depends on strategic choke points we need some degree of sovereign capability.





     
  14. I thought something similar. It's just a junket, with all these wafus sat around doing not much for 8 or 9 years along comes some jollies. Now I could see the (flawed) logic of sending a couple of pilots but 200!! Nice to see spending well in check in woo land.
     
  15. The inability of MoD to cost defence projects independently (as opposed to using contractor prices only) is what is being exposed here. The hardware cost of the US EMALS and AAG systems are available here on pages 38 and 40 of the FY13 budget. http://www.finance.hq.navy.mil/fmb/13pres/SCN_BOOK.pdf Essentially, the hardware for a four cat EMALS shipset costs US$780M (£520M), with another $US70M (£50M) in technical and engineering support. So for a two-cat system, you'd suspect that £300M for the hardware might just cover it, plus say £50M to £100M to integrate into QEC power management system and install the hardware on the ship. The AAG system is about £120M hardware, plus £20M engineering support. You're looking at a total then of between £550M to £600M for the first ship, with a lesser figure if you wanted to do QE.This is nothing like the £1.8Bn being bandied around in the press. Someone, somewhere (and it may be inside the MoD) is taking the p1ss and no-one appears able to pose a simple question - "here are the actual numbers the US are using, where the f8ck are you getting this £1.8Bn b8llocks from?"Intelligent customer? I think the MoD is currently heading towards the status of "jar-dwelling" customer at present........
     
  16. janner

    janner War Hero Book Reviewer

    Would now be a good time to suggest a strong piece of elastic and a winch?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. wave_dodger

    wave_dodger War Hero Book Reviewer

    The costs you've just plucked from the ether appear to cover simple up front hardware purchase - our costing models generally look at 10+ years of in service support. I'm not certain how long the costing model for CVF is but I suspect it will be somewhere between 10-25 years so the £1.8bn is to purchase, integrate and support the equipment not just buy the tin.
     

Share This Page