Carrier conversion 'could cost £1.8bn'

HAVE YOUR SAY

13 March 2012

Unclear why these studies weren't done BEFORE this whole project started. Of course, we know why - the "strategic" defence review was nothing of the sort - after all "interoperability" should indeed be a strategic issue and therefore been incorporated into the original plans, not the botch job of the review.

Even more horrifying, the £40 million costs cited by the Telegraph have now eaten up a considerable chunk of the £117 million we got from the sale of the Harriers which, according to Peter Luff was a "good deal for UK taxpayers and the US Government". Hmmm... the whole thing now smacks of gross ineptitude.
Michael - Hertfordshire

13 March 2012

Steam catapult initially with EMALS for a later refit - extra gas turbine to raise the steam.

Typhoon instead of F35.

Ski jump on forward flight deck, steam CAT on the angled one.

Beg the US for the Harriers back for use before the two new carriers come on line.

Skip F35 and go for stealthy UK developed UCAVs, carrier capable, in 10 to 15 years time.

Delete strike role from the RAF's remit, short range land based strike is inefficient, expensive and wrong when the UK is required to delete Carrier strike to pay for it.

Don't bother replacing like for like Trident - nuclear free fall and cruise missiles sufficient and cheaper.

Sack half the MOD.
Martin Bayliss - Stroud

13 March 2012

Have to say that Thomas Harding the Telegraph's 'Defence Correspondent' does not come across as having an 'in depth' knowledge on this subject, but may have a bright future in politics!

'Under the new plans, the Government is expected to choose the jump-jet version of the JSF, even though the take-off and landing model can fly further and carry more bombs.'

Presumably all aircraft need the ability to take off and land as a basic requirement!
Hereman - Wirral, England

13 March 2012

Martin, At this stage Sea Typhoon is just a fantasy, the time to have looked at it was 10 years ago- If BAE were serious about it they could build a private venture prototype.

The MOD have got themselves in an unholy mess over F35- this is what comes of hitching on to the septic's coat tails.
Ian Skinner - Enfield

13 March 2012

As a result of the aircraft carrier project, the UK has developed 'big ship' military vessel construction capabilities.

To avoid these capabilities being eviscerated once the 2 currently undergoing re-design and construction carriers are completed, the UK ought to take steps to immediately sell these 2 vessels- fitted with catapults, weapons, communications and defensive systems- at a loss if required...

Once a policy decision has been made to do the above, the UK govt/MoD ought to commission UK firms to design new models of economical-to-operate big deck aircraft carriers that are both nuclear powered and catapult-equipped....
Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada

13 March 2012

Martin Bayliss - Stroud

1. Surely going with a C13 initially and adding an extra gas turbine, before installing EMALs at a later date is going to cost us even more as well as being inefficient.

2. The cost of a navalised Typhoon would also be prohibitive.

3. You can use EMAL's in conjunction with a ski jump to reduce the electrical power required to launch aircraft and increase the cycle time slightly.

4. I would still go with the EMAL's conversion and F35C as we would get a better aircraft than if we reverted back to the F35B.

5. Jim Murphy continues to make me laugh at his comments, it is because of those idiots that we are in the position we are in now, I agree that the current government is covering itself in glory at the moment, to my mind the decision to go with the F35C was the correct one, it should have been costed correctly before the announcement was made so that there would be not embarrassing U-turns 18 months down the line.
Rob - Telford

13 March 2012

I think Herman has a point - the Telegraph has never seemed to get it right, even thirty years ago when I was down Portsmouth at the beginning of the Falklands they were way wrong then let alone now! Let's see what's announced by Philip Hammond on the 26th of this month and take it from there.
Mike - Wales - Pembs.

13 March 2012

Ian Skinner - Enfield

Disagree re Sea Typhoon - it is very doable and it is just the political will and the fact so many top civil servants have attached their careers to the F35.

The Sea Typhoon might just save the UK aerospace industry from becoming a minor sub contractr on French and US programs.

Certainly the Sea Typhoon would boost the Typhoon's sales prospects abroad. I still think India went for the Rafale because France resolutely backed its own product. Why buy from BAE when its own governement will not even buy its own aircraft. Same problem as the Lightning in the 60's. History showed the Lightning was by far superior to all its contempories, and it was up against an all things to all men F104 that subsequently failed to meet expectations. I have said before, the Typhoon vs F35 has a lot of historical parallels with the Lightning vs the F104. We should not make the same mistake twice. Buy British when there is the option to do so.

And the government should increase their stake in BAE and start demanding BAE stop behaving like a US bank.
Martin Bayliss - Stroud

13 March 2012

This is a casualty of the modern fettish of "Transparency".
The whole topic is so very frustrating to people working in the industry I am sure.
With regards the Carriers, an appraisal of proposed options was made (SDSR) and a revision was applied for. Of course costs would be incurred...
Of course they would be high as the technology is unproven, the design had to be reinvented....
Additionally teething problems with F35 have compounded the situation.
BUT, I am sticking colours to mast here...
F35 will work and it will be successful. The weapon system will not be affected by the performance limitations some suggest as the weapons and superior software/electronic fit will negate any need for the conventional "Dogfight".
It will be sold in significant numbers and will provide an industrial base for participation by Britain.
We will end up with a platform that can interoperate with Italy, US and other allies. Spares of parts and other logistical issues will allow for greater flexibity in deployment of the systems. Our carrier will be able to interoperate with US, and Italy at the very minimum, with France left a little on the sidelines as she will have an exclusive airframe that can be refuelled but not much more...
So lets pay up for the platform and go with F35C. Lets not jump on the next problem that is exposed through "Transparency" as a sign that all is doomed, it is part of an evolving interoperable platform.
Degradable - UK

13 March 2012

Martin,

Much as I would like to see a Sea Typhoon, my view is based on the complete inability of BAE and the MOD to deliver projects on time and within cost.

I think the F35 is a dog's breakfast
Ian Skinner - Enfield

13 March 2012

I think BAE, or at least its engineers, leaving aside the directors at BAE, who can barely add up, are more than capable of completing world beating designs on budget and to time. Provided they are left alone by their own directors and the MOD to get on with it.

The BAE Hawk is an example of what British Aerospace can do, a 40 year old design still arguably the best at what it does all these years later. The Hawk was deemed un-sexy, just a trainer, and Hawker Sideley sneeked it past the MOD to be the world beater it is. The engineers at BAE could do the same again if they were just given the chance with Sea Typhoon and Taranis.
Martin Bayliss - Stroud

13 March 2012

There is only one effective option, stick with the C model plus Hawkeye, anything else is just playing at carrier strike. Why oh why do people on this site waste their time talking of "steam" and Sea Typhoon" topics that are just pure pie in the sky and have no basis in any realistic plans? My prediction is that the whole project will come to a halt and that both ships will be sold to either India or some other up and coming power. Or that they will end up as two very large Commando Carriers!
Bob M - Surrey UK

13 March 2012

Although I believe the F-35C is the best option if these figures are correct then there is no hope of getting both carriers fitted with EMALS. Which is a very important consideration.

Forget steam its EMALS or ski jump and so it really looks as if we have to reconsider the F-35B STOVL option again. It would save a £1.8bn spend AND mean both carriers would be operationally capable even if one is on extended readiness while the other is in service. Having two carriers that can be operated has to be set against the superior weapons load, range, cheaper purchase price and maintenance of the CV versus the STOVL. However what cost having one of our carriers being useless and never refitted with EMALS as will be the case.

So having the ability to operate both carriers and saving nearly £2bn does somewhat mitigate the difference between the two types. The extra cost of the STOVL could be offset by purchasing the CTOL version for the RAF. We could easily find that 25-30 F-35B and 45-50 F-35A are the same price as 70 odd F-35C while always being able to have a carrier available.

So although I supported the move to the CV I think we need to make sure we have considered our options properly and so a rethink is necessary.
Graham - High Wycombe

13 March 2012

Has anyone thought to ask Newport News how much they'd charge for equipping the QE2 and PoW with EMALS?
If this story is true, I would suggest a hell of a lot less then that price.
Someone somewhere within the MoD and their network of old boy chums is making a fortune out of this debacle as with everything else that they touch. If this latest defence secretary was serious about dealing with the corruption he'd stamp on this now. Alas he is like all the others and looking to the bigger picture of what is he going to do to earn when he's out of office. The MoD is rotten to the core. The good staff they do have get smothered by the corruption and incompetence at the top. This is yet another fine example of what's been going on for decades.
It does not cost £1.8B to put two EMALS on one ship!!!!!That is it. That's nearly $3B for two catapults...
There are people stealing by claiming to be doing something that does not need to be done or by simply not doing it and billing the taxpayer anyway. As usual the British MoD at its finest. Killing British servicemen and women since 1964 in exchange for boosting the pension funds of the odd MP, civil servant, Air Marshall, Brigadier or RN Admiral for that matter. This nonsense is all the more grating because of the bull in the SDSR.
If Cameron can be fooled by some old Etonian Typhoon flyers then I dread to think what other lunacy he's falling for over issues like Iran, Trident replacement and the £176B worth of oil sitting off the coast of the Falklands.
These carriers were both needed in service last year. The UK can easily afford them if the MoD wasn't so self serving and the budget spent on such wonders as the RAF's singers and precision marching team.
With UCAVs on the horizon buying a navalised £150M Typhoon is a waste of money. The F-18 works as does E-2D. Sail the hulls to Newport News and get them EMAL'ed up there and the Hornets and Hawkeyes can be delivered on to the decks when done.
Bin the Tornado and stop wasting another £20B trying to turn the Typhoon into something that it is not i.e. a Jaguar. Maybe buy newly surplus ex USAF A-10's and a squadron worth of B-1Bs. F-18 is then the UK's tactical strike supported by RAF strategic and tactical strike where possible. It really can't be that hard to work out.
In fact I'll ring up Newport News now and ask them how much? I'll charge the MoD a £1M a minute (or maybe a second) for the call. But that's value for money... surely?
Alistair - London

13 March 2012

As expected the usual argument for the 'Sea Typhoon' emerges once more, coupled with India's probable selection of Rafale over Typhoon. Aside from the issue of costs, could it be that India is also considering the Rafale M as a potential contender for their new carriers? As things stand it has been assumed their new carriers such as 'Vikramaditya' and the 'Vikrant' Class will operate the Russian Mig29K in a STOBAR role. Could Rafale M operate in this way?

Ignoring the fact that EADS apparently hold a 46% stake in both the Rafale and Typhoon, perhaps we should be considering the 'STOBAR' solution to our own emerging problems. On the one hand the F35C clearly out performs the F35B in almost all respects, but currently has to overcome the rather important problems identified with the arrestor system, while of course this does not impact on the F35B.

It was proposed from a relatively early stage that F35B would perform a 'rolling' rather vertical landing on the QE Class, allowing recovery with some ordnance aboard (I am unaware of the actual percentage?)
In this regard the QE's would operate a little differently to their predecessors, though not quite as full STOBAR type carriers. The 'Ski-jump' is another issue, no US Navy carrier or LHD has them, so what advantage does the 'Ski-jump' provide over the conventional 'flat-top' on a 65,000 ton carrier?

It is clear that the adaptation made a vast difference to the Invincible Class and influenced the design of many other small carriers, but does it continue to provide advantages over a conventional deck? Presumably it does in that the Russian and Indian navies now utilise the design without catapults in their carriers.

One gets the feeling that despite the cost implications, HMG already under increasing pressure for a U-turn on the NHS, may well adopt the Thatcher stance of 'the lady's not for turning'!!

All in all it's another dreadful mess showing a complete lack of consultation/planning by the Government, yet again. It makes the following quote from Saab's CEO when announcing proposals to develop the 'Sea Gripen' in collaboration with UK interests, even more puzzling,

'The move comes as Saab chief executive Håkan Buskhe has revealed a strategy to significantly expand the company's presence in the UK by pursuing fresh business opportunities. "The MoD is looking for competition," he said.' See full article at:-

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/saab-to-complete-sea-gripen-design-work-in-uk-357137/

As the UK will shortly receive its second F35B and negotiates a 'swap' (including add on costs for conversion to USMC standard)for an F35C, should the UK be looking again at the options for STOBAR compromise, or will we end up with two 'Eddie Stobart' carriers?
Hereman - Wirral, England

13 March 2012

Graham
Disapointed that you hold this view, as you have pointed out virtues of F35C so forcefully. Conjecture on price is only that. Of course we will have to pay, and two carriers is not an option and never was going to be after SDSR (Though we hoped). But £1.8BN for all the equipment and capability does not seem to me to be to big adeal. £300 Million for next 6 years.
After that we have 50 years of Carrier life, with a ship that can interoperate with any ally.
It is the way to go and we must not lose nerve.
BUT we must ensure estimate on price is fair.
Finally your "Sway" on this matter serves to highlight the impossible job the Secretary of State will have as he possibly has less understanding of these matters than you. It shows that the 3 services have to come together with unified proposal and a sale of relative merit of that proposal.
Degradable - UK

13 March 2012

Graham - High Wycombe

The whole carrier fiasco is becasue of the F35, its cost overruns, poor performance and so on.

If, as should have happened the Typhoon was modified for carrier operations a decade ago they would be operational with the Royal Navy well before 2020, at much less cost than the F35, with arguably superior all round capability and for sure far greater benefit to the UK economy.

The ski jump/Typhoon option (x90), all RN, none RAF, is still the best option and no pipe dream.
Martin Bayliss - Stroud

13 March 2012

Why would the former top man at Babcock running the QE carrier program resign, stating the Typhoon was the best option and could be in service sooner for less and with more capability than the F35.

Probably because he knew what he was talking about and was frustrated with the corruption and incompetence in the MOD at high levels.

Mid marketing manager Dave is having a jolly on Air Force one, in which he will probably be plied with bubbly and caviar and told not to leave the plane until he accepts which ever version of the F35 needs most diplomatic support from the UK.

Rumour has it a Kennedy aid in the 60's threatended to drown a top civil servant unless the TSR2 was cancelled in favour of the F111. Another case of a world beating UK aircraft being curtailed/cancelled in favour of a late/over budget/over hyped US alternative. Do we ever learn?
Martin Bayliss - Stroud

13 March 2012

I 'think' that we should probably carry on with the revised CVF, and not revise it again to the way it was before the 1st revision...

Horrendous, horrible, shocking mess that probably should be investigated by the SFO but wont be. Cant go back on our choice now and will just have to grin and fiscally bear it.

What should happen is that the MoD be asked make up the extra costs with future equipment cuts elsewhere. How it can strip away at existing and planned projects without cutting to the bone is one I dont want to have to find a solution for, but the EMALS CVF's are very much needed.

Trident I can only assume should be made to bite the bullet. I hate to do that the RN, but its about the only thing left to trim down.

Maybe dont buy the 14 Chinooks now we are scaling our exped warfare to no more than 5000-sized. Maybe we don't then need all those A400's, and maybe cut another 25% of Challenger 2's.

2 CVF's. 20+ F35 C's for both. Airwings. Done.
Anon - Abroad

13 March 2012

the mod wasting more money, wouldn't it be easier to keep the carriers as they are with the F35B version or to have originally designed them with cats and traps to take the F35C variant.
dave o - england

13 March 2012

I actually agree with Alistair.

Although I am pro RAF and violently disagree with discarding the RAF in favour of the RN!! Both are of equal importance.

I'm no industrial expert, but just how come it can cost so much to do these conversions?

Where is the money going?

And why indeed not sail the carriers to the US to convert.

It would be done efficiently, on time, to cost, with none of the usual delays.
Daniele Mandelli - Guildford

13 March 2012

The ships will be used for 50 years, so unless the vstol version lasts that long it would be more use to have catapults and conventional aircraft.
j.cassford - Arundel

13 March 2012

Degradable - UK

If you look at my posts I still do favour the F-35C and have made the argument for this. However we must take another look as we have to make a main gate decision soon which will be irreversible.

the problem stems from the fact that Hammond has said £300Mn/year over six years is unaffordable when the original estimate for EMALS was $500mn in total. If he refuses to sign off then either the price has to drop or we revert to original build and the STOVL variant. There is nothing we can do about it Hammond is a treasury man and without his approval it is sunk. On that basis if we don't properly investigate alternatives we will end up with no carriers with aircraft to fly from them. Perhaps this is just playing hard ball to get the price down which I hope it is.

Remember that as much as I favour F-35C having both carriers equally fitted out is paramount to me and having one in extended readiness while the other is in service is actually perfectly possible and very desirable. The cost of maintaining a ship in extended readiness is actually relatively cheap so it is not wishful thinking.

Martin Bayliss - Stroud

Sea Typhoon is not going to happen however I will grant you that I prefer it as an option to Super Hornet.
Graham - High Wycombe

13 March 2012

Martin
You and I are stuck in the old world...
Eurofighter Rafale, TSR2 etc... No doubt wonderfull airframes but that is all. I am not convinced a Carrier designer will really have full qualification to understand the attributes of each aircraft. So if I state that how can we...
But at the same time, I do believe times have moved on, relative speed, and manouver are irrelevant today. Missile and weapon system tech really has changed since Falklands. NO amount of power and manouverability will make the airframe capable against the others weapon systems if a human is in the cockpit.
Therefore we need to rely on other advanced technology, and I firmly believe the tech in F35 will outperform any variant of Eurofighter. (I was not of that opinion, but the more I have read on this aircraft the more I see it will (even allowing for all the design flaws being uncovered(during testing))...)
The carrier represents a small part of the "System" we are buying into. It will last for a number of decades, and I do not believe Eurofighter or Rafale are even good for the next 15 years. India has bought an out of date system... Lets not panic and follow that lead.
Degradable - UK

13 March 2012

It is simply all about money. Wonderful to see our government doesn't give a hoot, and quite happy to chop another good piece of kit, because they can't be bothered to stump up the cash...

typical and frankly unacceptable.
Moron - England

13 March 2012

When will our leaders, both civil and military, take the bit between the teeth and get on and do the job??
With the yanks making the Pacific their priority, with 11 CVN and 10 Air Groups it seems to me that we MUST have two CVF fitted with angle decks, EMALS and the best FAA air groups we can afford! Never mind the French; you can bet that they will have 1 or 2 carrier groups of their own. My only hope is that neither looks like the Queen Elizabeth!!!
Norman - UK

13 March 2012

LM seem to take the rumour seriously enough to comment.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-could-accommodate-uk-reversal-on-f-35-variant-369443/
Graham - High Wycombe

13 March 2012

Graham
I still think you original argument to be good. F35C is the way forwards and therefore we need to stump up the cash.
It does not follow that just because an estimate has been made by one party that will be the cost. It is also inevitable that during the lifecycle of the carrier EMALS will be fitted.
So lets get on with it and look and present the advantages.

A fully functional Carrier
Able to support US, French, Indian, Italian and Japanese, (Chinese remember 50 years) Carrier operations.

No need to modify in the future thus lower cost.
Superior Airframe for carrier
Greater flexibility of that option
Cheaper Airframe...
Degradable - UK

13 March 2012

I agree with Hereman and Mike (Wales) ... this is an author touting a non-story for the sake of a headline, much like the rest of the journalists at the telegraph these days it has to be said. Whatever's said at the moment in public is simply one-sided positioning by either the Government or the supplier in the absence of discussion and negotiation. As for the opposition, well they just have to be, well opposite.

The more significant problem is how we determine who we might be wanting to use the carriers against and why. Never mind all the history, what about the future.
Penny - London

13 March 2012

Martin Bayliss, Stroud:

"so many top civil servants have attached their careers to the F35"

Let's have a look at the DE&S Joint Combat Aircraft Team website, shall we?

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/MicroSite/DES/OurTeams/CombatAirTeams/JointCombatAircraftTeam.htm

You might notice that the project is actually headed up by an Air Commodore. You might also notice that his boss, Chief of Material (Air), is an Air Marshal. And HIS boss, CDM, is a political appointee - not a civil servant.

So, when you suggested sacking "half the MOD", were you thinking of the uniformed element and the people parachuted in from business?
Stan - York

13 March 2012

Degradable - UK

I don't disagree with you! unfortunately treasury boy says £300mn/year for six years is unaffordable and won't sign it off if the rumours are true, hence the review.
Graham - High Wycombe

13 March 2012

Think of a number and triple it. Is this the new method of costing out new projects ? Just how much of this £1.8 Billion is actually the cost of the conversion and how much is used up in studies and red tape ? Prices are so stupid these days. We're all being priced out of every market.

The 'Push me - Pull You' method of government interferance is costing us a fortune in costs and is putting the whole country and it's dependencies on the line. The picture of a bunch of headless chickens keeps coming to mind. I can't imagine why.

As the Harriers are gone, I would still suggest using the F-18E on a standard, angled deck carrier. We can get the F-35C later. I like the idea of getting the EMALS fitted in the U.S. though. It sounds more cost effective somehow.

It appears that all these studies are just there to increase prices.
Ian R - Durham

13 March 2012

Just as well they 'found' £2Bn in the Mod budget just recently then?!!!
Norman - UK

13 March 2012

Glad to see this level of discussion on the matter. I often wonder if I am the only one that looks at the current governments defense policy in disgust.

I do actualy beleive the F35C to be the way foward however It pains me to see people dismising the idea of having two EMAL'S fitted carriers so easily.

Im sorry but these carriers will be basically the biggest asset to UK Defense so why the hell are we making multiple uninformed u-turns based on cost.

I recognise the money may not be available but we have to make it available.

We need to get our priorities right.
David Forster - Durham

13 March 2012

This article is absolutly ridiculous, the american cats cost less than $400m it cant possibly cost the amount quoted to fit them and alter the deck. Someone is scaremongering unless this is the cost of fitting BOTH carriers with cats, then it isnt all that bad.
The F35B costs a lot more than the C version plus the running costs are much higher.
Sense would say buy F18 as the F35 are becoming unaffordable. Better to wait until all the problems are ironed out and then if the price comes down then buy some.
Robert Perry - Birmingham

13 March 2012

Martin Bayliss,
Here is something from 'UK Armed Forces Commentary' that you can grasp onto,enjoy.

Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Ooops! As expected, indian fighter jet buy saga not over yet
Indian defence minister has ordered an enquiry into allegations of irregularities and manipulation of the selection process for the MMRCA fighter jet which saw Rafale being chosen over Typhoon as preferred bidder.
The enquiry follows a letter written by MP M.V. Mysoora Reddy, who voiced his suspects and noted, as many others have done in India and elsewhere, that the choice of the Rafale is weird, considering that the performance of the french airplane in Libya has not been entirely shiny, and that the plane has never fared really well in comparisons and evaluations made in India and elsewhere (possibly with the exception of Switzerland, where the air force evaluation of Rafale, Typhoon and Gripen saw the Rafale victorious in all mission types, with Typhoon a close second and Gripen a distant follower).

The hope of the UK is that this process will help making the case for a new review into the selection, with the UK government confirming to Parliament no later than March 7 that Cassidian, representing the Eurofighter consortium, is ready to bid a new, revised price as soon as India wishes for it.

Keep your eyes open and wait for the next episode...!
michael - notts

13 March 2012

Ignore Martin as he doesnt have a clue. Its like listening to a stuck record after everyone has left the party.
Hamish - GB

13 March 2012

My 10 year old daughter's home economics class could have worked this one out. But no one asked them. Pity!
Dave - New Zealand

13 March 2012

Ski Jump and arrester wires... SU33 from Russia

Any takers????
JC - UK

14 March 2012

So the scare stories have begun. £1.8 Billion to turn a STOL carrier into a CAT/TRAP. Wasn't the design future proofed so these changes could be made if required? At the moment, if the numbers are to be believed we will be paying nearer £7 Billion for two aircraft carriers (one operational, one mothballed) when we were quoted just under £4 Billion for two fully operational carriers both delivered before 2018. This is even before we even dare put aircraft on them.
Ah, the aircraft. Let's go back to the late 70's when the RAF were desperately trying to get rid of carrier fixed wing operations and the FAA ended up compromising with the Sea Harrier FRS.1. Fast forward 20 years and we were planning to replace a compromise (which ended up exceeding all expectations) with another compromise because Rolls Royce needed the UK to invest in the F-35B.
Finally in 2011 the government realised that to project combat air power at sea you needed an aircraft that had the combat radius and weapon load flexibility to fully explore the full power projection capabilities of a carrier and its air group.
However the reality was that the unit cost of F-35C was cheaper than the F-35B and on paper those numbers looked good. Besides, the aircraft carriers had been "future proofed" so the cost to add cats and traps would be quite cheap - it had already been factored into the design hadn't it?
If £1.8 Billion is the cost to add something that had already been factored in you can only imagine the cost if it hadn't. And people wonder why we have started to off shore build the remnants of MARS.
So where does the fault lie?
The present government? Probably not, they are looking to save £38 Billion and although sometimes short sighted (Harrier, Nimrod, Type 22B3) they are fighting a tough battle.
The services? They can take some of the blame, 25 years plus of in fighting (The comments above only demonstrate this)with no clear strategy apart from looking after the perceived needs of the service against all others.
The last administration? We all know that Gordon Brown ordered those carriers as a vanity exercise with out knowing how they were going to pay for it. But he is a politician and they are as bad as each other regardless of party (although he was a particularly vain and self believing megalomaniac).
The MoD? Apart from being the only organisation that pay over the odds for almost every item it purchases it didn't seem to understand what it wanted. All the above have contributed it confusing the MoD to the extend that nearly 12 years after announcing the carriers we still do not know what we are going to get.

So what is needed? What is the current requirement? Does one exist?
The First Sea Lord has already said that the most important project for the Royal Navy is not the carriers but Type 26 (How long has that been rumbling on? - C1, C2 etc, Global combat ship etc).
The RAF just want fast jets, which is their primary means of projecting combat power so they will be happy with A B or C as long as it is owned and operated by the light blue.

So can the government cut and run? Probably not, writing off £4 Billion of investment in Nimrod MRA4 is one thing, spending billions on 65,000 tonne aircraft carriers and then selling them on the cheap to someone else would be, as politicians like to say "courageous".
Therefore we are stuck with them, we have to make the best of what will be two top of the range mobile airfields delivering British influence around the world.
However what do we put on them?
Naval Typhoon? Now BAES will say they can do it, however they also said that they could turn a low level interdiction aircraft into a high altitude fighter (F-3) and that didn't turn out too well. Besides cost and time are against us and contractual penalties would probably out weigh any cost benefits, if any, as we have already signed up as the Tier 1 partner on JSF.
It comes down to JSF, but which one and how can we afford it?
The minimum number of aircraft you would want to put on a 65,000 aircraft carrier would be 24 (Invincible class had a fixed wing air group of 9 so 45,000 tonnes to take an extra 3 aircraft, if you thought that the minimum number is 12, would be a waste). Therefore if we imagine that each Sqn has 12 aircraft the minimum requirement to support an operational carrier would be:
2 Operational squadrons
1 OCU
1 Trials and development Squadron
Attrition aircraft
Roughy 48 aircraft
If we average the unit cost of an aircraft to £75 Million (F-35B) that is an outlay of roughly £3.6 Billion.
If we do the same with the F-35C, average cost £90 Million then the cost goes up to £4.3 Billion.
However with harmony guidelines, multi tasking of airframes for multiple operations, training and standard deployments the below is, in my opinion, the more likely minimum requirement:
4 Operational squadrons
1 OCU
1 Trials and development squadron
Attrition aircraft
Roughly 90 aircraft
Cost for F-35B becomes £8.1 Billion
Cost for F-35C becomes £6.75 Billion

With those numbers above we could never fully populate both carriers, if required, with the number of aircraft that the could operate and generate the sortie rate specified in 1998.
That would take 6 operational squadrons and now we are talking nearly 130 aircraft which gets near to £10 Billion just for aircraft alone.

What ever aircraft, what ever type of carrier the question still stands, is the 1998 SDR requirement for 2 aircraft carriers still relevant today and if so can we afford it?
Lee Hannaford - Bristol

14 March 2012

During these austere times, and with budget cuts being asked of all UK departments and services it is correct to evaluate and demand value for money. One of the seemingly large costs UK Plc is trying to fund is for the planned 2 carriers. Today speculation with regards extra cost due to fitting of catapults has caused significant uncertainty and possible reversal of a strategy correctly reversed in SDSR 2010. Ignoring the benefits of manufacturing and technology in UK industries, we will be able to justify the spend.
In 1982 the United Kingdom lost the Falkland Islands to an Argentinian invasion, all was lost, but Admiral Leach went direct to Thatcher and recommended recovery, a task force of Royal Navy ships could do it. The rest as they say is history, but the lessons learnt included the requirement for aircraft carriers to enable UK Plc to act with flexibility anywhere in the world.
Now we have the absurd notion of building carriers and immediately mothballing one (or Selling), yet we should not and do not need to. The single determining factor in this is oil.
Falkland Islands have now started to prove significant reserves of oil. One single field will generate in excess of £6 billion in tax revenues. The very possible estimate over the next 20 years is £100 Billion.
The Falkland Islanders have committed themselves to assisting with the payment of the defence of the Islands. This then beggars the question... Why would UK not pay for these platforms ?
Aircraft Carriers won back the Falklands, they are the only capability that UK Plc has to ensure we could retake the Falklands in event of aggressive Intervention by another power. Typhoon and reinforcement would not work in event of special forces operations by foreign power.
Failure to secure the potential revenues from the Falkland Islands would be a very costly mistake. Of all departments in UK the Royal Navy stands head and shoulders above the rest when it comes to claiming a little of the revenue from the Islands, even a 2% slice of a pie that would not have existed without the Royal Navy and its carriers will be sufficient to fund the latest cost escalation. Therefore it is absolute folly and totally unjustifiable not to invest in the Royal Navy Carriers, they bring an assurance that we offer assistance to distant protectorates, they provide UK Plc with a flexible power projection capability and the Royal Navy has already paid in blood for them.
Degradable - UK

14 March 2012

michael - notts

Well that would be encouraging - but Dassault and Sarkozi will be pulling out all the stops to ensure the decision stays as it is.

Where as Dave is being wined and dined on air force 1, and the MOD's ridiculous obsession with the F35 for the Royal Navy, so it is obvious there will be no support for the Typhoon from its country of origin, as usual.
Martin Bayliss - Stroud

14 March 2012

According to Aviation week:

" Although the unit cost of the short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing aircraft is around $10 million higher ­— and support costs are too — the life-cycle costs across the carrier strike program, including personnel costs, are seen as lower."

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/asd/2012/03/13/02.xml&headline=Lockheed%20Martin%20Awaits%20U.K.%20F-35%20Decision

Add the cost of installing EMALS and this seems to be driving our treasury boy defence minister to back track on the switch to the F-35C.
Graham - High Wycombe

14 March 2012

A REFUND TO THE UK FROM CARRIERS' DESIGNER WARRANTED!!

Considering that the initial price quoted* for construction and fitting out of the UK's 2 'big deck' aircraft carriers- WITHOUT cats and traps- was £2.9bn in 2002;
(*by the design competition's winning bidder, Thales UK)

and

considering that Thales UK included as part of its bid, a 'guarantee' that the 2 carriers would be fittable with cats and traps after launch, if it turns out that fitting both of the undergoing construction carriers with cats and traps would cost at least £3.6bn (2 X £1.8bn): more than double Thales UK's initial quoted costs for both carriers, does this not imply that Thales UK's designs and cost projections for these 2 needed vessels were faulty and/or negligently put together??

Is it possible that cats and traps are- due to the carriers' having faulty/inadaquate designs- not fittable to the 2 undergoing construction carriers, and Thales UK + other members of the aircraft carrier alliance now knowing this/having 'discovered' this, are inflating their estimated costs of fitting cats and traps to the carriers so as to dissuade the MoD and UK govt from continuing with plans to fit these 2 vessels with cats and traps??

Is a refund from Thales UK in order- or at the least is the UK govt and/or its proxies such 'owed' a substantial amount of shares in Thales as compensation for the accelerating, hugely expensive disaster that the carrier project has become??
Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada

14 March 2012

Lee Hannaford - Bristol

Due to the reduced numbers of B model aircraft, the current projected fly-away price $150m v $130m for the C model. Given the C model is more capable in every respect, reversing the F-35 switch decision is madness bordering on desperation.

I believe this is a scare-monger story (possibly started by RR who lose out due to reduced requirements for the lift engine or may even be BAe trying to pre-empt contractual negotiations over changes to the CVF to accomodate EMALS and arrestor gear), but either way it is sensationalist and without logic. That in itself could be enough reason to suspect it could be true of this Govt, but given how stupid all of them would look, I do not attach any credence to it!

Regarding the F-35C problems, a proposed solution to the arrestor wires not rebounding after being traversed by the main wheels in time to be caught by the poorly positioned hook is imminent and will soon be trialled. Rear fuselage build problems have already been resolved and weapon carriage trials have started. Supercruise at 1.3M has been achieved without reheat and reducing the power output of the engines to aid cooling has not identified any significant performance degradation - range decreased 10nm (unlike F-35B which needs higher output to allow recovery to deck with weapons). While F-35 still has a very long way to go before it can be considered a production model, all the indications so far show it already exceeds most of its initial design parameters.

If significant concerns still remain with the maturity of F-35 (all variants), then a cost-effective one is to lease F/A-18 E/F/G until such time as F-35C is operational with USN.

Personally, I would have loved to see a Harrier follow-on from FRS2/GR9A. This would have negated the need for 65k tonne CVF, but as it was vetoed by our light-blue friends - who insisted that F-35 was the only viable show in town, we are now saddled with a very expensive and painful period until we get the aircraft. Naval Typhoon may have been possible once, but like TSR2 and Buccaneer Double Star before it, it is a pipedream that will never, ever take to the skies.
AW Employee - Yeovil

14 March 2012

Notwithstanding that F-35C will be a great plane, Cameron overreacted when he saw Browns cvf contracts and wanted to make a mark, enteinte cordiale. These political chickens are now coming home to roost.
I would finish both carriers to take F-35B if it means we have a balanced defence budget and maybe can fund a Nimrod replacement. This would give us two super LPH style carrier assets up and running well before 2020. In the meantime try to avoid any long range stealth strikes against Tehran which might need F-35C and tell the French joint carrier ops are delayed.
Review the situation in 2020 and order F-35C's and carrier refits if we can afford it. Optionally sell one ski jump carrier with a Sea Gripen package to Brazil at any time if the opportunity arises.
Paul Nigel - Swindon

14 March 2012

Paul Nigel - Swindon

Sea Gripen is like Naval Typhoon, a figment of some marketeer's imagination. Saab have only stated 'it could be done, with UK involvement', not that a design exists.
AW Employee - Yeovil

14 March 2012

£40 million for a feasability study? Wish I was offered that sort of money for walking round with a measuring tape.
The proposed French version of these carriers would have had cats & traps so some of the work must have been done for that design.
If we had kept a single Sqn of Harriers flying, cannibalising the others for spares, how long would £40 million kept them flying for?
John Hartley - Woking/Surrey/UK

14 March 2012

I don't get this. If I'm not mistaken wasn't the original plan to convert the carriers to cats and traps at about mid life? Surely that was costed? I think these numbers are just monopoly numbers, because surely the SDSR looked at this in 2010? Utter garbage.
Peter Hall - Worksop, UK

15 March 2012

REFUND TO THE UK FROM AIRCRAFT CARRIERS' DESIGNER WARRANTED!!

PART 2:

paragraph in my previous comment ought to have read:

Considering that Thales UK apparently included as part of its bid, a 'guarantee' that the UK's 2 new aircraft carriers- if built using Thales' designs- would be 'easily' fittable with cats and traps (after launch):

- if it turns out that fitting both of the undergoing construction carriers with cats and traps would cost at least £3.6bn (2 X £1.8bn): 25% more than Thales UK's 2003 £2.9bn quoted costs for construction of both carriers- this implies that Thales UK's proffered designs and cost projections for these 2 urgently needed vessels were disingenuous, faulty and/or negligently put together!!!

Projected costs for the UK's 2 new aircraft carriers have risen from less than £3bn in 2003, to £7bn- or possibly as high as £12bn:

"Carrier costs 'could escalate (above £2.9bn)'", 14_07-2003 :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3063621.stm -

"... (UK) Taxpayers could end up paying much more than the £2.9bn ($4.7bn) originally estimated by the Ministry of Defence for the (Royal Navy's) next generation of aircraft carrier..."

"£3.2bn giant carrier deals signed", 03_07-2008 :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7486683.stm
Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada

15 March 2012

£1.8b to convert the deck of one carrier which is in the very early stages of construction! The fitting of CATOBAR equipment, was apparently taken into account during the design phase?!

£40m spent so far, out of £80m, on a feasibility study of the above!

What the hell is going on?! I sincerely hope this is just 'newspaper sensationalism', as these figures are just astronomical!

Still, I hope the PoW will be fitted with EMALS. Remember, the fitting of CATOBAR will allow the carrier(s) to operate a much broader spectrum of aircraft through out its 40yrs+ lifetime. We don't want to be limited with helo's and STOVL.

*Defence Management Ed - any comment from BAE/MOD/RN on this cost increase?
Armchair A - Manchester

16 March 2012

...I was away with work this week...

Steam catapults require steam, turbines do not produce steam, boilers do. We are in the 21st century, steam catapults are vastly more inefficient than electric systems, which are the future. The technology for electric catapults is based on linear motors and inverter technology - which I have worked on previously. EMALS has performed as expected during trials with USN aircraft.

The Eurofighter would require a substantial R&D investment for STOBAR operations from a carrier deck. If the UK cannot afford the changes to the CVF for CTOL ops, then it more than likely cannot afford this path as well. The Eurofighter would be a greater compromise in operations over the Lightening from a carrier.

Cruise missiles are not a substitute for a SLBM. Fact. The warheads are completely different for one. With no SLCM nuclear warhead which the UK could glean off; the UK would have excessive development costs to develop and produce its own warhead and possibly missile delivery system if it could not miniaturise it to fit in (an also UK modified and costed) TLAM. Effective ABM defence is not a capability many nations possess; whereas the majority have SAM systems which could more easily engage cruise missiles - Cruise missiles produce constraints not options.

Additional SSGN's would still be required to replace the boomers. The UK has partnered on the CMS VLS for missiles, if the missile development could not fit this system, then the complete system (boat and weapon system) would be an even great compromise.

The cost of the CVF programme, even with the CTOL modifications compares favourably with the new US CVN's vs capabilities (i.e. aircraft, weapons, fuel carried).

The CTOL CVF without a major flight deck redesign would operate a smaller complement of fast jets in comparison to the STOVL optimised (delta) design.

Talk of hybrid STOBAR / CTOL carriers shows a complete lack of understanding of carriers in engineering and operations. Fantasy.

Benefits for both the RAF and RN would still exist if both services selected there own version of the Lightening. The Alpha is the best option for the RAF, while depending on the strategic vision of the UK government, the Bravo or Charlie would meet the RN's requirements. Note, as with the CTOL HMS Hermes; considerations must be measured against the ships design to operate a balanced air group, changing from STOVL to CTOL would always require a redesign to ensure the vessel operations are maximised for the hull.
Shaun - Ex-RNZN.

16 March 2012

Shaun - Ex-RNZN.

Essentially agree with what you are saying except that the options are really ALL Charlie's or a mixed Alpha and Bravo as the Italians are doing.

If we buy Charlie's then that will be for both services if it's mixed then the Bravo's would be assigned the FAA and the Alpha's the RAF but probably with a number of RAF pilots dual qualified to be able to provide a limited surge capability for the carrier strike force if needed. The difference between the two types should not present a problem and both types would be based at Marham allow pilots from both services to fly both types and to aid maintenance.

However I still favour a CTOL QE carrier with F-35C as was decided in the last SDSR. But £1.8 bn to fit one carrier with EMALS is some three times the original estimate and will not be signed off by this defence secretary. The only good thing about reverting to the F-35B is that both carriers would be capable even though one will always be in extended readiness while the other is in service. However £1.8 bn all but rules out refitting the second carrier with EMALS. So there are advantages either way.
Graham - High Wycombe

16 March 2012

Graham - High Wycombe

Has this figure actually been confirmed or is it more news paper sensationalism.

I would plow on with EMAL's and CTOL F35C, better aircraft, greater range and internal payload and operate just the one aircraft type as part of Joint Force Lightning.
Rob - Telford

16 March 2012

Rob - Telford

The figure has been widely reported and LM has made statements that they are prepared if the order is changed again.
(see the links in my previous posts).

So I think there is no smoke without fire on this one. I still prefer the F-35C for both services but if these costs are true then I think a switch to a mixed A and B fleet is inevitable with the pressure the MoD is under there isn't £1.8 bn to fit one carrier with EMALS and a split fleet would cost the same as for the F-35C with the F-35A being cheaper and offset the more expensive F-35B while allowing both carriers to be capable of operating them. This is what is focusing minds and forcing a rethink.
Graham - High Wycombe

16 March 2012

Graham - High Wycombe

£1.8 Billion, you would have thought they would have costed it all up accurately before announcing the change of Carrier design and aircraft choice, we will be a laughing stock if they do change their mind. . .

God politicians disgust me . . whatever flavour they come in, they are all as bad as each other.
Rob - Telford

17 March 2012

...My question is 'What happened to the MoD balanced book?'

With one of the biggest defence budgets in the world, one would think even £1.8bn would be affordable. At the time of the 2010 SDSR many thought it would cost around this figure, and I find it surprising if the MoD and government did not have similar figures when the decision was made.

Having CTOL presents additional options to the type of aircraft the CVF can operate; whereas the STOVL limits it to basically the Lightening STOVL variant. When the CTOL changes was announced, I remember in another article posting that the carrier would require a redesign to have similar spare space (especially at flight deck level) to operate a similar capability to the original STOVL Delta design. The fact remains, the STOVL design is very efficient with the available flight deck space for landing, take-off and deck parking requirements. This allows the the CVF to operate a comparable air group to the USN LHA and CVF designs. CTOL operations however require at least a 8 1/2 deg angled flight deck aft for landing; plus one of the catapults off to the wing of the forward end of the angled deck (the other catapult would be to starboard on main flight deck). The angled flight deck it the greatest limiting factor to the deck parking; while the second cat adds to this issue (remember the STOVL deck has only one launch track to follow, so the CTOL deck with two cuts into the parking space). Of course a redesign for CTOL operations should include a bigger butt for the CVF, so aircraft can be parked in the port quarter. The main flight deck starboard would also require extension over the side of the hull one to provide additional space for parking while balancing the angled flight deck weight distribution.
Shaun - Ex-RNZN.

17 March 2012

The carrier and aircraft decision should have been separate from day 1. If this had been done it would have been CTOL from the start. We would then be free to choose which would be the most suitable aircraft even have a mixture of aircraft. Personally a mixture of F35 and perhaps a Sea Gripen or f18 would give the UK a good capability whilst keeping costs down.

It would not make sense to operate F35 on every mission due to its high operational costs.

STOVL just ties us into one aircraft and future capability will be extreme limited. US are already testing UCAV carrier landings.

Personally I would like the UK to embrace the Sea Gripen NG. Given its ability to take off and land on improvised airstrips it would also be useful should we need to deploy in the FI's. It has low operating costs and UK pilots can easily be trained as the Gripen is already operated in the UK for training.
Gerrad - Dubai

17 March 2012

I think Graham's mixed A and B fleet is the right way to go. While I see the advantage of the C approach its not without risks, particularly regarding time slippage. The US Navy is not desperate for the C version, indeed it is still buying Super Hornets. EMALS is not yet proven, it could be fitted and become a maintenance nightmare.

What changed my mind was that video of the B variant on Wasp. Yes I fully accept that its propaganda, and the aircraft is lightly loaded thus making it quite perky, but its the simplicity of operation on the carrier deck. And it seems to work.

I am sure the £500m for conversion costs was the usual MOD approach of plucking a low figure out of the air to get approval, knowing full well that the costs would be much higher.

Thankfully no metal work changes have been made to the QE. This means we could have a working carrier in 2017/18 rather than 2020++.

Performance wise the B variant would seem to at least match the Super Hornet in practical terms.

Long term maybe the A variant might replace Typhoon to give a small air force a simple one type multi roll capability.
Tedgo - Andover

18 March 2012

EMAL and F35 are BOTH unaffordabl - F18E/F is available and more than capable of meeting our needs, even the USN admits that it has capabilities that the F35C cannot match, hence continued production. Complete BOTH carriers to a STOBAR design with F18`s (The plane has been trialled for ramp launch with excellent results in the USA)plus FAA pilots and maintenance crews already have experience with the type. Buy a small number of F35C for deep strike/stealth reconaisence at a later date (mid 2020`s ?) when costs have fallen and the glitches have been worked out. Also, forget Hawkeye, we could only afford a couple of them which would not be worth fitting EMALS for! Merlin AsAC would be available in greater numbers, hence wider coverage, is more flexible in operation (can be forward deployed on assault ships if req`d) and has export potential to Italy/Spain/Australia/Brazil/Japan/South Korea/Thailand
Steve R - London

21 March 2012

Steve R - London

We won't be buying or leasing super Hornets, its just not going to happen.
Graham - High Wycombe

15 February 2013

The mod should look at the sea typhoon for the q.e. cv's and buy the F-35 A for the airforce everyone gets a better deal. 3 wires and a couple of jet deflecters for the cv's cant run in to the billions can it?
Ryan - Hampshire