Just watched a BBC news item where the reporter is on CdeG which as we all know is conducting operations off Libya and talks much about the capability the french have with this asset, which we are not going to have for at least a decade.
The french captain commented that he wished that it were not only the french that had deployed this kind of capability, but that they had to accept that this is the situation.
They showed cockpit footage for the take off and landing (I think from a Rafale) and commented that british pilots will likely have to wait the 10 years before they will be able to see the same view on and off a british carrier.

I did get the feeling that for once, the BBC were almost displaying a pro carrier stance.
Either that, or they were taking a converse view so as to have a pop at the government for having scrapped the asset we at least had, which could have deployed fixed wing jets, but because of the SDSR, now have to wait so long before we can deploy the next asset capable of the same tasks.

Bomberboy

Nice Piccys,

Thanks for reminding me the Fiat was there.
Havent seen that in many years. excellent!

Bomberboy

A first batch from me:

Martin]

Fantastic shots, particularly like the Sabre shots.

:confused: There is one really notable absentee in this celebratory photo gathering of superb aviation females (haven’t got a clue who some of these are or what they have done), who has certainly been in the game probably longer than most, if not all of those included and has certainly helped pave many ways for the female aviators of today, but is not included and was certainly present all day!
What a shame. 🙁

Bomberboy

The ones in H & W were made in germany?

Indeed I am aware of that.
I have seen them close up in the flesh and there are quite clearly the Krupp logos on them.
The initial part of my comment was made in relation to ‘size’.
That said I was still disappointed that the new crane at Rosyth could not have been made in the UK.

Bomberboy

Yeah I saw it the other weekend when – I think -Illustrious was in port. The sheer scale of the crane alone next to the Illustrious was pretty awe inspiring.

But if i’m correct, Samson and Goliath over at H&W in Belfast are bigger are they not?
I must say, I was disappointed that the new crane was not manufactured in the UK.

Bomberboy

Didn’t we discuss that article previously, and the meaninglessness of the figures without further details? 35CZ/day at what speed? What proportion of the time was spent alongside? Was it on shore power for any of that time? etc.

It seems to me to ba an ‘average’ amount of fuel consumed each day over a 4100 mile sailing which would seem to include alongside time as well.
How I work out my fuel economy in my car is how many miles covered for the amount of fuel used which will include high speed, low speed, traffic and the like.
I understand that not all actual speeds are mentioned but the fact is that high speeds are mentioned and we can guarantee that slow seeds will be a matter of fact as well means that just like car brochures, only certain economy statistics are detailed, generally average and cruising speeds.
No car manufacturer would mention just how much fuel would be consumed at full speed.
If they did i’m sure some vehicles would never see the light of day.

So whilst exacting figures are not available, they are offering a comparative economy example against the type 42 which should at least satisfy something of what is in question even if it is not accurate.

Bomberboy

Trying to work out precise costs would itself have cost a lot, & it wasn’t thought worthwhile spending that money. It would also not have been completely possible, as catapult costs at that point weren’t known, or knowable. Steam catapults were an option then, but aren’t really now,so any price estimate for them would no longer apply. EMALS costs were still up in the air, & an EMCAT option was a remote possiblity with no real idea of cost. In the light of that, how could we have costed it in anything other than a vague, finger in the air, manner?

And compliments my #40 post very well thanks!
It’s nice to see that there are others that understand the process.

Bomberboy

We will see …

These carriers were always designed with a view to the possibility of changing to F-35C, it’s quite frankly barmy to imagine that the costs were unknown of the several different variations in configurations. Either they were concealed from the government at the time of the defence review or the government knew of them and concealed them at the time of the defence review.

Orion,
Please accept this response on the basis I assume you do not necessarily understand or actually know the commercial contracting world. It’s not aimed at belittling your comment.

It’s a matter of fact that even when contractually something is either, designed, or significantly designed, as well as construction commencement, (this can be for anything), and designed in a way so that it can be adapted more easily as opposed to less easily, or worse, with difficulty at a later date and to a different configuration, means that when the change is made, there will always be significant design change costs for the actual re-design to the client.
What you do not pay for up-front or even necessarily cost, (as this will also call for extra up-front costs), prior to any concievable change actually becoming likely, is what these re-design costs will be!
This is particularly difficult anyway where a good number of years may pass by before any change occurrs and so even if this were requested and paid for by the client, at what point during the whole project and ships life does the contractor cost for? 5, 10, 20, 30 years?
The client may therefore request and so have to pay for, a number of alternative cost periods, but these are always frought with risk of cost innaccuracies and who wants to pay so many extra up-front costs, for something that may or may not ever happen…..I know I wouldn’t and as a general rule, clients will not!

If a contractor is asked to look at re-designing their product by the client, then the client will pay for the re-design costs to be compiled and all costs associated with the previous ‘approved’ design and any affected actual construction, are lost.
If the client agrees to the re-design costs with the contractor, then they now pay the contractor through ‘compensation events’, the actual re-design (and where appropriate) construction costs on top.

Personally I’d doubt if this is the last rise in costs for the these ships.

Neither do I, particularly if the client can’t help themselves and therefore allows ‘scope creep’ to continually happen.

The question of cancellation is very much when rather than if, particularly as the economy is not growing as it ought..

Someone else has covered this already, where the worst thing any government can do is to spend a fortune on something and then just cancel it!
The argument that can be put forwrd is can we afford not to have them, which I firmly believe we can’t!

Bomberboy