Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CVF Construction

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • benroethig
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Aug 2010
    • 487

    Originally posted by John K View Post
    Obi Wan is spot on. Cancellation of CVF01, CVF02 or both, will, apart from wrecking the whole basis of the Royal Navy, destroy our military ship building industry. Without the CVF programme there are no orders, it's as simple as that. I consider ship building to be a strategically vital industry for our island nation, and any government which cannot see that is dilletante in the extreme.

    A more interesting conundrum is what aircraft to fly off the carriers? I can see great advantages from the RAF moving to an all Typhoon force, since it seems the Tornados will be phased out some years early. If we could afford, say, 60 F35s, that would be enough for two active squadrons and an OCU, which will suffice given that only one CVF will be in full commission at any one time. The F35s should therefore be given over to the Fleet Air Arm. British military aircraft ownership will then be simple, Typhoons for the RAF, and F35s for the Royal Navy. We won't be buying 150 F35s, so we may as well face reality: the service which needs the F35 is the Navy, and we will only be able to buy enough F35s for one service.
    Right. Honestly, the RAF wouldn't be that bad off with fewer squadrons because its transition from single role Tornado F, Tornado GR, and Jaguars to the multi-role typhoon. No matter what the A2G loadout is, the Typhoon is carrying 2 ASRAAMS and 3-4 Meteors.

    Comment

    • Obi Wan Russell
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Oct 2006
      • 522

      Originally posted by nocutstoRAF View Post
      Could the scenario be to build QE then keep the yards busy with MARS instead of PoW?

      Also, in the Torygraph today (I put a link to the article in the SDSR thread on the main board) they suggest that they will consider smaller carriers - sounds daft to me, as do most of the Torygraph stories - but could it be a sign that they are moving away from strike carriers to building LHD's?
      MARS is no substitute for CVFs in terms of shipbuilding. Under EU law any such orders would have to be put out to tender around the EU, so the chances of the UK yards winning the orders becomes very slim indeed. This is missing the point anyway, the only reason for cancelling the ships would be to claw back money (personally I don't see the government getting anything more than loose change back in that event), so then we place other orders to keep the yards open? where are the savings? it would make the whole excercise far more expensive than just building the carriers. As I said earlier, by the time they enter service the financial crisis will be well behind us, so for the time being the CVF project should be seen as a long term investment that helps support the economy (rather than putting tens of thousands of skilled workers on the dole). It's the only game in town for UK shipbuilding for the next four to five years.

      LHD is a non starter for much the same reasons. It's too late to change to smaller but just as expensive ships when a quarter of the budget has already been spent. Don't confuse size with cost.
      "Without Organic Air Power at Sea, you don't have a Navy, you have a Coast Guard."

      Comment

      • nocutstoRAF
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • May 2010
        • 954

        Originally posted by benroethig View Post
        ...The cost of LHDs would be whatever their price is plus the CVF quit contracts.
        When he was interviewed by the Defence Select Committe, Ian King (BAE's Chief Executive) said the following regarding the carriers:

        "Q12 John Woodcock: First, I have a question for you, Mr King. You talked about the carrier programme. Are you being pressed to reduce the carrier programme to one or to zero? Where are you?

        Ian King: The carrier programme is committed against two vessels. That’s the current contractual commitment and that’s what we’re working against. We have been asked to look at a number of options. We were recently asked over the past couple of weeks-probably in the past week or so-to look at a number of options. Contractually, the programme is for two vessels and that is what we are working on.

        Q13 John Woodcock: Can you say what those options are?

        Ian King: They range from having one carrier to having no carriers but with an equivalent other programme to look at the skills. There is quite a range of options so that decisions can be made."

        He then goes on to say that the nature of the equivalent other programmes is still being debated but I do not think it is to far fetched to assume that it could be LHD's - still I prefer two CVF's and 2 LHD's rather than two LHD's and no CVF's and I prefer two CVF's to 1 CVF and 1 LHD.

        http://www.publications.parliament.u...-i/uc45102.htm
        If having a little knowledge is dangerous then I must be bloody deadly

        Comment

        • nocutstoRAF
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • May 2010
          • 954

          Originally posted by Obi Wan Russell View Post
          MARS is no substitute for CVFs in terms of shipbuilding. Under EU law any such orders would have to be put out to tender around the EU, so the chances of the UK yards winning the orders becomes very slim indeed.
          See my post above, it is BAE who mentioned alternative programmes - I assume they are open to them as it keeps their skills and avoids a situation where the UK has to buy foreign ships as the alternative is they activate the penalty clauses in the contracts if MoD cancels the CVF's, the MoD pays up, BAE and other firm's lay of their specialist staff and come 2020 there is no-one available in the UK with the skills to build the Type 26's which end up being built in France, Italy or Spain instead.

          I thought the exception to advertising an open tender in the Journal of the European Union was for defence related items, is the issue that as replenishment ships the MARS programme are not considered defence related?

          EDIT: Also I thought the Canberra's are being built at a cost of about 1 billion a ship, therefore two LHD's would be ~2 billion compared to 5.2 billion for the CVF's!?!
          If having a little knowledge is dangerous then I must be bloody deadly

          Comment

          • Hawkeye
            Rank 4 Registered User
            • Dec 2009
            • 70

            What Ian King's saying is that BAE have been asked to provide costing for a variety of options. I can guarantee that there are a multitude of ways to make producing 2 CVFs and keeping things exactly as they are the cheapest option, what with all the additional design work, external consultancy fees and everything else that can suddenly appear, all based on BAE's employees' past experiences with past projects over a variety of production sectors of course.

            As Obi Wan has pointed out there are very few companies that will keep trained and highly skilled staff on the pay-roll when there's nothing for them to do. Which means you then have to find and recruit (more fees) and train (again more fees) their replacements to work on Type 26. I think someone mentioned something similar with regard to Boeing's ability to ramp up production volumes in the USAF tanker competition thread. Regardless, expect someone to be hammering the point to the MoD and Treasurey that the follow on projects do not exist in isolation and that reducing the CVF build will lead to increased costs that actually out-weigh the savings.

            Also, this is the MoD we're talking about so even if the alternative option was a few replacement Oceans I find it impossible to believe for even a second that absolutely no-one will pick up the phone to BAE and utter those fabulous words "Can you just...". Wave goodbye to any cost saving the second that happens. With QE already in build and one assumes orders already placed for some of PoW long lead time items the only sane thing to do to keep the costs down is to keep things exactly the way they are and not change anything. The costs for CVF are known. The cost for any other options will be absolutely everything BAE thinks it can charge for, and rightly so if there is an associated cost to BAE, with the net result being that actually the status quo is the least expensive option for what the UK needs to do.
            Last edited by Hawkeye; 12th September 2010, 17:19. Reason: clarifying an ambiguous bit of wording

            Comment

            • nocutstoRAF
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • May 2010
              • 954

              Originally posted by Hawkeye View Post
              What Ian King's saying is that BAE have been asked to provide costing for a variety of options.

              As Obi Wan has pointed out there are very few companies that will keep trained and highly skilled staff on the pay-roll when there's nothing for them to do.
              When I read the whole transcript of Ian King's statement, it seems clear IMO, his whole discussion is about how to retain skills in the UK defence industry, therefore I took his comments as alternatives to CVF's as a way of keeping the specialist staff at BAE available until Type 26 comes on line.
              If having a little knowledge is dangerous then I must be bloody deadly

              Comment

              • Hawkeye
                Rank 4 Registered User
                • Dec 2009
                • 70

                I don't disagree with you, Ian King's and Read Admiral Rees Ward's statements make the point very well. The point I would make is you can rely on a contractor to be a contractor in that the answer to their shareholders first, and Queen and country second.

                The whole thing reads like a knives out, or maybe swords-out severe kicking of the last government, especially with regard to R&D expenditure. I still maintain however that the option of leaving the production plans exactly as they are will be the cheapest option. Q39 mentions leaving the carriers in Scotland and not bringing them down to Portsmouth but I think Ian King's and Richard Martin's comments imply it's a paper saving only, and wouldn't actually work in the real world if you're talking about re-locating everyone involved to the opposite end of the country, or firing, re-hiring and re-training.

                Comment

                • Bager1968
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • May 2005
                  • 3635

                  Originally posted by nocutstoRAF View Post
                  EDIT: Also I thought the Canberra's are being built at a cost of about 1 billion a ship, therefore two LHD's would be ~2 billion compared to 5.2 billion for the CVF's!?!
                  The ship cost is 3.9 billion for the CVF's... 1.3 billion was development costs (already spent & gone with no possibility of recovery).

                  Subtract the 1.25 billion already contractually obligated, and you get a maximum "savings" of 2.65 billion.

                  Then you spend ~2 billion for your two LHD's (actually more, as there would be a few detail changes for UK-specific equipment.

                  That is if they are built in Spain, as the RAN's Canberra class is... which means virtually no taxes being returned to the UK Treasury... unlike now, where a lot of taxes are coming back on all the salaries & other "in-UK" purchases.

                  So you save at most 650 million and get two smaller, less-capable ships.

                  Not really much of a good deal, it seems to me.
                  Germany, Austria and Italy are standing together in the middle of the pub, when Serbia bumps into Austria, and spills Austria's pint.

                  Comment

                  • Colombamike
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Nov 2009
                    • 130

                    Originally posted by Bager1968 View Post
                    The ship cost is 3.9 billion for the CVF's... 1.3 billion was development costs (already spent & gone with no possibility of recovery).
                    Subtract the 1.25 billion already contractually obligated, and you get a maximum "savings" of 2.65 billion.
                    Then you spend ~2 billion for your two LHD's (actually more, as there would be a few detail changes for UK-specific equipment.
                    That is if they are built in Spain, as the RAN's Canberra class is... which means virtually no taxes being returned to the UK Treasury... unlike now, where a lot of taxes are coming back on all the salaries & other "in-UK" purchases.
                    So you save at most 650 million and get two smaller, less-capable ships.
                    Not really much of a good deal, it seems to me.
                    Only 650 $ million saved and smaller/less capable ships ?

                    not totally true.....

                    I) YOU FORGET THE AIRWING (and their cost)
                    At +/- 150 $ million per F-35 copy , a CVF airwing (+/- 32 F-35) cost around 4,8 $ billion (AEW/ASW helico excluded...).
                    For a LHD, the additional cost include only a handfull (6/9) of F-35 (900 $ million to 1,3 $ billion), because usually the transports helico is taken from army/air force stocks


                    II Ships comparaison

                    Queen Elizabteh class
                    Lenght: 284 meters
                    Beam: 73 meters (max)
                    Draught: 11 meters
                    Displacement: 65/72 000 tons
                    Speed: 26 knots max on trials, 25 knots max operationnal
                    Autonomy: 8000 to 10 000 nm at 15 knots
                    Crew: 1450 (ship crew: 600; airwing : up to 850). Total possible accomodation for 1650.
                    Airwing (pure strike carrier ops): +/- 32 F-35; 4 to 6 AEW/ASW helico
                    Airwing (helico carrier ops): +/- 24 helico (transports/SAR/ASW/AEW) + 6/9 F-35.
                    Cargo capacity: Aviation hangar able to be modified if necessary to carry numerous vehicles, troops & others cargos (the famous helico carrier conversion), but at the expense of a major airwing (F-35) reduction.
                    Landing crafts: not capable, except if the ship is heavily modified (= additionnal cost), to receive crane/systems to deploy small LCM on davit.
                    Cost per ship: +/- 2,5 billion (R&D included)
                    Airwing cost pers ship: +/- 5 $ billion

                    Camberra/Juan Carlos I LHD design:
                    Lenght: 230 meters
                    Beam: 32 meters
                    Draught: 7,18 meters
                    Displacement: +/- 27/30 000 tons
                    Speed: 20,5 knots
                    Autonomy: 8000 nm at 15 knots, 9250 nm at 12 knots
                    Crew: 243 ship crew (+ 172 for airwing) and +/- 900 troops (+ 146 additionals). Total possible accomodation for +/- 1300.
                    Airwing (pure "sea-control" ops): up to +/- 9/15 F-35 and 6/9 helico.
                    Airwing (multi-purpose ops): usually +/- around 6/9 F-35 and 12/18 helico.
                    Cargos capacity: up to 46 heavy tanks, many vehicles & others cargos.
                    Landing crafts: 4 LCM or 1 or 2 LCT or LCAC
                    Cost per ship: +/- 500 $ million
                    Airwing cost per ship: +/- 1 $ billion max (transport helico no included, because already used by army).

                    Large LHD = more cheaper, more cheaper to operate, more flexible, more versatile than a STVOL carrier (not really the same case for a CATOBAR carrier....)
                    Visit my blog on news about all combat fleet of the world !
                    http://combatfleetoftheworld.blogspot.com/

                    Comment

                    • F/A-18RN
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • May 2005
                      • 256

                      Would it help if one of the ships was rechristened HMS George Osborne and the other HMS Danny Alexander?

                      Comment

                      • Geoff_B
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Jul 2010
                        • 507

                        Originally posted by Colombamike View Post
                        Only 650 $ million saved and smaller/less capable ships ?

                        not totally true.....

                        I) YOU FORGET THE AIRWING (and their cost)
                        At +/- 150 $ million per F-35 copy , a CVF airwing (+/- 32 F-35) cost around 4,8 $ billion (AEW/ASW helico excluded...).
                        For a LHD, the additional cost include only a handfull (6/9) of F-35 (900 $ million to 1,3 $ billion), because usually the transports helico is taken from army/air force stocks


                        II Ships comparaison

                        Queen Elizabteh class
                        Lenght: 284 meters
                        Beam: 73 meters (max)
                        Draught: 11 meters
                        Displacement: 65/72 000 tons
                        Speed: 26 knots max on trials, 25 knots max operationnal
                        Autonomy: 8000 to 10 000 nm at 15 knots
                        Crew: 1450 (ship crew: 600; airwing : up to 850). Total possible accomodation for 1650.
                        Airwing (pure strike carrier ops): +/- 32 F-35; 4 to 6 AEW/ASW helico
                        Airwing (helico carrier ops): +/- 24 helico (transports/SAR/ASW/AEW) + 6/9 F-35.
                        Cargo capacity: Aviation hangar able to be modified if necessary to carry numerous vehicles, troops & others cargos (the famous helico carrier conversion), but at the expense of a major airwing (F-35) reduction.
                        Landing crafts: not capable, except if the ship is heavily modified (= additionnal cost), to receive crane/systems to deploy small LCM on davit.
                        Cost per ship: +/- 2,5 billion (R&D included)
                        Airwing cost pers ship: +/- 5 $ billion

                        Camberra/Juan Carlos I LHD design:
                        Lenght: 230 meters
                        Beam: 32 meters
                        Draught: 7,18 meters
                        Displacement: +/- 27/30 000 tons
                        Speed: 20,5 knots
                        Autonomy: 8000 nm at 15 knots, 9250 nm at 12 knots
                        Crew: 243 ship crew (+ 172 for airwing) and +/- 900 troops (+ 146 additionals). Total possible accomodation for +/- 1300.
                        Airwing (pure "sea-control" ops): up to +/- 9/15 F-35 and 6/9 helico.
                        Airwing (multi-purpose ops): usually +/- around 6/9 F-35 and 12/18 helico.
                        Cargos capacity: up to 46 heavy tanks, many vehicles & others cargos.
                        Landing crafts: 4 LCM or 1 or 2 LCT or LCAC
                        Cost per ship: +/- 500 $ million
                        Airwing cost per ship: +/- 1 $ billion max (transport helico no included, because already used by army).

                        Large LHD = more cheaper, more cheaper to operate, more flexible, more versatile than a STVOL carrier (not really the same case for a CATOBAR carrier....)
                        Mike

                        But we don't need LHD's, we already have the dock landing ships and we currently have Ocean.

                        As our primary lift helo is the Chinook and they are not Navalised they therefore are deck cargo or deadspace in the hanger until they reach their restination. CVF has been designed to accomodate Chinook in both the Hanger and Lifts without folded blades and the flight deck size means they don't interfer with flight deck ops.

                        Plus how do your exert control of the airspace with just 9 -15 F-35s and what do you use for your Helicopters if the LHD is operating in carrier role.

                        Would you replace PA2 with a Mistral ? as thats what your effectivly suggesting.

                        The LHD is a jack of all trades but master of none, it can do a variety of roles but not as well as a dedicated ship, but as we already have the dedicated assault ships, it was the aircover and strike roles that we needed to replace and we know the smaller ships are just not upto the task.

                        Plus you not taking into account the cost of cancelling the CVF, scrapping whats been built, developing a new requirement to determine what we need and what it should do, designing said ships be it from scratch or adapting an existing design and then building them. In the meantime the current CVS & harriers will have to soldier on until their new replacements are ready.

                        Comment

                        • Distiller
                          Talent on Loan from God
                          • Oct 2003
                          • 4760

                          Cost comparisons only get you so far.

                          Cause if you'd be serious about cost comparions you'd have to calculate the total-cost-of-ownership of your power projection assets over several decades vs the value in dispute of a potential claim of a potential enemy.

                          On cost grounds alone I bet you'd be better off paying people off, or e.g. accepting less favourable conditions for your national businesses than keep a beautiful but outrageously expensive military.
                          "Distiller ... arrogant, ruthless, and by all reports (including his own) utterly charming"

                          Comment

                          • Colombamike
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Nov 2009
                            • 130

                            Geoff,

                            Originally posted by Geoff_B View Post
                            Mike. But we don't need LHD's, we already have the dock landing ships and we currently have Ocean.
                            Ocean expected to be retired by 2018, no ?
                            A LHD is more flexible than a LPD ! (full fight deck, for helico/UAV/STVOL ops !).

                            Current/Futur Royal Navy strength:
                            - 2 large carriers (+/- unaffordable)
                            - 1 Helico carrier (ocean), to be retired by late 2010's and replaced by....?
                            - 2 LPD (albion)
                            - 4 Small LPD (bay)

                            "My ideal" futur royal navy strengh:
                            - 2 (or 3 ?) large 30 000+ tons LHD.
                            - 4 Small LPD (bay)

                            Better to replace Ocean/Albion/CVF designs with a large LHD.
                            More cheaper, more affordable, a single design to replace 3....

                            Don't forget than even by 2004/2006 (Albion/Bulwark still in completion), the Royal Navy envisioned at the outset ! to put 1 LPD in reserve (ie.extended readyness). Simply because with 1 Ocean, 2 Albion & 4 Bay, the real requirement were nearly exceded (ie. surplus ships)

                            Originally posted by Geoff_B View Post
                            As our primary lift helo is the Chinook and they are not Navalised they therefore are deck cargo or deadspace in the hanger until they reach their restination. CVF has been designed to accomodate Chinook in both the Hanger and Lifts without folded blades and the flight deck size means they don't interfer with flight deck ops. Plus how do your exert control of the airspace with just 9 -15 F-35s and what do you use for your Helicopters if the LHD is operating in carrier role.
                            Hmmm, since the late 1970's the US expect to use their LHD in "sea-control" ops with a full complement of Harriers (+/- 7/15 I think ).....

                            Originally posted by Geoff_B View Post
                            Would you replace PA2 with a Mistral ? as thats what your effectivly suggesting.
                            French "PA 02" is now clearly a big joke, only a "political" tool for the french government. Unlikely to be build.

                            Yes, in the current & future financial constraint, better to have a third BPC.
                            When you see than even actually some small (cheap) older french warships (patrol-boats, OPV) were not replaced (France have one of the largest sea aera of the world......, with oversea territories). You think really that the french navy could afford a 3 $ billion carrier when at the same time she experienced difficulties to fund cheaper warships (1000 tons OPV, 100 $ million apiece) OPV*.

                            *The futur OPV project is delayed until 2017.

                            Originally posted by Geoff_B View Post
                            The LHD is a jack of all trades but master of none, it can do a variety of roles but not as well as a dedicated ship, but as we already have the dedicated assault ships, it was the aircover and strike roles that we needed to replace and we know the smaller ships are just not upto the task. Plus you not taking into account the cost of cancelling the CVF, scrapping whats been built, developing a new requirement to determine what we need and what it should do, designing said ships be it from scratch or adapting an existing design and then building them. In the meantime the current CVS & harriers will have to soldier on until their new replacements are ready.
                            The main problem is the choices made by 1998 (two 60 000 tons carriers with F-35). When you make choices like that, you should see the future toward the 40+ years (the service life of the entire project)...1998/early 2040's...

                            When you see the current/future problems of the Royal Navy (considerable cost-overruns, serious delays during warships procurement), it is clear that she can not afford 2 large carriers, 138 F-35B and 4 newer SSBN (+ 17 newer 6000 tons frigates, + 20 newer 2000 tons flexible warships (to replace mine-hunters/patrols ships), some fleet tanker & so...)

                            The problem in 1998, they did not understand that the power of the united kingdom in the world between 1998-2030 will only continue......to decline

                            But this is only my opinion.
                            Visit my blog on news about all combat fleet of the world !
                            http://combatfleetoftheworld.blogspot.com/

                            Comment

                            • nocutstoRAF
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • May 2010
                              • 954

                              RE: Geoff - there are rumours abounding that MoD will cut amphibious assault with three ships chopped: Ocean and likely Albion and Bulwark/or Argus (I have seen both suggested). It would be nice to think that in return MoD will find the cash to buy LHD plus the two CVF's but given what is happening it makes a kind perverse (but ultimately useless and possibly harmful) sense to go for one CVF, accept a UK built LHD (assuming that the MoD can agree new terms), retire Ocean early, sell of Albion and Bulwark (or scarp Argus if it is retired and Bulwark retained).

                              To the paper pushers it would look like a saving as your replace the capacity of three ships with one ship and reduce the number of F-35B's brought, and it would not be the paper pushers problem if major trouble kicked off and the QE was in refit and the RN had to send in a task force which had to choose to operate the LHD with either enough F-35B’s to provide minimal CAP but not CAS at the same time, or accept inadequate air defence to retain the LHD’s ability to put marines ashore.
                              If having a little knowledge is dangerous then I must be bloody deadly

                              Comment

                              • John K
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Jul 2010
                                • 311

                                People, this is nonsense! If CVF02 is cancelled, there will be no LHD order as compensation! Get real! The Royal Navy will have two carriers or one, but it won't have one carrier and one or two LHDs. The so-called "strategic defence review" is a cost-cutting exercise, nothing more or less. The budgets for most government departments doubled in the NuLab period. Defence did not, but it will still be slashed by know nothing politicians.

                                To my mind, it is quite obvious that we will never be buying 150 F35s for a grandiose "Joint Force" to replace the Harriers. It surely makes sense to buy enough F35s to equip a carrier force, and assign them to the Fleet Air Arm. How much will an F35 cost? Say 80 million. If we cut the order by 80 units, I make that a saving of 6.4 billion. That's pretty handy, and will give the Navy enough F35s to equip a carrier air group.

                                The Joint Force Harrier always struck me as a transparent scam which would lead to RAF control of the Navy's fixed wing assets. That is what heppened, and it was only slightly surprising that the Navy brass were quite so stupid as to fall for it in the first place. Are they daft enough to do it again?

                                Comment

                                • kev 99
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Aug 2008
                                  • 1535

                                  Originally posted by John K View Post
                                  People, this is nonsense! If CVF02 is cancelled, there will be no LHD order as compensation! Get real! The Royal Navy will have two carriers or one, but it won't have one carrier and one or two LHDs. The so-called "strategic defence review" is a cost-cutting exercise, nothing more or less. The budgets for most government departments doubled in the NuLab period. Defence did not, but it will still be slashed by know nothing politicians.

                                  To my mind, it is quite obvious that we will never be buying 150 F35s for a grandiose "Joint Force" to replace the Harriers. It surely makes sense to buy enough F35s to equip a carrier force, and assign them to the Fleet Air Arm. How much will an F35 cost? Say 80 million. If we cut the order by 80 units, I make that a saving of 6.4 billion. That's pretty handy, and will give the Navy enough F35s to equip a carrier air group.

                                  The Joint Force Harrier always struck me as a transparent scam which would lead to RAF control of the Navy's fixed wing assets. That is what heppened, and it was only slightly surprising that the Navy brass were quite so stupid as to fall for it in the first place. Are they daft enough to do it again?
                                  Sorry but that 150 figure fell by the way side a long time ago.

                                  Comment

                                  • John K
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Jul 2010
                                    • 311

                                    Isn't the current figure something like 128 or so? Clearly we are not going to buy that many F35s. Why not bite the bullet, order 60 for the Navy and forget this nonsense of "joint forces". The F35 is a naval aircraft and should be allocated to the Royal Navy, and 60 or so should suffice.

                                    Comment

                                    • nocutstoRAF
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • May 2010
                                      • 954

                                      Originally posted by John K View Post
                                      People, this is nonsense! If CVF02 is cancelled, there will be no LHD order as compensation! Get real! The Royal Navy will have two carriers or one, but it won't have one carrier and one or two LHDs. ?
                                      Nonsense or not, the CEO of BAE has stated to the defence select committe that the options are carriers or alternate programmes, i.e. something else instead of the carriers. Now I am not privy to the contract signed between MoD and the BAE/Carrier Alliance as prime contractors but it is possible that the could agree a variation to the existing contract to allow for something else to be built with any uncommitted funds.

                                      After all the treasury will likely agree to cuts of future uncommitted costs as well as committed costs as long as they occur within the appropriate time frame - so all we have to do is guess a requirement for the Navy that the absolutely need that could be filled by cancelling the long lead items for PoW, less any costs already incurred and altering the contract with the prime contractors, where by any residual funds are used to complete the new requirement, instead of drawing down additional funds for a future programme.

                                      Originally posted by John K View Post
                                      Isn't the current figure something like 128 or so?
                                      From what I read the number was 138 in 2009, but now numbers around 60 - 70 float around in the press, but given they tend to misunderstand the situation I would suspect that the plan was always an initial purchase of this sort of size with second purchase later on to bring the total to 138
                                      If having a little knowledge is dangerous then I must be bloody deadly

                                      Comment

                                      • philbob
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Mar 2008
                                        • 308

                                        @ nocuts -It would be far wiser to withdraw the Ocean, the Argus from service, and then place one of the Bay's into cold storage; reason being the Albion and Bulwark are fairly expensive and 'high end' amphibs for the RN and they have considerable capability, the Bay class which there are the most of are fairly popular and in demand ships. The mothballed Bay can be used for parts or fully recommissioned at a later date.

                                        @ Mike nominally I agree with you that 3 or 4, preferably 5; high speed small multi mission aviation ships based on a modernized Invicible/Ocean design would be preferable to two large conventional carriers but the reality is the CVF is now happening the Queen Elisabeth is a good margin complete that would make scraping her unwise. What needs to be done is righting the configuration of the Royal Navy to put the maximum amount of hulls in the water with the right amount of capability to provide for maritime security to full scale warfare.

                                        So weather the CVF is used by the RN or the Indian Navy (IN?) or the French Navy a all out effort must go to protect the Queen Elizebeth and quite possibly the second ship or it might be the end of ship building in the United Kingdom.

                                        Going back to the "Right Sized Fleet" I would say build only 12 capital ships based of the T45 hull as to maximize the hull's design the Six AAW frigates and then six ASW and Strike capable Frigates, the funds that would of been used to design the Type 26 should go to purchase medium and large OPV and OPV(H) that are built bare bones but have space reservations for system upgrades (think a mix of River OPV's and the Venator BMT) In addition to that buy several commercially designed and then militarized Yacht movers for action as littoral mother ships,maybe even the JHSV?

                                        If funds are ever freed up in the end of the decade or the 20's use that to build 4 to 6 Type 45 UXV combatant derivative. Or build the ASW/Strike ship as a UXV ship from the get go.

                                        just my two cents

                                        Comment

                                        • philbob
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • Mar 2008
                                          • 308

                                          any images of the CVF before they settled on the Current configuration, specificially when they were thinking ofthe 3 40kt design.

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X