CVF Construction

Read the forum code of contact

Profile picture for user kev 99

Member for

12 years 2 months

Posts: 1,533

Not really....look at the list Prom generated....nothing on it is especially difficult. Its not the carrier being adaptable to the CATOBAR layout thats the issue. Its the costs of being able to build in CATOBAR and operate it thats the sore point. If it was the only option then we'd have to find the money or do what the French had to do and make the best effort at it with one deck. Luckily we have another option.

Sorry I'm under the impression that the official statement talked only about the costs of conversion, as far I'm aware no mention has been made of operating costs.

If the list Prom generated is not difficult why is it costing approx £2b? We know EMALs doesn't cost that much and we know from leaked memos that the yanks have questionned the conversion costs that have been appearing in the public domain.

Quoting MSR from warships1:

An additional remark which I found interesting put the lie to the notion of the adaptable design which was trumpeted so loudly at the inception of the programme. EMALS doesn't fit into the spaces designed/reserved for a steam cat system without significant and expensive redesign. Hammond confirmed that CVF02 could have it, but at increased cost, whereas refitting those parts of CVF01 already constructed would not only cost even more, but be technically risky (reading between the lines, that risk extends to the possibility of failure).

Doh wrote this while Swerve was replying, basically every he said.

Profile picture for user swerve

Member for

15 years 4 months

Posts: 13,432

I was inspired by MSR. ;)

Profile picture for user Jonesy

Member for

20 years 9 months

Posts: 4,875

[QUOTE=Prom;1888691]

Not really....look at the list Prom generated....nothing on it is especially difficult. QUOTE]
I don't think that is true - see DuffGun's response for example

See his last line Prom. Big spacious ship leads to ease of modification. Also note the issues he said, very correctly, we would be looking at....cable runs....maybe some HVAC. For the greater part of this its going to be building in to existing void spaces. Its not a little job by any means, but, its no more difficult, really, than the reworking done on the CVS's to land GWS30 and adapt the deck and former weapons spaces for aviation tasking etc.

After preparation of the engineering spaces, heavy item installation and identification of critical cable runs etc the only major issue is the AAG fitment. Deck layout and lighting is a legwork job more than anything really difficult. EMP testing we need to see done, in the shipboard environment, before we sign on the dotted line for the system anyway...if its a showstopper its got more ramifications than those for the RN anyway.

As stated there is nothing really there thats a really big engineering risk or challenge....its all just wiring and metal bashing.

Member for

12 years 9 months

Posts: 334

On the BBC it says...

So does he know something we don't with regards to the development of the various versions? You would hope so, given that he said the F35C wouldn't be available till 2023.

Yes this is an interesting and surprising point. I cannot remember if this date was linked to when the aircraft would be ready or the carrier. If it is in reference to the aircraft then this is a worrying development for the F-35 programme.

Profile picture for user mrmalaya

Member for

10 years 9 months

Posts: 4,619

That has been worth considering since they switched from B to C.

I don't think we are fully appraised of the progress the two types are making (or not) and what is going on in Washington.

I don't think the USN are in a hurry for the F35. However such a delay for the UK made the whole program toxic for the UK government and I think this more than anything else lead to the B being reconsidered.

I have seen a suggestion that the C wouldn't have entered service here until after 2025. (but that is more illustrative than a stone cold certainty).

Member for

12 years 9 months

Posts: 334

Interesting comment by Admiral Lord West he said that the carriers will be good for 50 years, first time we have heard that mentioned for a while.

He also pointed out Hammond’s lack of competence in some defence matters. Hammond kept saying that we don’t need 65,000 tonne carriers for STOVL operations but as Lord West and Jonesy have pointed out if you are going to operate 36 aircraft for a period of time then you do need a carrier that large.

Profile picture for user swerve

Member for

15 years 4 months

Posts: 13,432

So does he know something we don't with regards to the development of the various versions? You would hope so, given that he said the F35C wouldn't be available till 2023.

He was talking about in service date on our carrier, not deliveries. He reckons F-35B will be operational on QE in 2020 - but flying off her in 2018.
Profile picture for user kev 99

Member for

12 years 2 months

Posts: 1,533


See his last line Prom. Big spacious ship leads to ease of modification. Also note the issues he said, very correctly, we would be looking at....cable runs....maybe some HVAC. For the greater part of this its going to be building in to existing void spaces. Its not a little job by any means, but, its no more difficult, really, than the reworking done on the CVS's to land GWS30 and adapt the deck and former weapons spaces for aviation tasking etc.

After preparation of the engineering spaces, heavy item installation and identification of critical cable runs etc the only major issue is the AAG fitment. Deck layout and lighting is a legwork job more than anything really difficult. EMP testing we need to see done, in the shipboard environment, before we sign on the dotted line for the system anyway...if its a showstopper its got more ramifications than those for the RN anyway.

As stated there is nothing really there thats a really big engineering risk or challenge....its all just wiring and metal bashing.

£1.5b of wiring and metal bashing for PoW, more for QE.

Profile picture for user swerve

Member for

15 years 4 months

Posts: 13,432

i.e. 75% of the original construction cost of the whole ship, for a ship that hasn't even built yet, plus more than the original construction cost for the part-built ship. Overall, as much for conversion work* (not including the catapults & arrestor gear!) as the total cost of construction of the ships for STOVL - for a supposedly adaptable design.

Something is very, very wrong.

*Someone inside the MoD told Defence Management that the current estimate is £5 bn for both ships: £2 bn for PoW, £3 bn for QE. Deduct cats & traps from that & you get £1.5bn & £2.5bn, i.e. £4bn.

http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=19704

Profile picture for user mrmalaya

Member for

10 years 9 months

Posts: 4,619

Is it possible that the US EMALS system that was being considered had changed in its physical requirements over the past 10 years? And differed from the space and technical requirements of the UK system under consideration?

And is it the case that the contractors where part of a conspiracy to make the ships seem better value for money (vast amounts of money) by making them seem more flexible than they actually could be? Bearing in mind that the the program has always had vociferous critics, particularly when more billions where needed to keep it going.

But ultimately is it the case that 2bn of savings if presented well enough takes away from the complex debate over which aircraft flies off the carriers (which most people have no clue about).

£2bn of "savings" goes a long way these days...

Profile picture for user Jonesy

Member for

20 years 9 months

Posts: 4,875

£1.5b of wiring and metal bashing for PoW, more for QE.

If you believe that. Remember this is brought to you by the same people who said £400mn initially. Costs go way the hell up when you are doing something a bit experimental. This really isnt.

I think theyre (the politicians) even making a fundamental mistake on the 'inadequate space left' comment. I believe they are talking about the flight deck installation for the rails themselves...which appear considerably deeper for the EMALS linear motor sections than that necessary for the steam unit. A redesign would be required, but, I dont know how significant it will be if you intrude into the spaces below the deck over two relatively narrow strips forward.

I can not accept that there would be any issues in the engineering spaces, in fitting the power generation kit for the EMALS load, when compared with the space necessary for auxilliary boilers to drive steam cats. For the same reason I do not believe for a second that it will be difficult to cable run up to the flight deck, from those spaces, if ANY kind of consideration was made to run steam pipes up there. Its so much easier to run wiring than steam pipeworkery!.

Profile picture for user kev 99

Member for

12 years 2 months

Posts: 1,533

If you believe that. Remember this is brought to you by the same people who said £400mn initially. Costs go way the hell up when you are doing something a bit experimental. This really isnt.

I think theyre (the politicians) even making a fundamental mistake on the 'inadequate space left' comment. I believe they are talking about the flight deck installation for the rails themselves...which appear considerably deeper for the EMALS linear motor sections than that necessary for the steam unit. A redesign would be required, but, I dont know how significant it will be if you intrude into the spaces below the deck over two relatively narrow strips forward.

I can not accept that there would be any issues in the engineering spaces, in fitting the power generation kit for the EMALS load, when compared with the space necessary for auxilliary boilers to drive steam cats. For the same reason I do not believe for a second that it will be difficult to cable run up to the flight deck, from those spaces, if ANY kind of consideration was made to run steam pipes up there. Its so much easier to run wiring than steam pipeworkery!.

Okay so Hammond is lying to the Commons and Defence Select Committee?

Sorry but I'm sticking with my adaptable carrier is nonsense theory. I wasn't initially concerned when the armour and Sampson disappeared from the spec, I was a little more concerned when I read about the steel being cheaper and thinner than that normally used in Warships, now I'm convinced that CVF has been designed on the cheap.

Profile picture for user Jonesy

Member for

20 years 9 months

Posts: 4,875

Okay so Hammond is lying to the Commons and Defence Select Committee?

Sorry but I'm sticking with my adaptable carrier is nonsense theory. I wasn't initially concerned when the armour and Sampson disappeared from the spec, I was a little more concerned when I read about the steel being cheaper and thinner than that normally used in Warships, now I'm convinced that CVF has been designed on the cheap.

I didnt say lying Kev I'm saying he hasnt the first clue what he's talking about and is repeating the words written on his little flash cards. He's not a credible commentator in my view as it is too easy for politicians know they are briefing committee with twaddle and to, apologetically, recant their words at a later date blaming 'poor facts' etc!.

CVF has been designed on the cheap....absolutely no doubt about it. the fact remains though that there is nothing extraordinarily difficult or technically challenging about the kind of works Prom listed. that is why I dont believe the figures mentioned for a single ship are genuine or solely for the acquisition/fitting costs. £1.5bn?. That ISNT what it costs to do the kind of work mentioned.

Profile picture for user Fedaykin

Member for

14 years 10 months

Posts: 5,267

Well back to the old plans Jonesy:p I am going to miss the old STOVL vs CATOBAR arguments. Now the choice is made however much I dislike it I prefer getting behind it and pushing for both carriers to be retained and a clear program from the MOD for induction into service of carrier and F35B.

Anyhow guys still want to do the HMS QE Key Pub forum float out gathering in a few years time with our honorary Brit Lieger invited of course! We can all sink a few beers then and laugh about it all...

Profile picture for user 19K11

Member for

9 years 1 month

Posts: 226

Well back to the old plans Jonesy:p I am going to miss the old STOVL vs CATOBAR arguments. Now the choice is made however much I dislike it I prefer getting behind it and pushing for both carriers to be retained and a clear program from the MOD for induction into service of carrier and F35B.

Anyhow guys still want to do the HMS QE Key Pub forum float out gathering in a few years time with our honorary Brit Lieger invited of course! We can all sink a few beers then and laugh about it all...

So......in your opinion........this is the FINALE change in plans?! I have more faith in the Brits ability to absolutly muck up things like this. No no no! I forsee two or three more switches between CATOBAR and STOVL befor this is over. (with the probable result of niether of these ships going into RN service.)

Profile picture for user Jonesy

Member for

20 years 9 months

Posts: 4,875

Fed

Anyhow guys still want to do the HMS QE Key Pub forum float out gathering in a few years time with our honorary Brit Lieger invited of course! We can all sink a few beers then and laugh about it all...

...and doubtless still be arguing over the relative merits of the operating technique thats finally on the finished ships...and I will be quite happy to stand up the first round! Is the launch date finalised yet...I've lost track of the build schedule to be honest!.

Member for

9 years 2 months

Posts: 269

I will be quite happy to stand up the first round! Is the launch date finalised yet...I've lost track of the build schedule to be honest!.

Personally I will be looking for the first time she comes into Portsmouth. More impressive I think.

As to dates, well the ACA now have to re-plan putting all the bits they had taken off QEC back on so that will probably slip things.

In the meantime another block (LB02) goes on the barge next week

Profile picture for user Fedaykin

Member for

14 years 10 months

Posts: 5,267

Interesting comment by Admiral Lord West he said that the carriers will be good for 50 years, first time we have heard that mentioned for a while.

He also pointed out Hammond’s lack of competence in some defence matters. Hammond kept saying that we don’t need 65,000 tonne carriers for STOVL operations but as Lord West and Jonesy have pointed out if you are going to operate 36 aircraft for a period of time then you do need a carrier that large.

Yeah the old ill informed carriers are too big argument. Even if the carriers had been 25 thousand tons lighter they would of still cost a similar amount. Major cost isn't in the steel, its in the systems and they would of been similar to what is being fitted to the larger vessel.

To do the tasking's that is required of these carriers bigger is better regardless of being STOVL.

The AEW argument is another red herring even if we had continued down the CATOBAR path we would still of had a helicopter based solution.

Profile picture for user Fedaykin

Member for

14 years 10 months

Posts: 5,267

Personally I will be looking for the first time she comes into Portsmouth. More impressive I think.

As to dates, well the ACA now have to re-plan putting all the bits they had taken off QEC back on so that will probably slip things.

In the meantime another block (LB02) goes on the barge next week

I hope A&P Tyne get the work to build the Ski jumps, it would make up for losing work due to BAE Systems cancelling sub-contracts last year. Has the advantage in that they have the capacity and it doesn't impact build work at other yards.

Member for

11 years 4 months

Posts: 10

So much for adaptabilty

With the recent descovery that our £5.2 billion pound Adaptable carrriers are anything but surely they should look into the trade descriptions act as it's nearly the cost to adapt as to start a fresh as the original cost of the QE class was £3.8 billion which is the exact amount quoted by bean counter hammond we have been ripped off again more of the defence budget wasted the only way that the figures quoted could be true is if the decks weren't strong enough for an F-35c to be crashing into it on landing and additional strengthing would be required or BAE changed the design in build to save money and there asn't enough room for the 90m emals launcher.
This incident proves that the defence of this country should be taken out of politicians control and made independant with a set budget written into law of say 2.5 % GDP which would allow for a proper equipement program to be funded in the long term and should negate the need for large expensive UOR to be purchased except in exceptional circumstances,also the Nuclear detterant should be funded seperatly as dispite what they say its a political weapon not a military one as its there descison to use it not the military's.