By: Turbinia
- 31st October 2006 at 12:12Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
My own view is the UK needs a genuine defence review, not the usual half baked means of slashing spending whilst attempting to do the same, but a fundamental decision on whether the UK retains a self defence force which would require a whole lot less money, or wants to punch above our weight which requires a whole lot more money. The current pathetic attempts to try and do everything but refusing to provide the neccessary funding to do it is the worst possible solution to our defence needs IMO. If we truly want the CVF's then we also need more frigates and destroyers, a bigger SSN program and more JSF's than are now being mentioned.
New
Posts: 5,707
By: sealordlawrence
- 31st October 2006 at 12:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
My own view is the UK needs a genuine defence review, not the usual half baked means of slashing spending whilst attempting to do the same, but a fundamental decision on whether the UK retains a self defence force which would require a whole lot less money, or wants to punch above our weight which requires a whole lot more money. The current pathetic attempts to try and do everything but refusing to provide the neccessary funding to do it is the worst possible solution to our defence needs IMO. If we truly want the CVF's then we also need more frigates and destroyers, a bigger SSN program and more JSF's than are now being mentioned.
Exactly what I have been advocating for years. If the government only wants to fund a self defence force then do that but except that a self defence force is all it is, but currently the lives of personell and the success of missions is being put at risk to satisfy the ego of politicians.
Looks like the carrier alliance have a price they can't budge from and the Treasury won't budge from their figure.
Last minute posturing. I have been involved in negotiating reasonably large contracts with the UK government and know that the gamesmanship goes right up to the last minute. It seems that now that industry has accepted the incentive scheme the difference has come down to just £100M (£3.6 v £3.8 billion) little more than the cost of one Typhoon.
I really can't see the MoD or industry letting the whole deal go over what is in reality such a small sum of money.
With an profit sharing incentive scheem industry will try an talk up the initial cost stimates as much as possible. That leaves as much "saving" as possible for indstry to share as outright profit.
By: Bomberboy
- 1st November 2006 at 15:31Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Last minute posturing. I have been involved in negotiating reasonably large contracts with the UK government and know that the gamesmanship goes right up to the last minute. It seems that now that industry has accepted the incentive scheme the difference has come down to just £100M (£3.6 v £3.8 billion) little more than the cost of one Typhoon.
I really can't see the MoD or industry letting the whole deal go over what is in reality such a small sum of money.
With an profit sharing incentive scheem industry will try an talk up the initial cost stimates as much as possible. That leaves as much "saving" as possible for indstry to share as outright profit.
Incentivisation or 'pain - gain' schemes involving government bodies happens all the time.
The company I work for has contracts with them for millions of pounds per contract so it's nothing new.
As Far says they talk up the target cost in the first place as far as they can go, so that there is a bigger 'risk pot' available should it be required or they share in the spoils if the project is actually delivered under target.
By: Turbinia
- 1st November 2006 at 16:01Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What's the odd 100 million here and there in a government budget that can blow literally billions on IT programs that never enter service, a health system that is a perpetual black hole for money, an ID card scheme virtually nobody particularly wants, paying off a semi-permanent underclass not to cause too much trouble etc etc? :confused:
By: harryRIEDL
- 1st November 2006 at 17:27Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
it will go though! this always happen with big programes under a new labor goverment they will argue a bit then thought it will go and the RN will have two 74.000 thousand ton carriers
By: FAR
- 1st November 2006 at 18:06Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
it will go though! this always happen with big programes under a new labor goverment they will argue a bit then thought it will go and the RN will have two 74.000 thousand ton carriers
stay positive people
The deal will be done. Too many jobs in labour constituencies would be lost if it doesn't happen.
If the government did pull the plug now they would be signalling an end to the RN as a blue water navy and the UK's armed forces as anything other than a self defence force. Despite the current public view on Iraq the government is not prepared to stop taking a major part on the world stage.
Lusty and the Ark won't go on for ever and the cost of starting the carrier procurement programme again would probably be more than £100m.
New
By: Anonymous
- 2nd November 2006 at 01:31Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The deal will be done. Too many jobs in labour constituencies would be lost if it doesn't happen.
If the government did pull the plug now they would be signalling an end to the RN as a blue water navy and the UK's armed forces as anything other than a self defence force. Despite the current public view on Iraq the government is not prepared to stop taking a major part on the world stage.
Lusty and the Ark won't go on for ever and the cost of starting the carrier procurement programme again would probably be more than £100m.
I would have to agree..........................national pride alone would prevent its demise! The UK still considers itself a World Power and will be in the forseeable future. :D
By: Tango III
- 8th November 2006 at 23:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
U.K., Companies Agree on Price for Two Aircraft Carriers: Sources
A program to build two aircraft carriers for the British Royal Navy is expected to go before the Ministry of Defence’s (MoD’s) Investment Approvals Board (IAB) Nov. 9 after a last-minute deal was agreed over the price of the vessels between government and the industry alliance set to build the warship.
At one stage last week, it looked as though the Defence Procurement Agency’s plan to present the business case for the aircraft carrier development and construction to the IAB when it meets Nov 9 had foundered.
Now, though, sources close to the program say a series of meetings in recent days between senior officials from industry and the MoD has culminated in a compromise agreement on the price the government is willing to pay for the carriers.
At one point, Defence Procurement Minister Lord Drayson and the chief executives of the top companies involved in the Aircraft Carrier Alliance, created to build the vessels, met in an attempt to bridge the gap between the 3.5 billion pounds ($6.6 billion) the government was willing to pay and the 3.8 billion pounds the alliance wanted to charge.
IAB go-ahead is the start of a process which, if things go according to plan, could see the government announce the deal, known here as Main Gate, before Parliament goes into Christmas recess in mid-December.
The two sides have settled on an incentive agreement which reduces the final cost of the two 65,000-metric-ton carriers to about 3.6 billion pounds, sources say.
The Aircraft Carrier Alliance includes BAE Systems, Babcock International, KBR, Thales, the VT Group and the MoD.
The first of the two warships, the largest ever proposed for the Royal Navy, are expected to enter service in 2013.
The MoD was unable to respond to requests for comment late Nov. 8. Alliance leader BAE declined to comment.
By: harryRIEDL
- 9th November 2006 at 17:16Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
it starting to remind me bit of a cross between CVN-21 and the Kitty Hawk class especaliy the the CTOL pics
the CVF weighs about the same as well [okay its a little smaller]. :)
also CVF should it classed be a supercarrier as it weighs about the same as the Forrestal
New
By: Anonymous
- 10th November 2006 at 02:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And has the word cancellation written all over it the way it is going.
If, the UK followed the design of the F-CVF more closely the saving would be much greater and they would also operate more efficiently with there French and American counterparts.............. :rolleyes:
By: FAR
- 10th November 2006 at 08:29Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If, the UK followed the design of the F-CVF more closely the saving would be much greater and they would also operate more efficiently with there French and American counterparts.............. :rolleyes:
I agree. If the UK ourchased CTOL JSF instead of the VTOL version the cost savings would probably pay for the cat installation on the CVFs. The Royal Navy movie showing the CVF shows a CTOL version. It may be that they have already deided to go down that route. We'll find out soon.
By: swerve
- 10th November 2006 at 09:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I agree. If the UK ourchased CTOL JSF instead of the VTOL version the cost savings would probably pay for the cat installation on the CVFs. The Royal Navy movie showing the CVF shows a CTOL version. It may be that they have already deided to go down that route. We'll find out soon.
Shouldn't be a cost saving on the aircraft, since the forecast price for the F-35C is about the same as the F-35B. The F-35A is cheaper, but not carrier-capable. Operating costs might be lower for F-35C, & payload/range performance should be a lot better.
BTW, Lockmart call the F-35B STOVL in their publicity, not VTOL. I don't think it'll do vertical take-off with a useful amount of fuel & weapons.
I'd prefer the carriers to be CTOL. Save any worries about AEW - buy the latest version of E-2. Could co-operate with the French, swap 'em back & forth if convenient. Also means that should (not very likely, but just in case ...) F-35B or even the whole F-35 deal fall through, we have options.
By: FAR
- 10th November 2006 at 10:05Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Shouldn't be a cost saving on the aircraft, since the forecast price for the F-35C is about the same as the F-35B. The F-35A is cheaper, but not carrier-capable. Operating costs might be lower for F-35C, & payload/range performance should be a lot better.
BTW, Lockmart call the F-35B STOVL in their publicity, not VTOL. I don't think it'll do vertical take-off with a useful amount of fuel & weapons.
I'd prefer the carriers to be CTOL. Save any worries about AEW - buy the latest version of E-2. Could co-operate with the French, swap 'em back & forth if convenient. Also means that should (not very likely, but just in case ...) F-35B or even the whole F-35 deal fall through, we have options.
Thanks for the update, the last info I saw was that the capex of F35B was greater than the C, sounds like that is now out of date.
While it would be nice to see CVF with cats and the F35C I guess we should remember that the CVFs will be a hugh leap in RN capability over the Invincibles. Just seems a shame to not go that little bit further.
By: swerve
- 10th November 2006 at 12:23Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks for the update, the last info I saw was that the capex of F35B was greater than the C, sounds like that is now out of date..
When was the estimate from? Might be newer than the figures I've seen. But the prices were both given as ranges, which almost entirely overlapped, in the last GAO extimate I saw (2005). And they're all forecasts.
While it would be nice to see CVF with cats and the F35C I guess we should remember that the CVFs will be a hugh leap in RN capability over the Invincibles. Just seems a shame to not go that little bit further.
Yes, indeed.
If we were building Cavour-type light carriers, or BPE-type dual-purpose ships, the F-35B would be logical. But I don't see why we're sticking to it with big carriers.
By: harryRIEDL
- 10th November 2006 at 14:03Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
you know it could still happen be bulit as a STOVL carrier then buy f35c and change it into a real carrier. the problem is the joint force harrier which will be carried on into the JSF program. joint force Commado was a good idea but not to sure about joint force harrier is.
but the most important thing is that the carriers are being built.
Posts: 847
By: Turbinia - 31st October 2006 at 12:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
My own view is the UK needs a genuine defence review, not the usual half baked means of slashing spending whilst attempting to do the same, but a fundamental decision on whether the UK retains a self defence force which would require a whole lot less money, or wants to punch above our weight which requires a whole lot more money. The current pathetic attempts to try and do everything but refusing to provide the neccessary funding to do it is the worst possible solution to our defence needs IMO. If we truly want the CVF's then we also need more frigates and destroyers, a bigger SSN program and more JSF's than are now being mentioned.
Posts: 5,707
By: sealordlawrence - 31st October 2006 at 12:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Exactly what I have been advocating for years. If the government only wants to fund a self defence force then do that but except that a self defence force is all it is, but currently the lives of personell and the success of missions is being put at risk to satisfy the ego of politicians.
Posts: 5,267
By: Fedaykin - 1st November 2006 at 08:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
My cup floweth over!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2006/11/01/cncarrier01.xml
Looks like the carrier alliance have a price they can't budge from and the Treasury won't budge from their figure.
Posts: 210
By: FAR - 1st November 2006 at 12:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Last minute posturing. I have been involved in negotiating reasonably large contracts with the UK government and know that the gamesmanship goes right up to the last minute. It seems that now that industry has accepted the incentive scheme the difference has come down to just £100M (£3.6 v £3.8 billion) little more than the cost of one Typhoon.
I really can't see the MoD or industry letting the whole deal go over what is in reality such a small sum of money.
With an profit sharing incentive scheem industry will try an talk up the initial cost stimates as much as possible. That leaves as much "saving" as possible for indstry to share as outright profit.
Posts: 839
By: Bomberboy - 1st November 2006 at 15:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Incentivisation or 'pain - gain' schemes involving government bodies happens all the time.
The company I work for has contracts with them for millions of pounds per contract so it's nothing new.
As Far says they talk up the target cost in the first place as far as they can go, so that there is a bigger 'risk pot' available should it be required or they share in the spoils if the project is actually delivered under target.
Bomberboy
Posts: 847
By: Turbinia - 1st November 2006 at 16:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What's the odd 100 million here and there in a government budget that can blow literally billions on IT programs that never enter service, a health system that is a perpetual black hole for money, an ID card scheme virtually nobody particularly wants, paying off a semi-permanent underclass not to cause too much trouble etc etc? :confused:
Posts: 366
By: harryRIEDL - 1st November 2006 at 17:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
it will go though! this always happen with big programes under a new labor goverment they will argue a bit then thought it will go and the RN will have two 74.000 thousand ton carriers
stay positive people
Posts: 210
By: FAR - 1st November 2006 at 18:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The deal will be done. Too many jobs in labour constituencies would be lost if it doesn't happen.
If the government did pull the plug now they would be signalling an end to the RN as a blue water navy and the UK's armed forces as anything other than a self defence force. Despite the current public view on Iraq the government is not prepared to stop taking a major part on the world stage.
Lusty and the Ark won't go on for ever and the cost of starting the carrier procurement programme again would probably be more than £100m.
By: Anonymous - 2nd November 2006 at 01:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I would have to agree..........................national pride alone would prevent its demise! The UK still considers itself a World Power and will be in the forseeable future. :D
Posts: 25,376
By: Tango III - 8th November 2006 at 23:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
U.K., Companies Agree on Price for Two Aircraft Carriers: Sources
A program to build two aircraft carriers for the British Royal Navy is expected to go before the Ministry of Defence’s (MoD’s) Investment Approvals Board (IAB) Nov. 9 after a last-minute deal was agreed over the price of the vessels between government and the industry alliance set to build the warship.
At one stage last week, it looked as though the Defence Procurement Agency’s plan to present the business case for the aircraft carrier development and construction to the IAB when it meets Nov 9 had foundered.
Now, though, sources close to the program say a series of meetings in recent days between senior officials from industry and the MoD has culminated in a compromise agreement on the price the government is willing to pay for the carriers.
At one point, Defence Procurement Minister Lord Drayson and the chief executives of the top companies involved in the Aircraft Carrier Alliance, created to build the vessels, met in an attempt to bridge the gap between the 3.5 billion pounds ($6.6 billion) the government was willing to pay and the 3.8 billion pounds the alliance wanted to charge.
IAB go-ahead is the start of a process which, if things go according to plan, could see the government announce the deal, known here as Main Gate, before Parliament goes into Christmas recess in mid-December.
The two sides have settled on an incentive agreement which reduces the final cost of the two 65,000-metric-ton carriers to about 3.6 billion pounds, sources say.
The Aircraft Carrier Alliance includes BAE Systems, Babcock International, KBR, Thales, the VT Group and the MoD.
The first of the two warships, the largest ever proposed for the Royal Navy, are expected to enter service in 2013.
The MoD was unable to respond to requests for comment late Nov. 8. Alliance leader BAE declined to comment.
CVF(HMS Queen Elizabeth, HMS Prince Of Wales)
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2343251&C=europe
Posts: 210
By: FAR - 9th November 2006 at 11:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This looks like good news. I can almost see the news reports of JSFs landing on the deck of the Queen Elizabeth for the first time!
Posts: 1,039
By: Super Nimrod - 9th November 2006 at 15:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It will probably be Harriers first :diablo: :eek:
If the above is correct it is very good news indeed :D
Posts: 366
By: harryRIEDL - 9th November 2006 at 17:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
it starting to remind me bit of a cross between CVN-21 and the Kitty Hawk class especaliy the the CTOL pics
the CVF weighs about the same as well [okay its a little smaller]. :)
also CVF should it classed be a supercarrier as it weighs about the same as the Forrestal
By: Anonymous - 10th November 2006 at 02:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If, the UK followed the design of the F-CVF more closely the saving would be much greater and they would also operate more efficiently with there French and American counterparts.............. :rolleyes:
Posts: 210
By: FAR - 10th November 2006 at 08:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I agree. If the UK ourchased CTOL JSF instead of the VTOL version the cost savings would probably pay for the cat installation on the CVFs. The Royal Navy movie showing the CVF shows a CTOL version. It may be that they have already deided to go down that route. We'll find out soon.
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 10th November 2006 at 09:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Shouldn't be a cost saving on the aircraft, since the forecast price for the F-35C is about the same as the F-35B. The F-35A is cheaper, but not carrier-capable. Operating costs might be lower for F-35C, & payload/range performance should be a lot better.
BTW, Lockmart call the F-35B STOVL in their publicity, not VTOL. I don't think it'll do vertical take-off with a useful amount of fuel & weapons.
I'd prefer the carriers to be CTOL. Save any worries about AEW - buy the latest version of E-2. Could co-operate with the French, swap 'em back & forth if convenient. Also means that should (not very likely, but just in case ...) F-35B or even the whole F-35 deal fall through, we have options.
Posts: 210
By: FAR - 10th November 2006 at 10:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks for the update, the last info I saw was that the capex of F35B was greater than the C, sounds like that is now out of date.
While it would be nice to see CVF with cats and the F35C I guess we should remember that the CVFs will be a hugh leap in RN capability over the Invincibles. Just seems a shame to not go that little bit further.
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 10th November 2006 at 12:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
When was the estimate from? Might be newer than the figures I've seen. But the prices were both given as ranges, which almost entirely overlapped, in the last GAO extimate I saw (2005). And they're all forecasts.
Yes, indeed.
If we were building Cavour-type light carriers, or BPE-type dual-purpose ships, the F-35B would be logical. But I don't see why we're sticking to it with big carriers.
Posts: 366
By: harryRIEDL - 10th November 2006 at 14:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
you know it could still happen be bulit as a STOVL carrier then buy f35c and change it into a real carrier. the problem is the joint force harrier which will be carried on into the JSF program. joint force Commado was a good idea but not to sure about joint force harrier is.
but the most important thing is that the carriers are being built.
when do you think the 1st steel will be cut
Posts: 315
By: European - 10th November 2006 at 14:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Cause Rolls-Royce UK payd the development of the F35B stovl engine. That's all. Political, internal, UK economics reasons.
The UK cvf will be a Cavour more capable.