FedaykinThe point is Fed that, according to this information from the Yanks, we’ve now got an approximate cost for the shift from STOVL to CATOBAR which is going to be north of £2bn whole-life for both ships…should both be so fitted….which as we all know they will have to be to get more than, what, about 200 operational days a year.
So its £2bn extra, on top of all the other government-deposited non-design costs, for capability not identified in the Carrier Strike Key User Requirements. It really is classic mission-creep leading to unsupportable cost hikes.
Well then I stick my hand up jumping up and down shouting “HANG ON”!
SSDR 2010 stated “One carrier converted”…”one into reserve unconverted”! I don’t like that personally but that was what the SSDR set out as the way forward!
If an unsubstantiated figure of £2billion is being touted for conversion of BOTH carriers and that is being used as a reason to go back to F35B I very much call “SHENANIGANS”!!! If people are leaking a figure that relates to a scenario that doesn’t fit within SSDR 2010 then someone certainly is messing about! To leak a figure pertaining to scenario that wasn’t put forward in SSDR 2010 is highly underhanded for whoever is doing it! No wonder the USN are intervening, if people are going around giving figures for the conversion of both ships the figure of £2billion utter balderdash when only one ship is being converted! If that figure is also a “through life” cost as you say then some serious underhand work is going on! Conversion for one ship is going to come in much less then a vague through life cost for both ships…
What you are suggesting is highly dodgy situation…somebody leaks a figure which is based on pure guess work for the conversion of two carriers knowing full well this would spook the treasury and politicians who will think its the value of conversion for one ship! USN goes “?!?!”
FedaykinI was not happy that we switched from C to B,
I think you got that the wrong way round on the heat of typing Swerve;)
FedaykinCan you just clarify your point Jonesy as I am struggling to understand it.
As for getting our money back if we pull out of JSF program…not a chance.
FedaykinYes fat chance getting that kind of money back!
If we go back to STOVL and F35B has the plugged pulled new money would have to be stumped up for a further conversion.
As I said earlier and others have cottoned on to this is purely about the treasury wanting to avoid upfront expenditure! Nothing more nothing less! Capability or arguments between STOVL or CATOBAR don’t even feature in the argument.
Decision to change to CATOBAR is made in 2010 as the F35B was under HIGH risk of cancellation and the treasury was spooked over the spiralling costs for that variant! Now the treasury is spooked over some of the upfront expenditure for CATOBAR conversion of the carrier(carriers) based on figures that are not set in stone! In the meantime the risk associated with the F35B has gone down to agree and the treasury locks onto the idea like a Terrier biting a Rabbit as a switch back avoids some of the upfront costs the Carrier Alliance are starting to demand as part of the conversion process!
Considering the figures for conversion seem to be dropping out of thin air I am wondering if this further spinning from anti carrier types in the MOD! That the USN have stepped in now shows the farcical nature of the whole exercise. The USN are HIGHLY keen on the UK going CATOBAR as it means there is an extra deck that all types in the USN inventory would be able to operate off in an emergency. Ironically the USN begged the UK to keep a CATOBAR capable carrier when the old Ark Royal was retired as it was an extra deck albeit not as compatible with USN types as CVF would be post conversion. The USN does carry the significant cost burden when it comes to the riskier aspects of the EMALS and AAG program. The UK treasury is certainly not having to stump up for R&D on the systems, the major cost is the ship sets and the redesign work.
Now I am with Liger30 in wanting to see both carriers see service but I smell a dark green rat when it comes to all the panicked leaking of information to the press around figures that have not been clarified! That the treasury is the major villain in all of this with its pathological desire to avoid upfront spending on the books even if it means less capability in the future and costs driven through the roof for the duration of a project needs to be shouted from the roofs!
FedaykinCan’t comment on their doctrine or training methods (just like you can’t, as well) but alone their lack of force multipliers would provide a decisive advantage for ROKAF, agreed.
I think we can comment on their doctrine and training methods….
Their doctrine is based on old Soviet models which have shown to be flawed in the face of modern Western air power and their training is known to be again based on old inflexible Soviet models that emphasise GCI based tactics that are again totally impractical against modern Western air power.
Fedaykinhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JAMtJOqnzPk
Wow, this is unexpected! The Zaparozhye, the only submarine of the Ukranian Navy, seems to be moving around under its own power, after repairs at a Russian dry dock. Now why this ancient relic is being kept is a mystery to me, but it looks much better than it did before. Not as worried for the sailors on board…
And photos:
http://balancer.ru/sites/s/1/s1.ipicture.ru/uploads/20120320/thumbs/SVxIt6TL.jpg.htm
http://balancer.ru/sites/v/m/vmsu.info/ships/zaporozhye/zaporozhye_81_st.jpg.htm
http://balancer.ru/forum/punbb/attachment.php?item=270629&download=2
Video would be even better with this music…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPsL2WVhFCc&feature=related
FedaykinBut I don’t agree with this. Plan A locks us into the life span of the F35-B for STOVL operations but the CVF was always designed to be converted mid life if needed. That is because we have no idea what threats we will be facing beyond 2030 never mind 2040 considering these carriers have a 50 years life on them. If the threat is there then we will retain this capability via CATOBAR if needed. The current government is already feeling the heat from scrapping it in the first place.
Well that is the question isn’t it. You have stated what has always been the PR line in respect of the CVF program and certainly on paper it came over as very sensible heck I have even been a cheerleader for that point over the years. But looking at the program when the Thales design was selected in 2003 shows things are not that simple. BAE Systems took that Thales concept as a start point and then did their own thing right through until SSDR 2010 when it was all change…they took the base 65,000ton concept then proceeded to design a ship that didn’t put much thought into that actual conversion process. The project office was only mindful to the possibility that at some point in the life of the program the ship might have to be converted and frankly I don’t see much evidence they put significant effort into that idea. Why should they right up to SSDR 2010 the MOD was adamant that F35B was the way forward. Converting a ship 25 to 30 years into its service from STOVL to CATOBAR would be no mean feat! The older a ship is the riskier it is putting major cuts into it, preferably it should be done in build or within a few years of its entry into service. Its certainly not impossible and has certainly been done by the RN with more then one aircraft carrier, the conversion of R38 HMS Victorious is a particularly good example. The further question is would the defence budget in the future be able to handle that major a conversion…as it is so strained now and has been for decades I have to assume it would be unlikely.
FedaykinIts more the case of having the option of going for the US UCAV projected for the USN. It hasn’t had much reporting in comparison to other programs but it is chugging along very well at the moment and I haven’t seen any lurid headlines about problems with the X-47.
If something else comes along that is better great but I do like the option of being able to look at a system that has the full backing of the USN.
FedaykinSame again with PFI hospitals and schools.
Actually its been the curse of British spending for decades! Remember Chevaline for our Polaris missiles…rather then go for the upfront cost of upgrading our Resolution class submarines to accept Poseidon plus building a couple of extra submarines to make up for Soviet ABM missiles they decided to go for a highly risky penetration aids system. By avoiding the upfront cost of just inducting Poseidon we got a system that only entered service a few years prior to its replacement by Trident at FAR greater cost then inducting Poseidon and building extra submarines in the first place. We also had to run Polaris as a unique system as the Americans had retired it long ago totally negating the idea of saving cost by using an American launch system.
FedaykinI am going to pick at a few of your points Frosty if you don’t mind…
Firstly I see no evidence of any kind of idealogical preference for CATOBAR from Liam Fox or for that matter anybody in the coalition…actually what I see is a painful level of sea blindness and to a degree a strong bias towards the boys in Khaki!
The reason they switched to CATOBAR is the same reason we have had for the last few governments when it comes to defence spending: a great desire to avoid front loading the budget and paying up front for new equipment! Remember the carrier could of been easily main gated in 2004 but the previous government dithered for four years as they didn’t want to pay up front instead we had one capability study after the next which avoided upfront spending but pushed up overall cost. Actually the only reason the QE class did get maingated in the end was Gordon Brown who famously doesn’t give a toss about defence got jumpy that if it didn’t happen soon it would hurt his voters in Rosyth and by giving the go ahead it would allow for a couple of years of production prior to him possibly losing the election and ensuring it was more difficult to cancel by any future government! In respect of the decision to change to CATOBAR in 2010 SSDR we see the same again, F35B was at great risk of cancellation bringing massive risk to the program and changing to CATOBAR again pushed spending to the right as they could start yet another capability and design study which whilst costing millions still avoided major expenditure up front for a couple of years. So shock horror when it is realised that conversion is rather pricey and the F35B is travelling out of the woods they lurch back to plan A! Of course Plan A locks us into F35B for the duration of the carriers life (there is no way they would be converted to CATOBAR midlife) and closes the door to X-47 but heck the treasury gets to avoid some up front spending again.
As for the length of capability gap if the harriers had stayed in service I would agree but with them gone the gap until F35B or C enters service won’t be much different if at all. Anyhow I am of the opinion that even if SSDR 2010 had kept to F35B I still think Harrier was going to be retired.
For me aside from the romantic feelings I have CATOBAR operations (they look more cool) it gives a far more flexible carrier for the duration of its life and doesn’t lock us into one airframe. On the other hand F35B and Merlin AEW will be superior in capability to Harrier and Seaking ASaC7 and it will be more likely both carriers will see service. So in that respect I am not adverse to a change of plan again.
In the end my major issue is this: the government (any government) has to learn that sometimes you have to spend upfront to save in the future! If QE class had been maingated as they should of in 2004 the cost would of been much less and HMS QE would of been floated out by now!
FedaykinThe J-15 and Z-8 mock ups look very similar to the ones used on the Varyag carrier mock up (might even be the same), considering the crew practiced deck handling skills with them on the mock up its a logical next step to see them on the real thing.
FedaykinWell does the Texas instruments radar fitted to the IDS even have an air to air mode? Maybe it has a ranging mode??
FedaykinYeah problem is with Nott 1 at least the Argentines helped showing the flaws in it prior to the worst aspects being enacted.
FedaykinPersonally whilst I would of preferred the UK kept Largs Bay it doesn’t bother me as much as other decisions. Considering pre SSDR 2010 they were saying Albion or Bulwark would go along with two of the Bay class the RFA/RN got off light. Three Bay and Two Albion class along with Ocean and all the Ro-Ro plus RFA Diligence, RFA Argus and HMS Illustrious our capacity is still significantly superior to what we had in 82 when it comes to putting troops on a beach. If it also helps out an ally the RAN who got themselves into a pickle as well and who have been given a taste for UK ships again its not all bad.
Of course no carrier air whatsoever and you might as well sell on or retire all the amphibious assault capability that has been built up as there will be no way to protect it over a beachhead! – Something the lets get rid of carriers brigade seem to forget !
FedaykinWhat this does do is fully expose the lie in the farce that was SSDR 2010! As we all know it was purely a cost driven exercise and if this happens the government can’t deny that!
Sign In
