Liger30To be honest i think the Carrier conversion cost increase is a bit of a red herring, it would be interesting to see how that actually breaks down as i suspect they are roping in alot of the associated costs of training coupled with BAE’s fee for drawing out the build schedule rather than the actual costs of converting the carrier to CATOBAR format.
Of course the conversion cost covers a lot of voices, not just catapults themselves and the work for fitting them, but this, really, makes little difference.
1.8 billion or 2 billions is an amount i hoped would get BOTH carriers converted to catapults.
This not being the case, it becomes a cost unacceptable.
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!
This is the real huge elephant in the room. I quote you entirely.
If Labour had not delayed 405 millions of expense in 2008, the carriers would currently cost 1.56 billion less, NAO certified.
I do not think there’s much else to say. The figures speak on their own.
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.
This is the real risk and regret.
I don’t think the UK would have bought the US UCAV in any case, but i had hopes for the 2030 Anglo-French UCAV and maybe even for the 2020’s MALE drone to be carrier capable.
With a STOVL carrier, this opportunity vanishes.
I also believe that the F35B is BOUND to cost more to maintain and run in the long term than F35C, but CATOBAR ops carry a training penality with them, and associated costs. It is for the ministry to look at the data and determine which penalty is going to be financially heavier.
Liger30I hope in a reversion to the B variant, sweetened by a committment to putting both carriers in service.
Give me this announcement, and i’m happy. The F35C would be better, but i’d much rather have both carriers than a single one with the C.
Liger30That is clear, Fedaykin.
The problem is that it was poor even as a financial exercise: the F35C decision now turns out being unhappy; Largs Bay is gone to save as little as 12 millions per year, Albion mothballed to save less than 20, even the 40% cut in Challenger II tanks in government figures equates to at most 20 million per year, and the cutting of the Fuchs NBC recce vehicles doesn’t total 3 millions.
Disproportionate loss of capability in exchange for often ridiculous savings…
Liger30Certainly the RAFs eyes are turning onto unmanned for the penetration strike component. Also with the noises about project seed-corn in respect of the MPA role I wonder if the RAF are turning their mind to reviving the concept of using the P8 as a CALCM carrier with Storm Shadow much as they were thinking with Nimrod MRA4.
The UCAV program with France will not deliver anything before 2030 at the earliest, though, so i don’t know, sincerely.
I think the RAF wants the F35C, but will have to content itself with the B if the financial situation is as bad as is being said. And it is, i suspect.
As to MPA and Storm Shadow, i support that entirely. An MPA is an urgent requirement in my view, and Storm Shadow on such a long range platform is a good idea.
As is that of deploying Storm Shadows out of the cargo ramp of A400 cargo planes, even if the RAF was never too keen on admitting that this is absolutely feasible. They prefer fast and pointy jets for the role, unsurprisingly.
The unfortunate bit of the picture is that the 10-years equipment plan in the making does not include any money for an MPA purchase at all, despite Seedcorn going on, according to what Ursula Brennan told the Defence Committee.
Liger30Rafale never was a realistic option, Sea Typhoon neither, and the RAF does not want to finance F18 for the Navy as they have no interest on it.
So the F35C didn’t free the UK from much of the constraints.
Besides, now it is arguably the F35C that’s at risk of failure. If this summer the redesigned tailhook fails to grab the wires, extensive redesign of the fuselage becomes necessary, cost grows for sure, and operational capability is delayed, very possibly of several years.
I expect that it will catch the wire, but there’s no certainty.
And with possibly 1.8 billion bill to convert a single carrier… it just can’t work.
The catapults have many merits, and they are no doubt the right solution, and the most future-proof.
But they also appear to be unaffordable.
Between a single catapults carrier, no LPHs, and reduced capability across the board and 2 carriers aviation capable, i’ll always chose the second.
Liger30My view on the latest rumors: http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.com/2012/03/march-26-should-bring-forth-some.html
Liger30The official position is that Charles de Gaulle cannot work with F35C aboard, and it has been said more than once.
Liger30I think it is potentially a good point for CVF.
Charles De Gaulle cannot take the F35C aboard, and this fact by now is known. Makes it complex to babble about interoperability. And support for retaining both CVFs appears to be increasing.
And perhaps, with the right agreement, we could have France contributing some money for conversion of Queen Elizabeth in exchange for joint usage. After all, CVF will take comfortably Rafale and everything else the french will want to bring out at sea. Each nation would have an “in role” strike carrier, with a support one shared.
One can hope, at least. The idea makes sense, but it is money which will ultimately decide, regardless of the goodness of the idea.
Liger30There’s new videos too! The first one is an updated Queen Elizabeth built strategy animation, showing what’s been installed so far, and what’s yet to come, with dates as well:
– 10/02/12 the last sponson on LB03 should go in place
– 22/06/12 LB03 is undocked to move in the other blocks
– 09/11/12 first gas turbine is installed
– 05/03/13 first island installed
Assembly complete by 30/10/13.
http://www.aircraftcarrieralliance.co.uk/en/media/video-library.aspx
The Build Updates of November is good to get an idea of all the latest news.
Ski jumps have definitely been deleted from almost everywhere… But there’s not yet a revised video of future ops from a CATOBAR CVF.
People want it too! 🙂
Liger30Good stuff, and great image. Good find, FIRST, thank you.
Liger30I indeed heard that the UK made an “off the shelf” bargain-proposal to Brazil which would involve the 4 Type 22s, RFA Fort George, plus the 3 BAE OPVs that were ordered and then never taken up by Trinidad and Tobago.
I thought at the time that it was a formidable offer, but at least so far, Brazil does not seem to have funded any acquisition.
Liger30They are constantly delaying the placing of orders for the 36 new fighters and their navy’s biggest priority is the big package of acquisition of frigates, OPVs plus oil replenisher for which the UK offered the Rivers, participation in the Type 26 and the construction of a Wave-class tanker. Acquisition that they are trying to get approved by the government from quite some time already, without success.
And they now would build not one, but two carriers…?
Not really. I don’t think it makes sense.
Liger30Margaret Hodge’s statement does not scare nor impress me.
I just think she’s plain wrong.
Barely weeks ago, the chief engineer of the ACA flat out said that they visited the US to see the EMALS and prepare for installing them on Prince of Wales at build.
And that’s all i need to hear for the moment.
As to the 3 years time before a full squadron is ready, i suspect that, even more than the RAF, reason will be simply lack of money forcing a slow schedule of acquisition to be adopted.
Liger30@Frosty
Believe me i understand your point, and would of course be happier if more statements of overture towards operating both carriers were made.
And i know how much carrier hate there is around. I spend hours every day, literally, battling sea blind people and carrier haters, so i believe i’ve got a tremendous awareness of the problem.
But i just want to say: do not panic just yet. Several statements before this have actually been encouraging, and the Defence Committee itself has said clearly in its SDSR assesment that they want both carriers converted.
The awareness of the issue exists.
And in 2015 there’s a “secret weapon” which might help the RN fighting QE’s corner:
Europe will be without a big carrier for 2 years since in that period Charles De Gaulle will go into dry dock for nuclear refuelling, providing yet another argument, very visible, that the Sea Lord will be able to use at the table.
We have an ally in the fight for converting the second carrier, a rather important one: France. They can’t build a PA2, so they have enormous interest into seeing QE fitted with cats and used jointly, and i would expect political pressure, and perhaps even economic support, from them.
Which does not make us sure of victory. But gives us hopes at least.
@Stryker73
Where did that statement appear? It is not on the MOD website yet…
Liger30“I know the BBC are far from the best at defence reporting but they all said the same thing very clearly, that there will be one carrier brought into service.”
Until the SDR 2015 i wouldn’t expect to hear anything different.
It is the next SDR that matters. Declarations at this point in time are irrelevant.
Sign In
