Sign in / up

back to article Cameron's F-35 U-turn: BAE Systems still calls the shots at No 10

So there it is: done. As this is written, defence minister Phillip Hammond is on his feet in the House of Commons, trying to justify the fact that he and his boss, David Cameron, have decided that the Royal Navy's new aircraft carrier (maybe carriers) will not now have any catapults or arrester gear in order to save money. This …

COMMENTS

House rules Send corrections
This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

  1. MrXavia
    WTF?

    Ok, so the way I read it is, BAE don't want to fit the catapults, so give a stupid quote...

    We instead have to use SVTOL aircraft, but sell off our harriers..

    So we have to buy the F35B as planned...

    But really, aren't we just going to be launching hundreds of drones and a few fighters by the time this is ready???

    1 0
    1. Glen 1
      Reply Icon
      Facepalm

      Re: give a stupid quote

      Couldn't we just give that bit of the job to someone else?

      If the yanks recon they can do it cheaper, let them. Its not like we will be spending *less* money with BAE either way.

      2 1
      1. Jonathan Richards 1
        Reply Icon

        DIY

        The Royal Navy doesn't take possession of the ship until it has been launched, fitted out and passed trials. Until then, it belongs to the builders, and they just work to the contract. Oh, you'd like to negotiate a contract *amendment*, sir? Please step this way. Bring your wallet.

        0 0
  2. Captain TickTock
    Joke

    Radar opportunity....

    ... wait for it.....

    V22 Osprey!

    3 2
    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Radar opportunity....

      And the E2-D Hawkeye which CAN launch from a ski-jump carrier. It was tested, although there is a question over what happens when an engine fails (when flying from a smaller Indian carrier).

      If AWACS is a real big issue there is always the AW609 which is pressurized to 25k feet.

      The V-22 is probably too expensive, by extension the E2 is so even if we had cats they may have never bought it.

      1 0
    2. laird cummings
      Reply Icon
      Mushroom

      Re: Radar opportunity....

      V22 is a hanger queen - expensive and unreliable - and frankly, more dangerous to own than I'd care for. The US Marines had it shoved down their throats by Congress, and its been killing Marines ever since.

      You really sure you want that, then?

      0 0
  3. Skizz
    FAIL

    It's all so depressing...

    Is it mandatory for cabinet ministers to have the common sense and intelligence removed upon entering office? So what, exactly, is wrong with Sea Harriers? OK, they're not the latest sexy kit but they work and are cheap. Buy some and with the money saved develop them to address their shortfalls. Of course, when they get the new kit, they'll then dream up reasons to show it off - Olympics Security Theatre anyone? because it'll be so easy to take out that lone terrorist with a backpack bomb with a Eurofighter!

    "I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!"

    7 0
    1. Giles Jones Gold badge
      Reply Icon

      Re: It's all so depressing...

      Harriers aren't supersonic. It doesn't really make sense to be designing your defence strategy around 1960s technology.

      1 9
      1. GitMeMyShootinIrons
        Reply Icon

        Re: It's all so depressing...

        Supersonic ain't all that useful. Most attack aircraft fly low and rarely go that fast (trees are harder to dodge). Also, given the fuel needed to get the stovl F35 off the deck, it won't be going supersonic far enough to make it worth it.

        May as well have kept the Harriers...

        So we will soon have gas powered, half-arsed, oversized, over priced helicopter/STOVL carriers, instead of proper, effective fleet carriers (should be nuclear powered too) and too few under-spec, overweight, inadequate fighters flying off them. Gordon and Tony should be hung for being played by BAe in the first place and DC and co. should be hung for lacking the balls to get the job done properly.

        11 0
      2. Graham Dawson Silver badge
        Reply Icon

        Re: It's all so depressing...

        It does if that 1960s technology has proven capable of the role asked of it.

        6 0
      3. WonkoTheSane
        Reply Icon
        Facepalm

        Re: It's all so depressing...

        There _was_ a supersonic Harrier in development, until the Gubmint of the day canned it in 1965 to buy F4 Phantoms.

        See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Siddeley_P.1154

        4 0
      4. JohnMurray
        Reply Icon

        Re: It's all so depressing...

        Not supersonic at sea level.....get it right !

        0 0
      5. uncle sjohie
        Reply Icon

        Re: It's all so depressing...

        That doesn't really matter, since you can move the airbase it flies off. Just park the carrier roughly in the right area, and presto.

        1 0
  4. Ironclad

    Sounds familiar

    All valid points but isn't this fundamentally the same article as this one:

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/17/f35_carriers_plot_by_bae_and_raf/

    3 0
    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Sounds familiar

      The best rants are those you keep repeating.

      0 1
  5. Captain TickTock
    Facepalm

    And...

    they've got all that money they saved scrapping the Nimrods burning a hole in their pockets...

    2 1
    1. JohnMurray
      Reply Icon

      Re: And...

      Saved ?

      What about the contracts that they had to buy out of ?

      Hmm ?

      2 0
  6. MJI Silver badge

    French carrier

    Is this the one with the under sized reactor?

    0 0
    1. Yag
      Reply Icon

      Re: French carrier

      Yes, it's the one with the undersized reactor and the sometime missing propeller.

      It's also the one that was available with a complement of planes for the interventions in Afghanistan and Libya.

      3 0
      1. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: French carrier

        The French carrier has spend half its life in dry dock, so it was a bit lucky to be available with 10 Rafales. Its now in dry dock again.

        0 0
        1. Yag
          Reply Icon

          Re: French carrier

          Actually, its disponibility is around 70%

          Nimitz-class carriers are around 50%.

          Of course, 30% of overhaul time is far more annoying when there's only one carrier...

          0 0
  7. MJI Silver badge

    Would have been better off with

    The 3 Invincible class carriers and a load of Sea Harriers.

    I think they were capable enough.

    4 0
    1. do the work
      Reply Icon

      Re: Would have been better off with

      Except they weren't really were they because the radius of airspace they were able to control was small and declining because the range of the harriers and the helicopter aew was not keeping pace with the range, speed and stealth of potential adversary aircraft, missiles and submarines.

      0 0
      1. peter wegrzyn
        Reply Icon

        Re: Would have been better off with

        The harrier has a very good combat radius and weapons load, better combat radius than the Hornet would you believe, because of the huge fan which is very efficient. In vertical take off its useless, but in normal operation (rolling ski-jump) its pretty damn good.

        0 0
  8. Captain TickTock
    Joke

    As the headline suggests...

    Should the new planes be called...

    the F35U ?

    3 0
  9. Gary F
    Unhappy

    This stinks

    Putting the defence of Britain first must always be the priority. Being chums with company bosses or supporting monopolies must never be allowed to come into the decision making process, so why does it feel like it has?

    Why hasn't the Government questioned the cost of adding the electric catapults to the carriers? If the supplier says £125K but the ship builder says £2bn then tell BAE to shove off and hire the American suppliers to come and fit the catapults themselves. I'm sure they have enough expertise to do so. It will save a fortune and we'd get the attack and rader aircraft we need. The MoD owns the carriers, not BAE, right? Or was it done under PPI?

    Why does the MoD/Gov always, always screw up procurement? Same with IT. Anything that relates to technology is mishandled. If private companies handled procurement like the Gov does there'd be people being fired on a daily basis - something that never seems to happen in the public sector. Jobs for life, zero accountability and generous pensions (yes, even with the cuts).

    3 0
    1. Luke McCarthy
      Reply Icon

      Re: This stinks

      Carriers aren't used for defence, only for military adventures 1000s of miles away.

      7 2
    2. Jonathan Richards 1
      Reply Icon

      Re: This stinks

      > The MoD owns the carriers, not BAE, right?

      No, wrong. The builders own the ship right up to the point she's finished and handed over.

      1 0
    3. P. Lee
      Reply Icon
      Joke

      Re: This stinks

      We don't need any of it. We can quite easily nuke the french using trident.

      Apologies to Yes Minister.

      0 0
      1. Yag
        Reply Icon
        Joke

        Re: This stinks

        I think the brand new M51s would be nice flying over London sometime... ;)

        0 0
    4. eaglemmoomin
      Reply Icon

      Re: This stinks

      So you reckon blokes that have designed and are building (it's not yet been fitted to a US carrier or tested on one) a brand new untrialled at sea catapult system designed for a completely different aircraft carrier with different wiring and deck layout and superstructure are just going to rock up to a totally different half built ship and start knocking the walls in and laying pipe? Yeah right.

      The carriers were designed so they can be fitted with catapults and I suspect if the trigger had been pulled much sooner before huge sections of the ships had been built and the EMALS design team had been involved day one then the original estimate might have possible.

      0 0
      1. Yag
        Reply Icon

        Re: This stinks

        Don't forget that taking into account an eventual catapult fitting was in the freakin' statement of work.

        Don't forget that the initial costs of the TWO carriers was initially estimated at 3.9 billion. (I wonder how much the costs have ballooned since...)

        Such a price quote looks like a breach of contract actually (It looks like BAE DID NOT took into account the fitting of the catapult and need to redesign almost all the ship.)

        1 0
  10. Ottman001

    £200m for a catapult before meteoric price rises? £2bn now?! I could do with some of that. Few days with a welder and access to a reasonable scrap heap ought to be enough. Where can I send my job estimate?

    0 0
    1. Captain TickTock
      Reply Icon
      Joke

      Angry Birds...

      Catapults.

      Pork.

      4 0
    2. jason 7
      Reply Icon
      Unhappy

      Exactly! What other dimension does this work in???

      You have your decorator round to make a written quote and he says £500 to paint the house.

      Then three weeks later he says its now going to cost £5000 so you politely say no but then ask him to build a patio for you for £5000 instead.

      It's a bloody scam and should be investigated. The Whole of the MOD/BAE needs to be full investigated by the Fraud Squad ASAP.

      Crooks getting away with it time and time again.

      6 0
    3. kain preacher
      Reply Icon

      The conversion rate between dollars and pounds is lousy

      0 0
  11. DenisN

    Faulty Tailhooks

    The BBC coverage suggests that one of the "changed facts" is that the F-35C tailhooks don't work: "The F-35C can fail to catch the wire or "trap" on landing due to the design of its hook". Can that be be a real issue? On our timescales?

    0 0
    1. PlacidCasual
      Reply Icon

      Re: Faulty Tailhooks

      It's a reasonable question, if they can't fix it in 8+ years they probably shouldn't have the job.

      I'll bet my last pound that the hooks on the F-18 work today though.

      0 0
      1. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Faulty Tailhooks

        "if they can't fix it in 8+ years they probably shouldn't have the job."

        Strictly speaking they should stretch the aircraft (the position of the hook violates carrier aircraft design rules), which would be a massive job and probably destroy the F-35C. If they can defy physics and modify the hook to fix it, then all will be well.

        2 0
    2. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Faulty Tailhooks

      Yes, the F-35C has failed every attempt at landing using the hook. Its a fundamental problem that may require the airframe to be redesigned, they are trying an alternative hook design which may fix it but that would an outside chance if it did.

      2 0
  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    £57million

    That's how much it will cost to prang an F35-B.

    At that price, our enemies know that shooting one down fulfils at least 2 goals -

    - removes one aircraft from our arsenal

    - has an significant economic impact

    I'm sure some people will be thinking of creative assymetrical warfare techniques to achieve these cost-effectively.

    I vote we give the military a reasonably sized fixed budget and tell them to find ways to live within their means, even if it means they have to stick labels over Russian control-panel legends

    10 0
    1. IDoNotThinkSo
      Reply Icon

      Re: £57million

      Given the likely cost of running the F35B, NOT destroying them might have a greater economic impact...

      15 0
      1. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: £57million

        I like the cut of your jib

        (jib supplied by BAE Systems, £1million quid)

        2 0
        1. P. Lee
          Reply Icon
          Terminator

          Re: £57million

          > (jib supplied by BAE Systems, £1million quid)

          and has four corners.

          The redesign will cost another £1million.

          0 0
    2. Ottman001
      Reply Icon

      Re: £57million

      Absolutely right. Any military historian will tell you history teaches us that quantity is AS IMPORTANT as quality. And you're screwed if you don't know how to use the kit you have.

      Its fair to say that Germany had the best kit during WW2 but they failed to capitalise on it because they were unable to produce the quantities needed. The British Hurricane, American Jeep and Sherman and Russian T34 were all war winning bits of kit that were successful because of their simplicity.

      6 2
      1. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: £57million

        We were caught napping with Aircraft but soon caught up in design, but they didn't have overwhelmingly high numbers, they just gave the perception that they did which was enough to make us run away even though we on paper out gunned them both on the land and in the air.

        You point on the Hurricane is correct, as that was the principle winner as its bigger better brother wasn't available in sufficient numbers until much later. Tanks we outnumbered them by a staggering proportion to start with but their tech was sufficient to kick us in the balls, just enough to make us think we were shafted, again the reality is we were not. Later in the war we did beat them on numbers and not tech.

        But it think the point im trying to make is that initial victories for Germany were as a result of better tech and more importantly better deployment, ironically when their tech improved their ability to deploy was reduced through incompetence eventually leading to their downfall.

        Numbers don't always mean victory as they will proved to start with, Christ, even back then the RAF and Navy were a each others necks, kinda makes you wonder who pissed of who first! :)

        1 0
        1. Ottman001
          Reply Icon

          Re: £57million

          @Dazza. So you're generally agreeing with me?

          "and more importantly better deployment" = "And you're screwed if you don't know how to use the kit you have."

          "when their tech improved their ability to deploy was reduced" = "history teaches us that quantity is AS IMPORTANT as quality"

          £57m per plane is a strong indication that the F-35 will be too advanced to permit the in-the-field running repairs called for in full on combat situations. It is notable that there hasn't been a full on high tech air-vs-air war in so long that the last 40 years of development could be in completely the wrong direction. We'll probably just put a few drones in action abroad while the F-35 guard Brize Norton and Portsmouth Docks from members of the ramblers association. Drones allow us to eliminate protect ourselves from AK47s and RPGs in legally dubious wars for far less.

          1 0
          1. Anonymous Coward
            Reply Icon
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: too advanced to permit the in-the-field running repairs

            1mm tolerance over the entire aircraft apparently. I know sod all about advanced warplanes but I think that means you can't fix it with a hammer. I do think we are advancing our technology to the point where sufficient cheap crap will win over small amounts of advanced stuff. Sort of an IED-in-the-sky scenario.

            1 0
          2. Anonymous Coward
            Reply Icon
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: £57million

            oh I agree to a point, but competence far outweighs them both,

            someone who knows their stuff can win with better tech or better numbers, provided its used in the best manor possible.

            You take the most advanced plane there is and put it in the hands of idiots then they will force the bloody thing to land on an airfield and have the pilots jump out and try take the bad guys out.

            Like wise if you have better numbers at the hand of an idiot you may end up with them all flying in single file one after the other in to a never failing wall of lead.

            So it doesn't matter really, so long as idiots are in charge your screwed in either case...

            0 0
      2. MJI Silver badge
        Reply Icon

        Re: £57million German War Kit

        Best kit

        Hmm I'd put Spitfire, Mosquito and Lancaster as better than anything the Germans had.

        I do know that there was an arms race between Me/Bf109/FW190 and the various marks of Spitfire.

        1 0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like