The truth on the Navy carrier debacle? Industry got away with murder
The Ministry of Defence is in the pillory again today, being corporately pelted for the recent unedifying sequence of events in which the Coalition government decided in 2010 to fit the Royal Navy's new aircraft carriers with catapults - and then abruptly changed its mind in 2012, reverting to the former plan which will see them …
This topic is closed for new posts.
Re: New Carriers Defensive Weapons
That's why they won't go anywhere without a couple of T45s in tow.
Re: New Carriers Defensive Weapons
I think it's the frigates that carry the anti-anti-ship weapons, not the destroyers.
Re: New Carriers Defensive Weapons
"phalanx"
100% failure rate in combat against 1970's missile, how useful against supersonic sea, stealth sea skimming missiles...
Splutter
Bernard Gray seen as a procurement genius by Whitehall? Where the hell did you get that stunning bit of insight? As far as Whitehall is concerned, he is a political appointee who wrote several reports (with big holes in) before he got given the procurement job. A lot of people also forget that he, in conjunction with some rather expensive consultants, set up the procurement structure back in early 2000s. As defence projects take decades to wind their ways through the red tape, the fact that things are a mess now would perhaps indicate that his reforms were not as clever as he likes to make out...
As for blaming the current lot for less than adaptable carriers, the answer is sort of a 'no sh*t sherlock'. The current lot are being castigated for trying to change the requirement while the things are being built. If you wanted carriers capable of launching CV F35s, they should have made that decision a long time ago, changing it all back and chopping off large chunks of metal from the new carriers was bound to cost a fortune. That sort of revisionism is what got MOD into trouble in the first place.
Final point - there are only three full blown carrier nations in the world - Russia, France and the US (China does not count, not for several more years at least). However, there currently are an equivalent number of STOVL (India, Italy, US marines) and quite a few helicoper carrier (France, Italy, India, US marines, Russian, Australia and a few more I can't remember) around. Thus if you want to be interoperable, STOVL is actually more interoperable with other nations than carrier variant. If your carrier gets sunk, your STOVL can land on the decks of the other nations or in an emergency on the deck of a destroyer. Lose a CV carrier and if your jets cannot get to land they are all lost. As the Russians (and others) are making and selling supersonice ship killing missiles, and as the carrier is always the no.1 target... Maybe, just maybe being able to disperse your naval airforce on the assumption there is no such thing as a perfect defence, might be a good idea. It is not as if we have a hundred destroyers handy to protect carriers now is it?
Re: Splutter
No, but we don't even have 12 destroyers, each to take 1 F35 jump jet (the standard pitiful compliment), if the carrier was sunk, assuming of course that the jets could be landed on the back of destroyers (they're slightly larger than a merlin or lynx I suspect). Fundamentally you can fly both types of F35 (STOVL may require straight through longer runway, so risk of being run over by carrier, but could do it just like harriers used to from land) + AEW + helo's + drones + transports + kites on a sunny day from cat and trap carriers. Let the yanks have the cutting edge stuff, we'll have the F18's or Rafale's and still probably beat them in a straight fight.
Re: Splutter
That doesn't make any sense at all - cat launched jets have far better range that STOVL, so would better be able to make land, refuel in the air and pretty much anything else... at lower cost!
Re: Splutter
> No, but we don't even have 12 destroyers, each to take 1 F35 jump jet
Flaming pieces of crap, I hope to see that in my lifetime on live TV, that would beat Battlestar Galactica action!
Re: Splutter
The F-35 has a bit better range, but its hardly significant, especially with mid-air refueling.
Really?
The truth is that Industry designed the carrier that was asked for. The MoD kept changing its mind.
You design the carrier around the aircraft. It is hardly the fault of the supplier if the MoD changes its mind every five minutes. You can not expect to design a carrier for fixed wing and STOVL aircraft and expect the budget to not increase.
Go and order a car from a car dealership. Then change your mind every 5 minutes about the colour, engine size and fuel type. See how you get on with that.
Or contract a builder to build you a house extension and then half-way through the build move its location. Then stand back in shock and amazement when the builder dares to ask for extra money and says it will take longer to build.
Re: Really?
Yeh - you'd think they'd have the sense to build an adaptable one wouldn’t you. Oh hang on ...
Re: Really?
"You design the carrier around the aircraft".
Quite so. And before that, you choose the aircraft in accordance with the necessary mission profiles.
Whereas, in the present exercise, none of that seems to have been done. Broon thought "How can I land people in my constituency with a huge, long-term lump of work?" and realised that a couple of carriers would do the job.
Piston Broke
How big a boiler could be built for a BEEELLION pounds? There must be alternatives to a nuclear reactor for generating steam for catapults.
The reality of "convertible".
I'm guessing but I would suggest the main problem was in the definition of "convertible" used in the contract. Put simply, you could remove the ski-jump from the STOVL design, put in a cat for direct launch over the bows, making the cat capable of launching a light aircraft at low speed, and - voila! - you have specified your "conversion", and it probably looks quite cheap. Of course, when you start talking about throwing a heavy superjet, and then you want to add an angled deck to avoid any launch failures getting run-over by the ship (requiring considerable changes to the hull), and instead of chucking a light aircraft at low speed you now need to throw that heavier superjet at twice the speed because they have the low-speed ability of a brick, then suddenly the costs get much higher. Anyone looking at just the two pics in the article should be able to see that the "conversion" is actually a complete redesign of the ship.
In essence, I can claim that I can take the space shuttle and "convert" it into an airliner like a 777. Of course, there will probably be nothing left of the original shuttle except for the crew seats, but in essence it is not an impossible conversion. Someone at the MoD needs to account for the "convertible" statement as that is what I see as the crux of the issue. It could simply be it was added without serious consideration, then the MoD and BAe had to actually go back and do a realistic costing.
/YEAARGGHHH, obviously.
UK will never ever buy Rafales
The US will not allow it. Having the keys of british nuclear dissuasion with its Trident D5 missiles it provides and maintains, the US will be the real decision maker in the end.
BAE , need a good sorting out, how that company gets away with what they do is beyond me. 4Billion for Nimrod , you having a laugh!
So these are like big boats that have airplanes on top? Surely it would have been a cheaper option to put small boats in big planes.
Or they could've make one giant duck shaped boat called the Sitting Duck and just let it drift into the enemy as a diversion.
Who are we going to be fighting anyway?
Righteous indignation
I know I should be more annoyed at the MOD screwing things up.
Sadly however I am just surprised we aren't discussing problems of the planes propellers getting tangled in the rigging, or difficulty procuring enough oak to build the carrier, hemp with which to rig it and incompatible cannon ball sizes .
Having been “designed for conversion”, and conversion having proved far more expensive than we expected, do we have any comeback against those companies that did the design?
Comeback with a sandwich?
Why we ordered these things in the first place
We only ordered these so as to keep some bloody Scottish shipyards open. No other reason.
It would have been cheaper to let them go on the dole with all their other friends/relatives.
A very expensive way of keeping people busy. It is what happens when you have someone from Fife running the country
Would be interesting to have a cost estimate
....for building, say, nine destroyers with an aft flight deck large enough to accommodate two VSTOL aircraft each. Would certainly cut down on the "one big target" weakness of a carrier.
Re: Would be interesting to have a cost estimate
They will actually use nine requisited container ships all flagged in Liberia with Phililpino crews and Georgian captains.
Re: Would be interesting to have a cost estimate@Joe Gurman
The required flight deck would be quite long if you want to take off with any fuel and weapons. This leads to the idea of "why don't we build something like a large destroyer sized aircraft carrier, that wouldn't cost much?", and before you've finished you find that you've specced an Invincible class pocket carrier (which is broadly speaking exactly how they were developed).
A near like for like replacement of the Invincible class would probably have been far more appropriate to the UK's means and needs..
lets build a death star
as long as we don't get:
A. government involvement
B. BAE involvement
then it should come in on time, under budget and out perform the original design criteria.
Re: lets build a death star
If BAe built a Death Star to the usual design, it would come out looking like a Borg cube with lots of trenches and ventilation vents.
Phil.
Re: Actually, if BAe built the Death Star
It would have a catastrophic, single point of failure; a relatively unprotected exhaust vent leading all the way down to the reactor at the centre of the otherwise impregnable battle station.
Re: Actually, if BAe built the Death Star
Yeah but the main destroy-o-blast cannon would have been "left out" to be "fitted in once the design has been finished at some future date".
"Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed - it was made by BAE"
Remember Skybolt -- supposed to be the future of Britain's deterrent -- then the USA abandoned it -- as they could the F35.
MoD contracts
"provided the word "adaptable" is actually on the contract somewhere (this is a secret of course, like all MoD contracts)."
And that's your problem right there. If the process is kept secret, the taxpayer *will* get shafted. It's called the free market and all the major parties claim to understand it, but clearly none of them have a fucking clue. Defence contractors have every incentive to inflate prices and unlimited expertise in the products being sold. Civil servants have limited incentive and limited knowledge. If at least 50% of the defence budget isn't being creamed off in grotesque profiteering then the contractors aren't going their jobs properly and will be replaced by people who do. Don't believe me? Then you don't understand the free market either.
Politicians who continue to accept that "it has to be secret coz it's defence" are costing the country billions per year AND failing to deliver adequate armed forces. I don't care how much pain it causes, there's little point in *having* a defence budget if we continue to manage it entirely behind closed doors. We should insist on contracts being published before they are signed. It's only the contract. It isn't a blueprint or a battle-plan.
Contractors who refuse to bid under such rules will find that others are quite happy to take their place, but I doubt it will come to that. The UK is one of the biggest spenders on defence and no-one in the business can really afford to turn their backs on us.
Why bother?
Why bother building some big old aircraft carriers that'll only go over budget anyway.
Just attach some honking big engines to the coast and we'll sail the entire of blighty out where ever it's needed. Hopefully somewhere sunny.
Re: Why bother?
Thanks! Now I can't get rid of the mental image of de Kirchner's face as she sees the entire of Mainland GB hove into view from over the horizon.
SDR
Regarding the carrier project, the original wording in the conclusion of Labour's Strategic Defense Review (the one that set the ball rolling on the new carriers) was pretty unequivocal when it came to their purpose:
"...an ability to operate the largest possible range of aircraft in the widest possible range of roles."
Kinda fucked that one up.
In the early 60's Labour cancelled the TSR2 in favour of the "customized" F111 variant.
Which never turned up.
Could the F35b be the F111 6 decades on?
Just a thought.
Fail for the procurement and the stench that wafts off the BAe/MoD "special relationship."
Re: In the early 60's Labour cancelled the TSR2 in favour of the "customized" F111 variant.
"Could the F35b be the F111 6 decades on?"
Very probably yes. BAES have no monopoly on over-running defence projects, and there's real concern in the US about the whole F35 cost trajectory. As with the Eurofighter in Europe, the US are having to order less than they want to stay within budget, and if the costs continue to spiral then they'll have to ask why they are working on three variants when they only need two. Only the British and the US Marines really want the notably problematic B, so that's most at risk of being canned, or having its capabilities drastically curtailed to reduce costs - perhaps that's a more likely outcome, and we'll end up with something that is both expensive and crap. A bit like our carriers.
Re: In the early 60's Labour cancelled the TSR2 in favour of the "customized" F111 variant.
" Only the British and the US Marines really want the notably problematic B, "
And the Spanish and Italians have ordered the B. Up to another eight nations are considering the B.
Only the USN are buying the C, the major issue with it is even its redesigned tailhook only managed 5/8 successes on land, which is basically a unacceptable failure rate. The USN have several other options for a carrier aircraft, including the Super Hornets.
The UK could adapt the Typhoon fro STOBAR use, its possible, or simply cancel the idea and sell the carriers off cheap to India or Australia
Re: In the early 60's Labour cancelled the TSR2 in favour of the "customized" F111 variant.
"Only the USN are buying the C, the major issue with it is even its redesigned tailhook only managed 5/8 successes on land, which is basically a unacceptable failure rate. The USN have several other options for a carrier aircraft, including the Super Hornets."
The B is essentially then for small export orders and the modest USMC requirement. I might also ask where (as with the UK) the Spanish and the Italians plan to get the money to buy these hugely expensive toys? A few export orders vulnerable to cancellation won't protect the B. The C however is the core of the proposed capability of the Ford class CVN's, and possibly replacement of the older USN jets on existing carriers. I really can't see cancellation of the C being politically acceptable, particularly as they've just spent almost $40bn on three new catapult equipped carriers for this. The tail hook issue is not something that cannot be overcome, but the continued complexity issues and weight of the B aren't going away either.
The US hasn't faced up to its defence budgetary problems yet. In its perceived need to project force globally and demonstrate technical superiority it isn't going to adopt the Super Hornet as its first line assets, so the F35 will make it into carrier service in one form.
For me, the existence of a third/fourth* US air force in the USMC is another expensive anomally that looks vulnerable. If the military need to reduce the costs of F35, that means cutting one of the three programmes - who do you think has more clout in Washington, the USN, or the USMC plus Spain, Italy, and the UK? Look at what the UK did to the FAA to "reduce costs". In the same hard place, the USMC may be willing to surrender their air corp in return for the USMC's continued existence, and then there's no American customers for the B at all.
I don't know what the outcome will be, but common sense says that the B is the most troublesome, most expensive, and least significant to the US armed forces.
* USAF, USN, USMC, Air National Guard.
Re: In the early 60's Labour cancelled the TSR2 in favour of the "customized" F111 variant.
> The B is essentially then for small export orders and the modest USMC requirement
Hasn't the USMC just sorted out its requirement by spending fifty quid on some used Harriers?
Vic.
Re: In the early 60's Labour cancelled the TSR2 in favour of the "customized" F111 variant.
Black night rocket program before that, built on a shoe string & successfully put a satellite in orbit then shut down!
Think deeper.
Fail for procurement MOD/BAE/LM/DOD & we were going to be stitched up like a kipper from the start!
Staggering incompetence, as the old joke said, man walking down Whitehall asked which side the Mod was, "ours I hope" replied the PC.
So how long until the British MoD throws in the towel....
And turns these into the worlds most expensive container ships??
"The HMS Ark Royal arrived in Southampton today, bearing a cargo of T-shirts and consumer electronics......"
Re: So how long until the British MoD throws in the towel....
Didn't see that these had already been named Price of Wales and Elizabeth. Many apologies to those fine ships bearing the name "Ark Royal".
Simple problem, simple answer...
It is only a matter of money. Just spend more!
That's what we do here in the good ol' USA. Best government inflation will buy!
why do i keep reading about the royal navy on a computing site?
why do i keep reading about the royal navy on a computing site?
Re: why do i keep reading about the royal navy on a computing site?
Never heard the term "Windows for Warships"?
The carriers should be donated to the wanna be Americans Australia. Let them police Asia.
Carriers without catapults? Sold out your jump-jets? I have the solution!
Simply use the Hercules AC 130 on your not-so-adaptable carrier.
Google for it, the Hercules could land and takeoff from ANY post-WW II carrier with so-many-feet of flat deck on it. The only real hazard was the tip of the wings would come REALLY close to the upper structure.
And you know the AC 130 can be converted into anything, including a bloody flying artillery position with 105mm guns. Fitting a radar dish on top of it or a dozen air-to-air missiles and nose guns should be a breeze too.
Since you are talking about incorrect planes to equip your "carriers", at least put something that works on it.
Oh, and the term carriers is so descriptive, because it can CARRY modern and decent fighter planes, not LAUNCH or RECOVER them. So you should lobby a more fitting alternative like I suggested above.
Pictures or it didn't happen, below! The historic landing on USS Forrestal, and it didn't happen just once, the pilots landed and took off many times.
http://markosun.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/forrestal.jpg
http://images.defensetech.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Forrestalherk.jpg
I would go for the troll or fail icon, but anon fits better.
Re: Carriers without catapults? Sold out your jump-jets? I have the solution!
That's one brave pilot.
We're having an upgrade
Let's throw out our production servers before the PHB has even decided on the new ones.
This is how MoD contracts work
The problem with MoD contracts is that the skill is not in building the kit, or designing the kit, but rather in designing a Cost Model that the MoD buys for designing and building such kit. Nobody ever believes that any program can be run at the promised cost, but if the Cost Model can be tweaked so that it fits within MoD budget all is well. Once you have spent all the money under the cost model, you then just have to ask for more, and show a new Cost Model that shows you are at least 50% there. So if you want to have more than 100% cost overrun (as in the case of the carriers) you just have to do multiple rounds of this. This is especially easy to do on projects >4 years since the politicians change, and so you can claim a change in requirement.
This topic is closed for new posts.
