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
  • Lindermyer
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Dec 2009
    • 408

    Originally posted by Hawkeye View Post
    I work for an automotive manufacturing company, the answer is no. What you would be asking for is a sub-varient which would require re-planning for those aircraft in terms of what parts to buy and when, and a huge amount of design work to check that the design actually worked both physically, and as other posters have mentioned software. If you take out the ability to fold the wings, every single part, then what keeps the ends of the wings in place? Instant cost implication. You also have to consider that the reason the UK is buying Dave-C is it means all its airframes would be carrier capable. Highly important if you ever need to surge beyond the number of usual deployable airframes. I know you're thinking it's less components to buy but those cost savings would be eaten a dozen times over by the design work that would have to be done, and paid for entirely by the UK taxpayer and you get a less flexible aircraft as a result when you're 15 years down the line when international relations go tango uniform.
    Perhaps I should have made myself clearer - I was not advocating a different build standard / varient of the aircraft. I was suggesting that it may be that some squadrons (assuming not all F35 Sqns are slated for carrier ops) could operate with carrier op specific gear removed ie launch and recovery kit (all those pits easily removed).
    I was not proposing non folding wings or the like. - To use the car analogy not fitting the tow bar or CD player
    DACT Proves nothing.

    Comment

    • 90inFIRST
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Oct 2008
      • 240

      From todays MOD mail out.......

      "Aircraft carriers

      In a separate development, The Treasury has published the letter from BAE Systems chief executive, Ian King, to the prime minister explaining that it would cost the government more to cancel two new aircraft carriers than to build them.

      Chancellor George Osborne reluctantly agreed to fund the two carriers, even though the UK will not have planes to fly on them for at least 10 years following the cancellation of the Harrier jump jet and one of the ships will be immediately mothballed.

      The letter says the deal to build the ships "was underpinned by an agreement with MOD that in return for a guaranteed level of funded work, we (BAE) would sustain in the UK the key capabilities needed for warship design, development, build, integration and support and would rationalise and transform the business."

      It says "If both carriers are completed the cost will be 5.2bn. If Prince of Wales is cancelled, the direct cost of the programme will be 4.8bn. However in these circumstances, and under Treasury rules and the agreements I have outlined, there will be consequential costs, including those related to rationalisation, which we estimate would amount to 690m. "

      The letter goes on: "the cancellation of Prince of Wales would mean that production in all BAE systems shipyards would cease at the end of 2012.

      "There is no further production work planned until steel is due to be cut on the new frigate programme in 2016.

      "This means that the business would be unsustainable, and all three yards would have to close by early 2013, with the loss of more than 5,000 jobs in BAE systems and many more across the UK in hundreds of companies in the supply chain.

      "In practice that means the end of the UK's capability in complex warships and would bring the sector to a halt."

      Comment

      • Stan hyd
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • May 2009
        • 605

        it's the best contract the labour government ever signed! If I could I would send gordon brown a thank you letter in the post tomorrow.

        Comment

        • Frosty
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Jan 2008
          • 334

          It's a shame that BAE had to resort to these measures but BAE have been looking out for our own defence interests more than the governments have been. With this contract BAE made sure that the UK kept the skills and jobs that it may need in the future. I assume that the government got a similar letter about the Astute program in reference to a loss of skills and jobs if not all were built.

          Comment

          • Liger30
            Armed Forces supporter
            • Jul 2010
            • 901

            There should have been no need at all to point all these facts out for a lot of reasons.
            Two over everything else:

            Any person even just moderately intelligent can realize that
            A) Shipbuilding industry is endlessly better than no industry
            B) Thousands of job losses are no good economy stimulous
            C) Aircraft carriers shape the world, separating who's got them and who wish to have them

            The only real shame?

            The RN has no secure and unbreakable contract with the government to get the money to run the ships once built, and moreover has no contract for the planes to fly off them, and moreover risks not having an aircraft carrier, but a floating airport for RAF-owned and manned planes which will "visit" only when the RAF wants to.
            THIS is the shame of the matter.

            GOD BLESS BAE's LAWYERS! They saved the UK from the most demented cost-cutting exercise EVER!
            "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

            Comment

            • Witcha
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Jun 2010
              • 1241

              Just on a couple of your points

              Originally posted by Liger30 View Post

              1) Dispose of even one CVF and sell it won't be easy. India wants to build its carriers at home, and with the Gorshkov + 2 homebuilt ones, i think and HOPE it'll be satiated.
              Otherwise, the ones who babble about a world with arms race will look even more hopeless dreamers than now.
              Actually, given the second IAC will probably take at least as long as the first to build(being a mostly new design) and the Indian Navy ultimately wants three, there is a chance of this happening. Also I don't see how India buying one more carrier makes the idea of an arms race irrelevant.

              Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
              2) Building them and then selling both, under-price, to make foreign nations stronger with the very one move that self-kicks the UK out of the big league and makes it weaker than it is ever been looks like total political suicide.
              Your views on this cannot be doubted, but I doubt most Britons today see their country as belonging in the 'big power' league any more, at least militarily.

              Comment

              • Liger30
                Armed Forces supporter
                • Jul 2010
                • 901

                Actually, given the second IAC will probably take at least as long as the first to build(being a mostly new design) and the Indian Navy ultimately wants three, there is a chance of this happening. Also I don't see how India buying one more carrier makes the idea of an arms race irrelevant.
                I don't see it as a realistic scenario. Even with their constantly growing budget, they won't buy yet another new carrier. For now.
                I think 4 carriers are more than even their ambition envisages for the next years. Because a CVF, lasting no less than 50 years, would be still very young even when all their homebuilt ones are ready.

                Also, it clashes with a simple concept: they want the Gorshokov to be the last carrier (and one of the last ships) they buy from foreign nations.
                Differently from the UK were the shipbuilding industry is treated like a deadweight or almost, they WANT to create a strong indigenous shipbuilding capability.

                I forgot to mention Russia. They say they want to build 6 aircraft carriers in the future, and by 2014 a new land-based center for Sea-Based Aircraft Operations will enter in service to prepare the pilots, meaning that it is more than just a daydream.
                They may even ask the UK one carrier just as they asked Mistrals to France... but i think the Uk wouldn't sell a carrier to them. It is not yet so desperate. (hopefully)

                As to the arms race bitter comment, it was a keyboard error. Yet a new carrier for India makes the bold "never again State-on State war" and "there's no dangers anymore in the world" assumptions ridiculous.
                The world IS experiencing an arms race. Who denies it lies to himself.

                Your views on this cannot be doubted, but I doubt most Britons today see their country as belonging in the 'big power' league any more, at least militarily.
                I know. But they are wrong, wrong, wrong.
                With this thinking line, they will ultimately accomplish the recession of the UK into irrilevance, but they are extremely wrong in undervaluing the possibilities of the UK to be a world-relevant power.
                Also, i must point out that the military power is all what's left of world-relevant in the UK. The Armed Forces and Rolls Royce.
                When the Armed Forces will be savagely slashed to even smaller pieces next time, the UK will have finished its day as a relevant nation, and that will ultimately show the "we don't need the military"-people what's like to REALLY lose the status of global power.

                It will at least open wide the doors for Europe Unification, though. The very same thing that today terrifies so many britons.
                That, or perhaps joining the US as 51 state, because there won't be many alternatives to the oblivion on the international stage.

                Unless the UK economy experiences a miracle and from 6th grows so much to overcome all the others. Which is... well. You judge the probabilities by yourself.
                But then again, even the economic miracle would spur increased defence spending too, because even the richest economy matters up to that point if there's not the "big stick" at ready behind it.
                Which is why Brazil, India, China, Russia and the arab countries are all building up strength.
                "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                Comment

                • Geoff_B
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Jul 2010
                  • 507

                  Originally posted by Frosty View Post
                  It's a shame that BAE had to resort to these measures but BAE have been looking out for our own defence interests more than the governments have been. With this contract BAE made sure that the UK kept the skills and jobs that it may need in the future. I assume that the government got a similar letter about the Astute program in reference to a loss of skills and jobs if not all were built.
                  Well it was the Labour governement that cancelled the other 6 type 45s that were planned, Cancelled the MARS RFA program, left the Frigate replacement program sit in limbo of never ending project studies without committing to a final design leaving the shipyards & Royal Navy desperate for the CVF order. Then with the carriers they fudge the decision for a few years forcing the price up, then try to coerce the French to join the program, before fiinally forcing the remaining warship yards into an enforced merger before placing the actual order.

                  After being given the run around all decade and see expected work fail to materialise its no wonder BVT made sure they had gauranteed work before signing up to anything.

                  Don't let the spin doctors of the MOD & Treasury try and twist this intoi being BAEs fault as with the warship building its pretty much the previous governments.

                  The irony is if orders had been placed as planned then the yards would have had work and they should have no agreement would have been required and they would likely have stepped the carrier oorders so PoW would probably have been left in limbo as per the French PA2, whilst QE would probably have been ready to launch in the next 12 months or so.

                  Comment

                  • Witcha
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Jun 2010
                    • 1241

                    Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
                    I don't see it as a realistic scenario. Even with their constantly growing budget, they won't buy yet another new carrier. For now.
                    I think 4 carriers are more than even their ambition envisages for the next years. Because a CVF, lasting no less than 50 years, would be still very young even when all their homebuilt ones are ready.

                    Also, it clashes with a simple concept: they want the Gorshokov to be the last carrier (and one of the last ships) they buy from foreign nations.
                    Differently from the UK were the shipbuilding industry is treated like a deadweight or almost, they WANT to create a strong indigenous shipbuilding capability.
                    That they do, but they aren't shy of seeking imports to fill the gap when indigenous efforts aren't fast enough. The main drawback of the Indian shipbuilding industry is speed, and that won't change any time soon. If anything, it's still a possibility.

                    Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
                    As to the arms race bitter comment, it was a keyboard error. Yet a new carrier for India makes the bold "never again State-on State war" and "there's no dangers anymore in the world" assumptions ridiculous.
                    The world IS experiencing an arms race.
                    I don't understand this either. How can India buying the CVF fuel an arms race any more than if they build one themselves?

                    Comment

                    • Liger30
                      Armed Forces supporter
                      • Jul 2010
                      • 901

                      I don't understand this either. How can India buying the CVF fuel an arms race any more than if they build one themselves?
                      It fuels it exactly as much. That is the point.
                      My rage is directed at the hopeless people who denies that military spending around the world is actually increasing, and the countries who spend the most are still gearing up for state-on-state warfare.

                      So who says that state on state war is no more is either the only genius on Earth (extremely unlikely) and the stupids are the ones "wasting money" for "unlikely scenarios", or is the biggest idiot ever.
                      Simple like that.
                      You decide.
                      "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                      Comment

                      • Witcha
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Jun 2010
                        • 1241

                        ^Ah. But I think the point behind those arguments is that such conflicts are unlikely to involve the UK, secure as it is (relatively) inside Europe with the NATO security blanket. But I won't get into an argument over that. Certainly not with you, sir!

                        Comment

                        • Fedaykin
                          Fueled by Tea
                          • Dec 2005
                          • 5295

                          Originally posted by Frosty View Post
                          It's a shame that BAE had to resort to these measures but BAE have been looking out for our own defence interests more than the governments have been. With this contract BAE made sure that the UK kept the skills and jobs that it may need in the future. I assume that the government got a similar letter about the Astute program in reference to a loss of skills and jobs if not all were built.
                          I have to agree with Geof B about this, the recent reports from the MOD and government trying to smear BAE over the carrier contracts has made me very angry in the last few days!

                          Constant talk about how the contract is dodgy and having a gun held to their head.

                          Well what about the gun held to the heads of British industry because of constant messing around by the government over delayed, cut back or non existant orders! The defence industry isn't a charity if there are no orders then factories and yards have to close down!

                          In respect of the carrier contract what company is going to agree to build two multi billion pound ships that can be cancelled at any time and the manufacturers have to cover all the costs of those cancellations if the government of the day decides that they have changed their mind and don't want them?!
                          Last edited by Fedaykin; 6th November 2010, 11:25.
                          Because sometimes in life we need a bit of fun

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXNAp3mKepc

                          Comment

                          • Frosty
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Jan 2008
                            • 334

                            Originally posted by Fedaykin View Post
                            I have to agree with Geof B about this, the recent reports from the MOD and government trying to smear BAE over the carrier contracts has made me very angry in the last few days!

                            Constant talk about how the contract is dodgy and having a gun held to their head.

                            Well what about the gun held to the heads of British industry because of constant messing around by the government over delayed, cut back or non existant orders! The defence industry isn't a charity if there are no orders then factories and yards have to close down!

                            In respect of the carrier contract what company is going to agree to build two multi billion pound ships that can be cancelled at any time and the manufacturers have to cover all the costs of those cancellations if the government of the day decides that they have changed their mind and don't want them?!
                            I wasn't having a go at BAE I was having a go at the governments for breaching and delaying so many contracts that the industry is forced to put these clauses in place.

                            Comment

                            • LordJim
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Jul 2005
                              • 343

                              I think it is a absolute disgrace the length of time it is taking to get these carriers built and in the water. The UK seems to have serious problems when it comes to major naval unit construction;

                              HMS Eagle - Laid down; 24 Oct 42 Launched; 19 Mar 46 Completed; 01 Oct 51 = 19 Years

                              HMS Ark Royal - Laid down; 03 May 43 Launched; 03 May 50 Completed; 25 Feb 55 = 12 Years

                              HMS Hermes - Laid down; 21 Jun 44 Launched; 1 Feb 53 Completed; 18 Nov 59 = 15 Years

                              HMS Tiger - Laid Down; 01 Oct 41 Launched; 25 Oct 45 Completed; 18 Mar 59 = 18 Years

                              Compare this to the US;

                              US Forrestal - laid down; 14 Jul 52 Launched; 11 Dec 54 Completed 01 Oct 55 = 3 Years!!

                              And even the French;
                              Foch - Laid Down; Feb 57 Launched; 28 Jul 60 Completed; 15 Jul 63 = 6 Years

                              During the time line I have given the UK still had a major ship building industry yet it took at least twice as long to build a major vessel compared to the other. The Invincible class which are much smaller carriers took between 6 and 7 years but again Italy took 5 years to complete the Giuseppe Garibaldi, though Spain did take 9 years to build the Principe De Asturias.

                              Is the UK simple bad at managing large projects of any type? Given the imprtance being placed on the CVFs shouldn't everything be being done to speed their construction and reduce costs?

                              Comment

                              • LordJim
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Jul 2005
                                • 343

                                Sorry bad mistake, HMS Eagle was 9 Years.

                                Comment

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

                                  Hi Lord Jim, please remember that there was a war on when construction began and the ships you mentioned were designed originally to a very different configuration than which the eventually emerged. Far more different than the revised form the CVFs are being. Indeed Eagle and Ark Royal underwent major rebuilds in their careers on top of that. There were rapid advances in technology, the coming of jets, guided weapons, nuclear weapons as well as improvements in crew accommodation and amenities. And the priority for Britain's war ravaged economy was replacing merchant ships sunk by Axis planes and warships. Many of those ships mentioned above were not under continuous construction, but had long hiatus'.
                                  To Contrast:
                                  HMS Implacable - Laid down; 31/2/39 Launched; 10/12/42 Commisioned; 28/8/44 = 5 1/2 years.

                                  Comment

                                  • LordJim
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Jul 2005
                                    • 343

                                    I understand the wartime issues but even if you deduct the 1-3 years of wartime the time taken to complete these vessels is too long. Even the French managed to build 2 carriers when they had only built 1 so so design before in less time. The fact that their construction as so stop start is part of the problem and seems to be a British tradition when it comes to building major warships.

                                    Comment

                                    • Bager1968
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • May 2005
                                      • 3635

                                      Most of the ships in your list had 3-5 year periods where NO work was being done, due to the post-war economic crisis.

                                      For example: HMS Hermes R12 - Built by Vickers-Armstrong, Barrow.
                                      Laid down 21 June 1944.
                                      Construction suspended 1945.
                                      Work resumed in 1952 to clear slipway, and hull launched 16 February 1953.
                                      Work suspended again until 1957, when work commenced to heavily modified design.
                                      Commissioned 18 November 1959

                                      Out of the 15 yrs 5 months, only ~4-5 years was actual construction time.

                                      10-11 years was wasted with "stop-work" orders... which were set out by the government, not the shipyard.
                                      Germany, Austria and Italy are standing together in the middle of the pub, when Serbia bumps into Austria, and spills Austria's pint.

                                      Comment

                                      • benroethig
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Aug 2010
                                        • 487

                                        Originally posted by LordJim View Post
                                        I think it is a absolute disgrace the length of time it is taking to get these carriers built and in the water. The UK seems to have serious problems when it comes to major naval unit construction;

                                        HMS Eagle - Laid down; 24 Oct 42 Launched; 19 Mar 46 Completed; 01 Oct 51 = 19 Years

                                        HMS Ark Royal - Laid down; 03 May 43 Launched; 03 May 50 Completed; 25 Feb 55 = 12 Years

                                        HMS Hermes - Laid down; 21 Jun 44 Launched; 1 Feb 53 Completed; 18 Nov 59 = 15 Years

                                        HMS Tiger - Laid Down; 01 Oct 41 Launched; 25 Oct 45 Completed; 18 Mar 59 = 18 Years

                                        Compare this to the US;

                                        US Forrestal - laid down; 14 Jul 52 Launched; 11 Dec 54 Completed 01 Oct 55 = 3 Years!!

                                        And even the French;
                                        Foch - Laid Down; Feb 57 Launched; 28 Jul 60 Completed; 15 Jul 63 = 6 Years

                                        During the time line I have given the UK still had a major ship building industry yet it took at least twice as long to build a major vessel compared to the other?

                                        Forrestal was a post-war project, you might want to compare them more to Oriskany

                                        They were held back, not because of incompetence, but because times were changing and they already had plenty of near end of life hulls for piston driven fighters. Any ship that would last more than a decade had to be significantly reconstructed for jets.

                                        Comment

                                        • swerve
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • Jun 2005
                                          • 13612

                                          Originally posted by LordJim View Post
                                          I understand the wartime issues but even if you deduct the 1-3 years of wartime the time taken to complete these vessels is too long. Even the French managed to build 2 carriers when they had only built 1 so so design before in less time. The fact that their construction as so stop start is part of the problem and seems to be a British tradition when it comes to building major warships.
                                          The examples you give are all of ships which were incomplete at the end of the war. We then had more ships in service than we needed or could afford for a peacetime navy, & rapid completion of those ships in the yards was pointless. Better to occupy shipyard workers in scrapping surplus ships to free the steel for the many needs neglected during 6 years of war, or building much-needed merchant ships.

                                          Then, they ran into the problem that they'd been designed for aircraft which were going out of service, & needed rebuilds for jets, as already said.

                                          Should we have made every effort to finish them straight away, then left them to swing at anchor, unused? That's what would have happened if they'd been completed on schedule. We had more warships than we could think of uses for, once the war was over.
                                          Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                                          Justinian

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X