alpine_saint Posted 26 March, 2012 Share Posted 26 March, 2012 Story 1. Confirmed over weekend that we gave away 74 Harrier GR9s for about 15% of their value to the Yanks, and the MoD had a PR strategy for burying the story (pity they didnt get an NDA from the US Navy.....) Story 2. End of last week, story doing the rounds that the F35 purchase, now the disastrous F-35C was about to be changed back to the even more disastrous F-35B, because the cost of modifying PoW to CATOBAR was now standing at 2BILLION (more than the carrier itself if the in-serivce date hadnt been postponed by Camerloon), above 4 times the original estimate, then the US Navy steps in and tells the UK Government that the figure is a load of b*llocks, the job can be done for less than the original estimate and now the UK Government is staying with the F-35C. What a bunch of rank incompetent f**king amaterus. IMO: Make both carriers CATOBAR, ditch the F-35 altogether and buy Super Hornets. The Navy gets its airpower and credibility back, and we save enough money to get an additional couple of T45s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted 26 March, 2012 Share Posted 26 March, 2012 To be fair, Navy procurement has been a shambles for the past 40 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This Charming Man Posted 26 March, 2012 Share Posted 26 March, 2012 I've worked in medical procurement for the MOD before and the amount of money that get's wasted is staggering. Nobody up the chain really cared and I was almost working to an limitless budget at times, which made my job nice and easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 26 March, 2012 Author Share Posted 26 March, 2012 The US Navy are only embarassing the UK govenmenr because they want us to have operational carriers ASAP and they want to cancel the F-35B completely, I reckon. The UK government shouldnt have cancelled the p1154 in the Sixties, it would probably still p*ss all over the F-35B. The F-35B concept simply doesnt work (carrying all the lift fans around as dead-weight during combat) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 26 March, 2012 Share Posted 26 March, 2012 I've worked in medical procurement for the MOD before and the amount of money that get's wasted is staggering. Nobody up the chain really cared and I was almost working to an limitless budget at times, which made my job nice and easy. That's symptomatic of the MoD in general, or at least every department I've had experience of working with. Money and resources are no object whatsoever; they'll try to do it in house, throw huge manpower and funding at the problem, then when they realise they can't actually do what they need to do they'll outsource it to a select supplier (usually BAE in my experience) at huge, set labour rates and enormous cost. There is seemingly no-one held accountable for keeping costs low, or keeping projects on schedule. The most inefficient organisation I've worked with (except for the US Army, who to be fair are even worse due to the compartively gargantuan budgets they work with). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 26 March, 2012 Share Posted 26 March, 2012 Well our £3.5bn Carriers will now cost £6bn. What I cannot understand is how the costs of these projects can spriral so quickly. The contract negotiators for the MOD must be cretins of the highest order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted 26 March, 2012 Share Posted 26 March, 2012 Well our £3.5bn Carriers will now cost £6bn. What I cannot understand is how the costs of these projects can spriral so quickly. The contract negotiators for the MOD must be cretins of the highest order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 16 April, 2012 Author Share Posted 16 April, 2012 Here we go. Another ridiculously expensive f**k up decision in the pipeline... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2130612/EXCLUSIVE-Cameron-makes-humiliating-u-turn-future-Britains-aircraft-carriers.html I think by avoiding the cap-and-trap costs, they think now they can keep both carriers operational and get them sooner. B*ll*cks. The next round of cuts to fund benefits will still see the second carrier in mothballs, whilst the first goes around with crap toy planes on it. The whole F35-B concept is utter w*nk. The Russians proved it. And I've heard the US are very close to cancelling it. It just doesnt make sense, carrying the lift fans round as dead-weight. Better off converting both carriers to C & T and saving the money on the planes by cancelling F-35s and getting off-the-shelf F/A-18Es. Useless bastards. I really wonder about the top-brass in the Navy nowadays. Oh, and the reason the carrier costs have spiralled is because of the delays. So saving money in the short-term ends up costing the taxpayer much, much more in the long term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint-scooby Posted 16 April, 2012 Share Posted 16 April, 2012 Most civil servants are not project managers.... some don't have a clue and most are in it for a nice pension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 11 May, 2012 Author Share Posted 11 May, 2012 So the deed is done. Having given away 1billion worth of VSTOL aircraft of limited capability, and are in the process of scrapping 3 carriers only (but still) capable of carrying a handful anyway, we have switched back to more VSTOL aircraft of limited capability (which the US is backing out of buying for itself very, very rapidly) , of which we will only put a handful on the 2 new carriers despite their ability to carry many, many more. The 2 new carriers are therefore 3 times the size of the displacement of the carriers they replace, with not a shred of capacity/capability improvement..... Oh, and the flip-flop of the type of aircraft to purchase as cost us so much in terms of feasibility study, planning and contractors penalties, that we could have got ourselves another Type 45 destroyer for our emasculated surface fleet, or another half of an Astute submarine. Absolutely inspired..... Oh, and BAE are bunch of manipulative c**ts too. 2 billion for Cats 'n Traps. What b*ll*cks. Is there any silver lining ? Well, theoretically the two carriers could both go into full service now, and at an earlier date, but will they ? Personally, I have my doubts either will reach commissioning... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 11 May, 2012 Share Posted 11 May, 2012 Thought about this thread when I read that yesterday. And then found this one today http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9259179/Defence-Secretary-to-re-examine-air-tankers-contract-over-100m-overspend-claims.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 11 May, 2012 Author Share Posted 11 May, 2012 Thought about this thread when I read that yesterday. And then found this one today http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9259179/Defence-Secretary-to-re-examine-air-tankers-contract-over-100m-overspend-claims.html 3 times over the odds ?? FFS, thats 7 BILLION. It would pay for both Cat n" Trap conversions (even at the BAE / Government ridiculous estimate of 2billion per ship), 2 Type 45s (500m per ship) AND 2 more Astutes (1bn per ship). If the Government had the BALLs to push back at BAE, they could get the cat n trap cost down to 1 billion per ship I reckon leavin enough money for more Type 45s. We're being had. Do these companies see the MoD coming ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 24 May, 2012 Author Share Posted 24 May, 2012 The latest chapter in this ongoing farce.......... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2149237/New-500m-jets-set-cost-taxpayers-MELT-ships-decks.html 50 years ago we could build and run 10 aircraft carriers. Now we cant organise the proverbial in a brewery... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moonraker Posted 24 May, 2012 Share Posted 24 May, 2012 The latest chapter in this ongoing farce.......... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2149237/New-500m-jets-set-cost-taxpayers-MELT-ships-decks.html 50 years ago we could build and run 10 aircraft carriers. Now we cant organise the proverbial in a brewery... While on face value this all seems like incompetence on the part of the defence planners what the article really does is betray the incompetence or lack of knowledge of its author and commentators. All of the arguments for CATOBAR (CATS and TRAPS) are based on the greater capability of the F35C over the F35B and the view that during the 50 yr service life of the QEC ships manned strike aircraft will remain the primary combat delivery platform. On the first point it seems an easy choice however we all know that this is not the case, the SDSR case for the F35C variant was flawed and skewed by RAF doctrine stuck in 1940s and a SoS who was at best out of his depth and at worst uninterested. On point b there is a very real possibility that the F35 will be the last manned combat aircraft this country buys, UAV's will in 20 years be the front line combat platform of choice, these do not need CATS and TRAPS so investing in them for a single platform is very questionable. You refer to the F18 Hornet, oh how the RAF would love them, they are obsolete (still capable but not the future) and will end there days filling secondary combat support roles and in the inventory of 2nd division defence forces. As to the paint issue and the flight deck melting LOL, the exhaust may be hotter compared to say a Buccaneer or F4 Phantom (both of which we have successfully operated without melting decks) he doesn’t provide any figures, but his use of the term fumes is the key to his own betrayal and confirms he is talking out of his own fume generator, oh and finnaly why do we have to beg the Americans for the paint? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redondo Saint Posted 24 May, 2012 Share Posted 24 May, 2012 While on face value this all seems like incompetence on the part of the defence planners what the article really does is betray the incompetence or lack of knowledge of its author and commentators. All of the arguments for CATOBAR (CATS and TRAPS) are based on the greater capability of the F35C over the F35B and the view that during the 50 yr service life of the QEC ships manned strike aircraft will remain the primary combat delivery platform. On the first point it seems an easy choice however we all know that this is not the case, the SDSR case for the F35C variant was flawed and skewed by RAF doctrine stuck in 1940s and a SoS who was at best out of his depth and at worst uninterested. On point b there is a very real possibility that the F35 will be the last manned combat aircraft this country buys, UAV's will in 20 years be the front line combat platform of choice, these do not need CATS and TRAPS so investing in them for a single platform is very questionable. You refer to the F18 Hornet, oh how the RAF would love them, they are obsolete (still capable but not the future) and will end there days filling secondary combat support roles and in the inventory of 2nd division defence forces. As to the paint issue and the flight deck melting LOL, the exhaust may be hotter compared to say a Buccaneer or F4 Phantom (both of which we have successfully operated without melting decks) he doesn’t provide any figures, but his use of the term fumes is the key to his own betrayal and confirms he is talking out of his own fume generator, oh and finnaly why do we have to beg the Americans for the paint? Good post. There are also well advanced carrier based UAV prototypes. I don't get how the DM continues to embellish negative articles about Britain. Any chance of having a dig and they take it. Glad I can choose to read it on-line rather than pay for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 25 May, 2012 Share Posted 25 May, 2012 (edited) [QUOTE=moonraker;1375011]While on face value this all seems like incompetence on the part of the defence planners what the article really does is betray the incompetence or lack of knowledge of its author and commentators. All of the arguments for CATOBAR (CATS and TRAPS) are based on the greater capability of the F35C over the F35B and the view that during the 50 yr service life of the QEC ships manned strike aircraft will remain the primary combat delivery platform. On the first point it seems an easy choice however we all know that this is not the case, the SDSR case for the F35C variant was flawed and skewed by RAF doctrine stuck in 1940s and a SoS who was at best out of his depth and at worst uninterested. On point b there is a very real possibility that the F35 will be the last manned combat aircraft this country buys, UAV's will in 20 years be the front line combat platform of choice, these do not need CATS and TRAPS so investing in them for a single platform is very questionable. You refer to the F18 Hornet, oh how the RAF would love them, they are obsolete (still capable but not the future) and will end there days filling secondary combat support roles and in the inventory of 2nd division defence forces .... QUOTE] Just a few points: 1 - "All of the arguments for CATOBAR (CATS and TRAPS) are based on the greater capability of the F35C over the F35B" .... Irrespective of the clear superiority of the F35C compared to its V/STOL cousin, a 'cat & trap' fitted carrier can of course operate other (non vertical take off) types as well. For instance one fine day a cat & trap fitted carrier allows us the possibility of much better E3 'Hawkeye' AEW aircraft to be operated instead of the very inferior (helicopter based) solutions we are now reduced to. This is a significant advantage. 2 - "SDSR case for the F35C variant was flawed and skewed by RAF doctrine stuck in 1940s and a SoS who was at best out of his depth and at worst uninterested" Well I thought Dr Liam Fox showed the potential to be one of the most clear thinking & strategically minded Defence Ministers we've seen for many a year. Leaving that matter to one side however, if the RAF didn't really want to stay in the V/STOL business then who could blame them? Decades of Harrier experience proved that these aircraft hardly ever needed their V/STOL capability in practice (air displays excepted) and in reality they spent virtually their entire service careers operating from long fixed runways. In terms of range & payload there is a heavy price to pay for V/STOL flight, and it seems to me nearly all world air forces have concluded it's not worth paying. 3 - UAV's will in 20 years be the front line combat platform of choice, these do not need CATS and TRAPS so investing in them for a single platform is very questionable" I agree that UCAV's (Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles) may well be the future, but to claim that naval versions of these aircraft do not require cat & trap is just plain wrong. At this time all (full size) UCAV's designs in prospect would certainly require CATOBAR gear to operate from a aircraft carrier. Any suggestion that we could develop our own V/STOL drone seems unrealistic given the low unit numbers & extreme cost of any such proposal. 4 - "they (the F18 Hornet) are obsolete (still capable but not the future) and will end there days filling secondary combat support roles and in the inventory of 2nd division defence forces" It's a moot point anyway as we are now committed to the F35, but the F-18E/F Super Hornet is a virtually a new type compared to previous generation FA-18 Hornets and by any reckoning a highly capable aircraft. As for its alleged obsolescence, this aircraft entered service in 1999, it is still in production and scheduled to remain in front line USN service until the late 2030's at least. I don't recognise any depiction of the USN as a "2nd division" air force. Apart from that I agreed with everything you said! Edited 25 May, 2012 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bath Saint Posted 25 May, 2012 Share Posted 25 May, 2012 And this is the reason why there are so many problems in defence procurement. Chapel and Moonraker both make their points well and, probably, based on good personal knowledge. The problem is, these arguments are at odds with each other. The programme directors are faced with a plethora of stakeholders, each with their own, well informed opinions about what is required, what the future is likely to be and so forth. These stakeholders are politically very powerful and influential. So, how is the programme director to balance the opposing views? You can't have everything or else you'll end up with Homer Simpson's car which he designed for his long-lost brother - a mish-mash compromise that doesn't satisfy anyone. So, you need to come up with something, all within an (admittedly, very large) budget. And, as any project manager knows, making changes half-way through the project causes no end of problems. And so, we have poor defence procurement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 25 May, 2012 Author Share Posted 25 May, 2012 Imo, the whole F-35 issue is moot anyway. I've said it several times already; the new CVFs will stand little chance of going into service as commissioned RN ships. Sooner or later the plug will be pulled on either the entire program, or we will end up with shore-based low-performance F-35Bs serving in the RAF and no carriers. They will end up being flogged to Thailand or Australia or some other second-tier country with limited blue-water capabilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint in Paradise Posted 25 May, 2012 Share Posted 25 May, 2012 Some American veterans are not very happy either:- The F 35 Joint Strike Fighter, meant to be sold to our allies and the basis of our air power for the next 4 decades, not only has unrepairable defects in avionics but is really “4th generation,” not “5th generation. We spent $1.3 trillion dollars for a “flying garbage truck” that is years late and highly susceptible to, not only air defense systems but can be outmaneuvered by 30 year old planes. This is, currently, the biggest defense scam in American history. A look at John McCain, the man responsible for leaving America open to foreign attack, not for the first time, will follow. The F 22, a real 5th generation fighter, available in minimal numbers as it was “killed” by John McCain for reasons that would make your blood boil, is poisoning its pilots. A temporary refit, midnight “spit and glue” will take two years. This plane was 15 years in development. Mysteriously, the Chinese have their own F 22, slightly altered but so many identical systems that it contains over $500 billion dollars of American technology, the J 20. It is ready for production and it will work, where ours don’t. Information on the illegal technology transfer, done through “that special country in the Middle East” is suppressed in our news. Spying. This represents a “clear and present danger” to the security of the United States. The Patriot 3 missile system simply doesn’t work. The basis for our “surround Russia and pretend we are trying to scare Iran” air defense system, combined with the “Iron Dome” for Israel is a dream. Tests of the system done a few months ago proved it incapable of shooting anything down other than, just maybe, one of our own F 35s. The export (degraded) version of the Russian S400 system (Turkey is buying one) is superior. Should we ask Russia if we could simply buy their system and surround them with that? Actually, we need a joint system WITH Russia and need it today. We should buy rights to produce, not the export version, but the advanced domestic version and sign a treaty as to how we will use it. This is the security of the United States we are talking about. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 25 May, 2012 Share Posted 25 May, 2012 Do we need carriers or are they a red herring? Future long-flying UAVs with payloads, attack subs and effective air defence on destroyers such as the T45 might be enough for most scenarios. Aerial dog fights seem a bit WWII blighty. We're in a perfectly capable position, for example, to deter Argentina from attacking the Falklands with an attack sub, a T45 destroyer and six typhoons at Port Stanley. I'd argue that there isn't enough redundancy within those very capable forces to replace them if things went wrong - say a T45 got sunk. We'd possibly be better off spending the carrier and RN F-35 money on additional attack subs with cruise missile capability, T45s, typhoons and UAVs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 26 May, 2012 Share Posted 26 May, 2012 Do we need carriers or are they a red herring? Future long-flying UAVs with payloads, attack subs and effective air defence on destroyers such as the T45 might be enough for most scenarios. Aerial dog fights seem a bit WWII blighty. We're in a perfectly capable position, for example, to deter Argentina from attacking the Falklands with an attack sub, a T45 destroyer and six typhoons at Port Stanley. I'd argue that there isn't enough redundancy within those very capable forces to replace them if things went wrong - say a T45 got sunk. We'd possibly be better off spending the carrier and RN F-35 money on additional attack subs with cruise missile capability, T45s, typhoons and UAVs. You make a perfectly reasonable and coherent case. In reply however I would argue that the attack submarine can only embark a small number of cruise missiles, & when they're gone, they're gone. Compared that to the sustained rate of attack sorties a large aircraft carrier could generate (for months on end potentially) In any case cruise missiles such as Tomahawk (TLAM) are fundamentally unsuitable for some vitally important missions - such as reconnaissance or the close air support of troops in the field for instance. The Type 45 Destroyers state of the art air defence capability is truly formidable, but it is limited to the 'radar horizon' of the vessel concerned. An aircraft carrier on the other hand can provide air defence & surveillance (via a suitable carrier AEW aircraft) over a comparatively vast area. As for RAF fast jets & UCAV's, history shows that land based air power can often prove to be a grossly inadequate substitute for the full range of capabilities a proper aircraft carrier gives you when (as in the Falklands for instance) the action takes place far from any friendly airfield. This is why maritime focused nations such as the United States continue to invest heavily in aircraft carriers, they offer a unmatched level of flexible worldwide power projection - if you can really afford them that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moonraker Posted 26 May, 2012 Share Posted 26 May, 2012 (edited) Some very good points being raised, Bath Saints gets the huge problem faced in defence procurement illustrated by CEC and my differing assessments of the need and solution, it is not a problem unique to the UK, having been involved in major overseas defence programmes believe me the UK MOD is pretty good and the much maligned civil servants are very professional. As to the QEC, we have the age old problem of not having a crystal ball and to many people fighting the last war. If you only get your knowledge of defence procurement from the press and ill informed on line bloggers then it will be difficult to grasp the complexity and reality of defence procurement. I am convinced that the QEC ships will go into service, they will provide the most flexible and agile asset available. Whilst the numbers are very big the cost is in reality incredible value for money, a US carrier procurement cost is 4 times more, yes they do have CATS and TRAPS and twice as many aircraft which means they cost considerably more to operate, man and maintain. As long as the UK Gov want to maintain a credible expeditionary war fighting capability QEC will deliver incredible capability at a price we can afford, whether our defence policy is right is totally different argument. Edited 26 May, 2012 by moonraker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 29 May, 2012 Share Posted 29 May, 2012 Do we need aircraft carriers? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18237029 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 16 July, 2012 Author Share Posted 16 July, 2012 And on (and on) it goes : http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/4431570/PM-David-Cameron-could-be-facing-fresh-humiliating-U-turn-on-new-aircraft-carrier-designs.html Why dont we just buy F/A-18E/Fs off the shelf, FFS ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now