UK General Election 2015

[Snozzwangler]

I got phoned and answered some questions for a Survation poll tonight.

I thought they just made the results up!

[JustAnotherLogin]

Scuffers said:

look, I may not be a defence expert, but it;s pretty clear I have a better understanding of this subject than you!

So you're not a defence expert, but you feel qualified to say that the MOD and the RN have got it all wrong. Wow

Personally I have taken advice from someone who does know about carriers, but wishes to remain anonymous, so thanks to him for the rest

Scuffers said:

the Yanks want us to have carriers, especially ones that can cross-deck with them and other NATO members, hence why they were almost despondent when we change plans again not to fit the new ones with CAT/Trap's (and thus place all our eggs in the F35B basket), hell they even offered a (cheap) fixed price deal on the new EMALS (developed for the Ford class carriers).

Their plan is to replace their current Nimitz carriers over the next 20 years with the new ones, but if we were serious about it, they would be happy to accelerate their programme to be able to sell out one of the later Nimitz class (last one was commissioned in 2009 and they have an expected life of ~50 years).

the ones we are building are nothing more than a political jobs creation scheme now, started with good intentions, but as usual, screwed every step along the way.

the budget was £4m for two ships back when they started (2007/8), it's now quoted at £6.2M but likely to exceed that by some way, and that's without any viable aircraft on it.

currently, F35B programme is still way behind, and it's unit cost of some $142M is likely to increase before it's fit for service, in comparison, the F18 super Hornet is available now, at a cost of ~$60m a unit (and the yanks have 100's of used ones available).

so, that's less than half the price for something avaliable now, with a good track record, made in vast numbers vs. who knows when and at what cost?

The US do want us to have carriers it is true. It is also true that that they offered a fixed price deal on the EMALS catapults (cheap is subjective). Though as those catapults are still way behind where they are supposed to be in terms of relaibility it may not have been such a good deal

They have not however ever offered to sell us a Nimitz. nor could they because they need them to keep up the numbers until the new ones come on line. In fact it is enshrined in law- para b at this link
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/5062
Obama had to get congressional approval to dip below the 11 temporarily.
So they will only become available when they are are at or near end of life. I understand one will be sold off slightly earlier but will need a change of nuclear fuel and modernisation before it is usable (which would cost $3bn). The US carriers nuclear plant also comes with a £1bn disposal cost (both those figures at http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/cvn-68.htm)

But that is dwarfed by operating costs.
The British ships have a ships crew (I am ignoring air wing to get around any discrepancies in number of aircraft carried) of 680. A Nimitz has 3200

Now as well as a crew for each ship they also have essentially to have the equivalent of another one in training, on leave, admin etc

The pay of RN can be found at
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/careers/pay-benefits-a...


Hard to tell where the mean might be given the numbers on board, but lets take a stab at £30k. But on top of that there are pensions, food costs, admin, etc. Shall we call it £40k?

So that means the difference in cost of manning 2 QEC carriers vs 2 Nimitzs is
4 * (3200-680) * £40k= £403.2m per annum

Offsetting that we have fuel usage. I can't see the fuel usage for QEC and my friend does not know, but hes suggested comparing with Queen Mary II (which has similar power plant) which gives 150 tonnes of fuel per day. Marine diesel is currentlt $591 per tonne. So at todays exchange rate and assuming one ship is operational at a time, that gives fuel costs of £22m per annum

So, Scuffers great idea to buy 2 Nimitz class carriers
1) Won't work because the USN would not sell them to us
2) Would be obsolete if they did
3) Would only last 20 years at most
4) they would be at the cost of British jobs in ship-building, lots of technologies
4) would leave us behind in the technology for building the next ones
6) Over those 20 years would cost
(403.2m-22m)*20 + 2 * (3000m+1000m)*0.67= 12bn even if the USN gave us the carriers for free, thus £5.8bn MORE than building the 2 carriers ourselves
7) they would only last 20 years instead of the design life of 50 for QEC

So about 3x the cost per year

I agree Scuffers, you aren't a defence expert. Thats why those that are make the decisions and not you.

[JustAnotherLogin]

wc98 said:

the mistake you make is assuming these floating lumps of metal will carry operational aircraft. it is very likely they never will. the f35 configured for carrier use will be no better than an overweight trainer. it will certainly never carry any armaments of significance ,in the unlikely event it ever comes into service.
in light of this i would say that the £6.2 b was a complete waste of money.

Well as even a quick google suggests
- the F35b will be operational this december and is already most of the way through its test flying
- that they weigh less than the much vaunted F-18 (vaunted even by Scuffers earlier)
- that there already seem to be a long list of weapons for which integration is expected/underway
- that 12 countries are buying the F35 (3 the F35b)

I would you are in the same non-expert camp as Scuffers and I have more faith in the countries experts

[Axionknight]

One quick point on ship staffing numbers - the USA have a man for every job, it's ridiculous, my brother in law is in the Fleet Air Arm as an airframe technician and their is no single US counterpart to his job. They have around six people all dedicated to smaller sections of what would be considered one persons responsibility in the UK armed forced and this is very common place, with them being so man power heavy, so the staffing numbers, whilst obviously higher, likely won't stack up in such a direct fashion.

[JustAnotherLogin]

Axionknight said:

One quick point on ship staffing numbers - the USA have a man for every job, it's ridiculous, my brother in law is in the Fleet Air Arm as an airframe technician and their is no single US counterpart to his job. They have around six people all dedicated to smaller sections of what would be considered one persons responsibility in the UK armed forced and this is very common place, with them being so man power heavy, so the staffing numbers, whilst obviously higher, likely won't stack up in such a direct fashion.

My friend says that is true, but as they design their ships with that in mind, so you would need nearly the numbers
And also because they are older they need a lot more people to maintain them

[JustAnotherLogin]

Back to the main subject, its interesting to compare polls now with the actual result in 2010

Depends on which pol you pick of course but to take typical recent numbers:

Tories - 3%
Labour + 5%
Lib Dems - 15%
UKIP + 12%
Greens + 5%
Others -1%

(I know that doesn't add up to 0 - rounding errors as all the polls are rounded to integers)

So the interesting thing is that Tories have not actually lost much overall. But labour have caught up
So assuming the increase in Greens share is at Labour's expense

For every 10 voters the Tories have to lost to UKIP, they must presumably have gained approx 7 from the LibDems
and for every 10 votes Lab have gained from Lib Dems they must have lost 3 to UKIP

Those are guestimates I know but it needs to be something like that on movements I think

[wc98]

JustAnotherLogin said:

Well as even a quick google suggests
- the F35b will be operational this december and is already most of the way through its test flying
- that they weigh less than the much vaunted F-18 (vaunted even by Scuffers earlier)
- that there already seem to be a long list of weapons for which integration is expected/underway
- that 12 countries are buying the F35 (3 the F35b)

I would you are in the same non-expert camp as Scuffers and I have more faith in the countries experts

are you employed in the pr department of the us marine corps .
http://rt.com/op-edge/219655-f35-gun-software-disa...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/in...
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/03/04/new-...


have a look at the specs of the variants here,particularly the weight, and then have a guess what the extra weight of the stovl variant does to weapon carrying capacity. i do not care what your insider is telling you, he is wrong.weight vs the f18 matters not when weapon capacity ,particularly bomb load is taken into consideration.

Edited by wc98 on Wednesday 25th March 21:46

Edited by wc98 on Wednesday 25th March 21:47

[Einion Yrth]

Snozzwangler said:

I got phoned and answered some questions for a Survation poll tonight.

I thought they just made the results up!

These things are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

[JustAnotherLogin]

wc98 said:

are you employed in the pr department of the us marine corps .
http://rt.com/op-edge/219655-f35-gun-software-disa...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/in...
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/03/04/new-...


have a look at the specs of the variants here,particularly the weight, and then have a guess what the extra weight of the stovl variant does to weapon carrying capacity. i do not care what your insider is telling you, he is wrong.

Edited by wc98 on Wednesday 25th March 21:46

Ever worked on a big programme that gets lots of media attention?

I have, several times and there are always loads of idiots that will criticise decisions, and media that will print them

90% of such abuse is complete rubbish.
Google shows very quickly that Pierre Sprey hated the F35 concept from the start. 13 countries are putting their money on him being wrong
Sure problems happen in big programmes, and those 2 articles point to some that may have (I don't know the truth on those). That doesn't stop the overall programme being a success
If it were easy to develop a 5th generation stealth fighter, then probably many countries would have them by now.

[wc98]

JustAnotherLogin said:

Ever worked on a big programme that gets lots of media attention?

I have, several times and there are always loads of idiots that will criticise decisions, and media that will print them

90% of such abuse is complete rubbish.
Google shows very quickly that Pierre Sprey hated the F35 concept from the start. 13 countries are putting their money on him being wrong
Sure problems happen in big programmes, and those 2 articles point to some that may have (I don't know the truth on those). That doesn't stop the overall programme being a success
If it were easy to develop a 5th generation stealth fighter, then probably many countries would have them by now.

none of that is in dispute, but there are wide ranging issues that infer to me your previous statement was incorrect. this http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2013/09/joint-strik... from two years ago gives a brief insight into many of them and highlights the main issue is a company getting it,s ambitions mixed up with it,s capabilities.

the 35b is already approximately five years late and an incomprehensible amount (to me) over budget if you think it and our supposedly operational aircraft carriers are a success ,your definition of success is very different to mine. the likelihood these aircraft will need escorted by the very aircraft they are designed to replace for several years after entering "service" (for service read politicians looking increasingly stupid pressurizing marine corps/airforce to get aircraft deployed regardless of fitness of capability) is the ultimate irony.

Edited by wc98 on Wednesday 25th March 22:30

[JustAnotherLogin]

And yet so many defence ministries want to buy it
The pilots love it
And despite your unsubstantiated allegations of political pressure to go into service it is nearing that service

And you said the gun would be operational in 2019. More recent reports suggest 2017
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space...

And as far as I can see the other problems mentioned have been overcome

[wc98]

JustAnotherLogin said:

And yet so many defence ministries want to buy it
The pilots love it
And despite your unsubstantiated allegations of political pressure to go into service it is nearing that service

And you said the gun would be operational in 2019. More recent reports suggest 2017
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space...

And as far as I can see the other problems mentioned have been overcome

like most defence depts the committment to buy would have come long before it went into production. lets keep an eye on this and revisit periodically to see how it is getting on. i have no doubt that if enough money is thrown at it,some form of operational aircraft will be forthcoming. that however is a far cry from the initial claims of capability.
again looking at the weight penalty incurred by the ridiculous system used for the stovl variant precludes getting anywhere near established capabilities of the aircraft it is designed to replace ,before any of the issues specific to operational capability from our carriers are taken into consideration (currently it will have a far smaller operational window regarding weather and sea conditions than the harrier).

[JustAnotherLogin]

wc98 said:

like most defence depts the committment to buy would have come long before it went into production. lets keep an eye on this and revisit periodically to see how it is getting on. i have no doubt that if enough money is thrown at it,some form of operational aircraft will be forthcoming. that however is a far cry from the initial claims of capability.
again looking at the weight penalty incurred by the ridiculous system used for the stovl variant precludes getting anywhere near established capabilities of the aircraft it is designed to replace ,before any of the issues specific to operational capability from our carriers are taken into consideration (currently it will have a far smaller operational window regarding weather and sea conditions than the harrier).

Since the most interesting aspects of performance will be classified so neither you nor I will know, lets leave that.

But care to back up the assertion on the weather window vs the harriers. That's not what I've been told

[wc98]

JustAnotherLogin said:

Since the most interesting aspects of performance will be classified so neither you nor I will know, lets leave that.

But care to back up the assertion on the weather window vs the harriers. That's not what I've been told

is that in relation to operation from us carriers or our carriers ? reports i have read state limited landing capability compared to harriers in rough weather due to extended length of deck required for take off/landing, as it is not a true vtol aircraft ?

[Asterix]

Superb - Cameroon stitches up Miliband in PMQs.

DM - WIll the Prime Minister rule out a VAT rise in the next parliament should they win?
DC - Yes!
DM - Errrrrr..... (fk!)

[wc98]

Asterix said:

Superb - Cameroon stitches up Miliband in PMQs.

DM - WIll the Prime Minister rule out a VAT rise in the next parliament should they win?
DC - Yes!
DM - Errrrrr..... (fk!)

then balls does the same with national insurance an hour later. sounds more like a game of top trumps than supposedly grown men who would be in charge of the nation. bell ends the lot of them.

[Esseesse]

wc98 said:

then balls does the same with national insurance an hour later. sounds more like a game of top trumps than supposedly grown men who would be in charge of the nation. bell ends the lot of them.

Indeed. It's just point scoring rather than making a case for a particular policy or not.

[Scuffers]

and yet the blue/red sheep will still vote for them.

[Zod]

Scuffers said:

and yet the blue/red sheep will still vote for them.

What do you get when you mix red and blue sheep?

[steveT350C]

Lib Dem Candidate for Ashfield arrested on suspicion of child sex abuse.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/26/li...