Carrier costs 'to rise by £500m'

HAVE YOUR SAY

29 October 2010

To look at an increased cost for a better system on its own is wrong. We should, at the same time, consider what saving there will be in the selection of the F35C instead of the F35B.
On the face of it EMCAT would be more attractive than EMALS.

Norman - UK

29 October 2010

As Norman states the selection of F-35C is cheaper to procure per unit and its also estimated will be around 25% cheaper to operate.
That should compensate for increased costs now to install an Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System.
Graham - High Wycombe

29 October 2010

It's a massive increase in the unit cost, but if it does the job then the capability of our carrier/s and jets will be great.
Mike Chesterfield - Derbyshire

29 October 2010

It seems to me that the confusion is never ending in the CVF saga.
We have the Defence Secretary,the Defence Minister and an MOD 'spokesman' all making statements and all subtly differing in content.
As with all politicians it's what they don't say that is most important.
Now although £500m seems a lot of money it really isn't that much in defence terms,so when we look at design and build changes the procurement of whichever system (Emcat or Emals) and arrester gear and landing aids for FW aircraft is this cost for one carrier or both.
I suppose fitting cat and trap to both would make it easier to flog one off to any prospective buyer,I wonder if during this governments talks with Brazil the subject was broached.
If the T23 fiasco is repeated then we will sell it off far cheaper than what it cost to build such is the MOD way of doing things.
Still as long as we can ring fence £3bn to £5bn in foreign aid despite not being able to defend ourselves,then all is well in the world.
michael - notts

29 October 2010

Better would have been a commitment to both carriers built to the STOVL layout.

Maybe the half billion saved could have kept the Harrier and not had a ten year gap in naval air to face.

Catapult's and the rest of it are all very nice but we need a Fleet Air Arm to use them and there are no guarantee's of that now.
Steve - Uk

29 October 2010

Sadly the Treasury/MoD have never heard of "Do it right, do it once".
Cats & traps is one way.
A cheaper compromise is to copy the Russians & have an angled deck with arrester wires & a ski ramp.
John Hartley - Woking/Surrey/UK

29 October 2010

These cost increases were projected earlier when CV type (i.e. F-35C) aircraft were expected to be selected over the STOVL variant. So it should be emphasised this would have been considered when changing from B/C variants and as such is not a massive cost increase (considering the government has caused the project to slide around 6 years, this has caused more cost increases for the short term budget relief they sort a few years ago).

Considering the 'early' phase of the building and decision to go CV, expect the costs to increase (as is normal) with evolving technologies, such as EMALS and new arrestor systems now muted. Remember EMALS will require massive electricity requirements ( a std catapult will require a bulky steam plant!), so expect some machinery changes.

To truly utilise the vessel(s - if both are kept), the port side requires a redesign with a sponson to allow the angled flight deck to clear the forward launching areas (assuming 2 launchers are fitted) with a third (longer) catapult fitted on this larger angled flight deck.

However, again due to penny pinching SoBs, I bet the deck lay out will be similar to Eagle / ArR(iV) when considering the number of jets initially will be around a third (12) of what the vessel can support; indicating the deck will be more focused around efficient rotary (i.e. helicopter) aircraft operations.

I am however optimistic in few years the economic situation may change to allow the cfg to be more up to spec; that and human history dictating conflict is never too far from around the corner; and lets face it, a big stick, properly equipped and supported helps...
Shaun - Ex-RNZN

30 October 2010

France, reportedly, has been approached by the U.K. to sell the steam-powered cats purchased by France from the U.S. in 2007 for France's- now on hold- 'PA2' aircraft carrier programme...

The UK's planned carriers are by no means likely to order electromagnetic cats for the CVF carriers... despite the immense and counterproductive re-design that adding steam-powered cats to the current CVF design would incur


Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, Canada

30 October 2010

HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH will enter service in 2016 as per current planning. It will be used as a helicopter carrier until PRINCE OF WALES is commissioned. POW will be modified with cats and traps to accomodate f-35c and , may I say, rafale.
ray campbell - winnipeg canada-retired

31 October 2010

Articles like this tend to be the precursor of more bad news.

This still is not written in stone, it is my belief the treasury will still try to kill this project by selling both carriers as soon as they are politically able.
Everyone involved needs to make sure this does not happen.

tim dainton - romsey

31 October 2010

I wish they would give the carrier Sea Viper, it needs a self defence capability beyond CIWS which is a last ditch defence.
Graham - High Wycombe

31 October 2010

France's reported-over-the-weekend problems with their Charles De Gaulle aircraft carrier- 'out of commission indefinitely'- come very shortly after a 3-year-long extensive maintenance, refit & nuclear reactor refueling process during which the CDG was unavailable for France's navy's, let alone any other countries navies' uses...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1325269/Sinking-fast-UKs-French-carrier-bid-looks-scuppered-ally-pulls-plug-ailing-vessel.html
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/160764/Our-Boys-under-French-orders-Troops-lose-independence-in-new-treaty/
"French aircraft carrier set to defend Britain breaks down", 31_10-2010:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/8098896/French-aircraft-carrier-set-to-defend-Britain-breaks-down.html

In just 5-years from now, 2015, the CDG is scheduled for another almost 2-year long maintenance, refit & nuclear reactor refueling which will render the CDG out of service despite any exigent circumstances that crop up....

During this period, if the UK was dependant upon France for naval air power- and it was needed due to international/other events- what options would the UK have (considering that the UK's current Invincible class aircraft carriers and their Harriers are slated to be scrapped/sold imminently)??

Setting aside the UK's SDSR-driven policies and how- despite any UK/France defence agreements- these SDSR driven-policies are going to leave the UK's Royal Navy with 'patchy at best'- non-existent at worst naval air power capabilities from 2011 and the following decade... what if France goes ahead with its on-hold-since 2008 'PA2' aircraft carrier project??

According to reputable defence industry publications, the PA2 has undergone substantial redesign during the last 16 months:

"French Carrier Design Work Continues", 26_10-2010:
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4977422&c=EUR&s=SEA
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4969353&c=AME&s=SEA

The 'PA2' 'was' based in large part upon the UK's planned 'CVF' big deck' aircraft carrier designs...

This, due to France (paying a nominal fee for) participation in the UK's CVF project from 2006 until June-2008, when France decided to 'put on hold' funding for construction of the PA2...

France's PA2 aircraft carrier was to have been built simultaneously with the UK's 2 CVF carriers, with cost savings being generated by the two countries 'sharing' various parts of the 3 aircraft carriers' build processes...

After disagreements between the UK and France about carrier construction work-sharing, France put the PA2 project on hold in June-2008, with a construction decision to be made by 2011 or 2012...

"UK and France sign carrier deal", 06_03-2006:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4780630.stm

"Porte-Avions 2 (PA2) Future Aircraft Carrier, France":
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/porte-avoins2/

"PA2 deferment scuppers CVF savings", 08_07-2008:
http://www.janes.com/news/defence/naval/jdw/jdw080708_1_n.shtml

Not least of the recently reported PA2 design changes are alterations to the PA2's deck layout resulting in a 'single Island' setup as opposed to the previous 'two Island' plan.

The UK's planned 'CVF' 'big deck' aircraft carriers, at least as of today, are planned to have a 'two island' design...

Since the end of WWII, two Island designs for aircraft carriers are virtually unheard of- especially among western nations- and have not been adopted as a viable design due to the scarcity of deck space on all aircraft carriers coupled with the need for deck space to be utilized for aircraft operations- and not taken up with huge structures- such as Islands- protruding out of the deck...

Also, the displacement of the PA2 is reported as reduced down to 60,000 tonnes- a loss of as much as 15,000 tonnes- compared to earlier designs...

Accompanying the deck layout alterations are what appear to be significant changes- intended to produce more economical operating costs- to the PA2's energy generation systems as well as the vessel's propulsion hardware...

France's CDG aircraft carrier's reported problems appear as, if not a contrived 'excuse'- then at least justification- for France's govt to bring forward the on-hold 'PA2' 'big deck' aircraft carrier project & to commence construction ASAP...

But, whether contrived excuse or not, imagine, France expeditedly funds the construction phase of its PA2 project- based upon re-designs occurring during the last 16 months- IE: the PA2 has a more rational and capable design than the UK's planned CVF's- and with EXTENSIVELY BETTER WEAPONS, COMMUNICATIONS & RADAR SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT than the UK's CVF's...

And, France completes construction of the PA2 long before the UK completes its 1st CVF;

And France embarks its brand new PA2 with a full complement, IE: 25-30 of fixed-wing aircraft while the UK uses its CVF's as floating wharfs, IE: without fixed-wing aircraft....

Would this make the UK look competent, capable and worthy of retaining its permanent UN Security Council seat??
==============

The US is reported to have offered the UK use of its 'medium sized' (CVL) aircraft carriers + aircraft:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1325224/U-S-wants-aircraft-carrier-Thames-Estuary-Olympics.html

but were refused as "The (US offer) is said to have been rejected by No10 because it would make the UK look 'weak'..."

The UK has already made itself look incredibly weak due to the recent SDSR announcements!!

What does the UK going cap in hand to France make the UK look like?? strong, independent, capable??

What would be better able to provide the UK & its interests with protection during 2012- and up to 2021: a defective French carrier that regularly breaks down & is often going to be being tasked for France's own uses 2010-2021 or a couple of the US's proven, capable & heavily armed LHD 'medium sized' carriers- hopefully commissioned into the RN??

- USS Makin Island (LHD 8) (recently commissioned);
- USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7) commissioned June 2001;

- http://www.news.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=400&ct=4
- http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/lhd-8.htm
- http://acquisition.navy.mil/programs/ships/lha_6

... If followed, an LHD/ LHA-6 approach wouldn't fix ALL the endemic funding & related problems in the Royal Navy, but it could restore & significantly enhance RN air-power capacities immediately or at the very least long before UK Afghanistan commitments end and far ahead of the (possible) completion of the recently approved-for-REDESIGN/construction big deck aircraft carriers...

So, why not make the 'special relationship' count??
Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada

01 November 2010

Roderick. v. Louis.
Do you have any links to your claim as to Britain aproaching France for steam cats.
Why are you so adamant that we will not order/fit EMALS/EMCAT or is it just your opinion.
I am given to understand that Converteam have just been given another £0.6bn to carry on design work on EMCAT enabling the system to launch a/c up to 30 tons,or do you have evidence to the contrary.
Ray Campbell,
QE will NOT enter service in 2016,it has been verified again by the defence secretary the both carriers will be delayed and talks are being held with BAE as how best to go forward within the new timescale.
michael - notts

01 November 2010

Roderick.v.Louis.
Your post seem to be getting more outlandish as time goes on. In the first place contrary to what you claim one of the carriers has NOT been put up for sale by the present government,please report things as they are and not as you interpret them.
The begining of your latest post states that the CDG is 'out of commission indefinately' now this is patently wrong as the said vessel sailed within the last twenty four hours to join up with her task group.
Giving links to the 'daily mail' 'daily star' and the 'telegraph' as sources of information does your credibility no favours as the rubbish these papers print on defence are not only very ill informed but quite laughable most of the time.
Your continued rants against CVF seem to be made up of wishfull thinking and fantasy,you cherry pick items from second rate tabloids most of which are out of date anyway and edit them for your own satisfaction.
Your remarks re PA2 seem to owe more to your vivid imagination rather than to fact,and the CVF is NOT being re designed,it was always designed with the option of converting to cat and trap in the future this has now been brought forward.
I assume by the way you lay out your name that you are Canadian or perhaps American living in Canada.
If the former may I suggest that you would do well to look at your own country's record on procurement,it's not exactly a shining example of how to do things is it.
michael - notts

01 November 2010

Dont see all the fuss, just get on with it
johnn - UK

01 November 2010

Michael:

you state: "the CDG is 'out of commission indefinitely' now this is patently wrong as the said vessel sailed within the last twenty four hours to join up with her task group..."

I put quotes around 'out of commission indefinitely' as that was the assertion from source- if out of commission indefinitely was fact- not assertion- I would not have used quotes.

The CDG's power-related problems arose shortly after it deployed to the Gulf area/Indian Ocean- in mid October...

The facts are that France's Charles De Gaulle was assessed by its commanders- to the defence and civilian news media- as being taken out of service for an indefinite period: no re-deployment date was provided.

True, the CDG did re-deploy on its Gulf/Indian Ocean mission yesterday (October 31-2010) but this was not publicized until after I had submitted my comment to Defence Management which contained references to the CDG article published by the Daily Mail on October 30-2010...

you also stated: "the CVF is NOT being re designed":

With all due respect, a re-design process is most certainly being carried out by BAE and Thales UK into almost all aspects of the CVFs....

This is aimed at, among other things, to establish 'what types' of cats (steam, electromagnetic or otherwise) and other hardware required by CTOL aircraft 'could be fitted' to the CVFs and at what potential costs and timescales....

Why not try putting in an FOI or two to this effect to the MoD, Parliamentary Defence Select Committee, etc??

The elevators initially identified for the CVFs- in their without-cats, STOVL design- are not compatible with a number of fixed-wing aircraft, including France's....

So if the UK's CVFs are fitted with cats, it'll require other alterations as well- which will substanyially impact other areas of these vessels...

There are concerns being raised by parties involved with the CVFs CTOL redesign process as to ship stability in ther than calm sea states during air ops...

This since CTOL landings are more demanding of a stable deck surface than STOVL landings at sea...and as the UK's CVFs were not designed with a weight and balance system (SATRAP) unlike France's PA2 carrier- before its redesign....
Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada

02 November 2010

If Argentina decides to take the Falklands in the 2015 timeframe, the RN would be absolutely helpless w/o help from the US!
Such a shame to think that not just a few decades ago, the British empire ruled half the world and almost all it's oceans.
adrian - USA

02 November 2010

Roderick.v.louis.
Once again you cherry pick which parts of a post you want to answer.
I will say this for the last time,the CVF was designed with the capability to be re configured to fly fixed wing aircraft in the future should the need arise.
This need has now come sooner than expected,the extra expense has come about by the need to alter the build,particularly as it is partly complete.
You also state in a previous post that the PM had put up one of the carriers up for sale,this is not the case but you seem to have omitted this in your reply.
Likewise your claim that Britain has approached France in regards to buying a second hand steam catapult from them,you have also chosen to give no reply in fact you now state the part of your so called design work is to ascertain which sort of cat will be used steam,electromagnetic or otherwise. It would appear that you change your mind every other day,and what pray is the 'otherwise' option I would be very pleased to know.
Could you also give a link or at least the origin of your claim that concerns have been raised by 'parties involved' as to the stability of the vessel other than in calm sea states during flying ops.
Please don't tell me that your source is from the 'Daily Mail' again.
michael - notts

08 November 2010

Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada

do you have a clue? Really... I know that sounds rude...

American Vessels require HUGE amounts of man power. Man Power the Royal Navy does not, and can not, have. Not to mention the cost of sailors is really quite high.

France will not have a carrier complete before us. It takes a certain amount of time to build a carrier and I find it highly unlikely that if they start in 2011 that their carrier will be complete before 2016... By which time the Queen Elizabeth will be in service.

You have to remember it is not just the 3-4 years building time but also the extensive trials that the ship must undergo once it is completed.

You harp on about capabilities, often mentioning how rubbish the T45 is. Yet you use newspapers like the sun, the daily mirror etc. How about you read some basic books to start?

Have a look at the website navy matters, read around on this website. Have a read of the 2010 World Naval review which has an extensive article discussing the capabilities of the Type 45.

You fail to for instance grasp this... Putting in a 16 cell VLS system on a carrier with the space reserved takes a couple of days... under 24 hours IF you really need it and the carrier is fitted for.. not with.

Putting in a new carrier, new sensors and a new airwing all at once costs much more, takes much more time AND much more effort.

We need the hulls. Once you have hulls in the water they are much easier to keep, they are more than capable of being upgraded (look at the invincible class and the sterling work they did) AND they allow you to start recruiting to fill the gaps.

So lets go, you state that a 2 Island approach is "unheard of" because of lack of deck space.

If we need a maximum strike wing of 36 F35's can you tell me why we shouldn't use 2 Islands? The aspect of redundancy is certainly to be welcomed as small secondary bridges can be placed in each one respectively.

We can with 2 Invincible class carriers still not put up the same number of F35's as 1 QE class can put up and maintain.

They will now be F-35C's.

Should something happen we CAN purchase off the shelve F18's or Sea Harrier's.

So what are you saying? That you would prefer a lend lease procurement off the Americans to make us MORE dependent on them... Rather than a military alliance with another country of roughly equal strength.

MY GOD you annoy me. Read your history, read your books and don't just spout rubbish from the newspapers.

Then mix that in with the realities of the situation in Britain including the HUGE national debt.

Once you've done all that then you are qualified to make an opinion. Until then your just another person frothing at the mouth.

Sentimentality, Wish listing, Emotion have no place in the military. You make cold hard rationalised decisions based on what your country needs here and now as well as in the future.

As for calling the UK weak. I can think of about 30 other countries that would lose to us... 10 others that it would be a close fight.

Just because we can't do all the work and other countries might have to start getting involved in the nitty gritty that no one else seems to want to do.. Tough cookies, get up off your own backsides and build a super fleet if your so worried about China like you keep saying in all your posts.

Except you don't have the industry to do it in Canada?
Anthony - Bristol- United Kingdom