Aircraft carriers cost rises by at least £1bn

[cal72]

How can it be that it is to cost so much more, £1bn is not exactly a couple of million in loose change.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13218582

[Lost soul]

They said 2bn on 5 live , just typical MOD leaving loop holes in contracts

[Odie]

Wasnt it due to a redesign for catapult and arrester?

[Condieboy]

Lost soul said:

They said 2bn on 5 live , just typical MOD leaving loop holes in contracts

Difficult to bring them in on time and on budget when they're the political pawn that they are...

[Dangerous2]

what normally happens is a specificiation is agreed on, and a number of ships/planes/whatever. this is agreed on for a price.

5 changes of specification later, with an order that is 75 % smaller and a delivery date that's been moved 8 times... the price goes up.

[Eric Mc]

Why is this news? politicians and taxpayers' money = blank cheque.

Constant changing of specifications and requirements never helps - but is par for the course.

They should just get on with the project - assume the F-35 will never happen - and plan for proper catapult/arrestor operations using existing designs such as the F-18A or E or the Rafale.

[aeropilot]

Dangerous2 said:

what normally happens is a specificiation is agreed on, and a number of ships/planes/whatever. this is agreed on for a price.

5 changes of specification later, with an order that is 75 % smaller and a delivery date that's been moved 8 times... the price goes up.

This.

And add to that, often the so-called project delays are actually because the politians decide to put the project 'on hold' on the pretence of tranferring costs over to the next fiscal year, because they have run out of funds for that particular year, only to be told by the contractor that, it will end up costing them more as they will have to still pay all their staff etc for sitting doing nothing for the next 6 months.....

Edited by aeropilot on Thursday 28th April 09:52

[Tsippy]

I company I was employed by did work for the MOD a number of years back on seating for the back of the army trucks, the MOD were a pain in the ass and were constantly changing their requirements, expected completion dates etc and so the tool design for the seats and tooling itself was repeatedly changed and incurring extra costs. In the end the project was cancelled despite completion of the work, so eventhough we were paid for the job, the tooling went to waste.

Doesn't surprise me one bit that the aircraft carrier costs are so high based on our experience.

[arfur sleep]

catapult/arrester type is a bit of problem though.

steam powered on an all electric ship requires huge infrastructure and steam is massively inefficient (<10% IIRC).

electric catapult? US are developing EMALS but it's hugely over-budget and late due to technical issues. UK are developing their own version which works in prototype but is a little bit behind schedule still showing promise and will be much cheaper than US system.

wouldn't surprise me if ship 1 didn't have a launch system at all

[Lost soul]

arfur sleep said:

electric catapult? US are developing EMALS but it's hugely over-budget and late due to technical issues. UK are developing their own version which works in prototype but is a little bit behind schedule still showing promise and will be much cheaper than US system.

Then i am sure we will go for the US system

[arfur sleep]

Lost soul said:

Then i am sure we will go for the US system

i believe there is already political pressure to do so

[Corsair7]

This is fast becoming yet another UK PLC farce.

The reason why its 1 billion but possibly 2 billion over budget is that they haven't decided to change the design of both ships yet, as one of the ships is going straight into moth balls anyway. Lets spend 3 billion on a ship we hope we wont use!!!! I guess they are building it just in case we lose the other one in a conflict or disaster....

Truth of the matter is the project will probably end up costing triple original estimates, and will probably be delivered with huge compromises, and then we'll probably be too scared to actually deploy them anywwhere because we wont be able to defend them properly against anyreasonably equipped enemy, so they'll end up being used for humanitarian efforts or for bullying people that live in mud huts.

[arfur sleep]

Lost soul said:

Then i am sure we will go for the US system

i believe there is already political pressure to do so

[Lost soul]

arfur sleep said:

Lost soul said:

Then i am sure we will go for the US system

i believe there is already political pressure to do so

But not until we have wasted fortunes developing our own system

[aeropilot]

arfur sleep said:

wouldn't surprise me if ship 1 didn't have a launch system at all

It won't.

Unless, things have changed again in past few months, the intention of the SDR was that the first carrier already in build would be finished as envisiaged (I pressume without the ski ramp fitted though) and enter service purely as effectively a damn huge helo assault ship
Meanwhile, as mentioned, our own EMALS type launch system would be incorporated into the 2nd ship, and by then would have ordered a compliment of 40 or so F35C to operate off of that. The first ship would then be removed from service, and either sold or mothballed or if money was available then, it would be EMALS equipped at the point of it's first due refit.

However, I think that was a smokescreen and as has been mentioned, the 2nd ship with EMALS is already being touted around for sale and will never enter RN service, and will be followed by the sale of the 1st one as well upon completion, and thus there will be no F35C order either.
Which might ultimately mean a F35A order instead for the RAF to replace the GR4 fleet....?

[Eric Mc]

I wish people would place these numbers into context. Every year, the Government gives away Tax Credits of £2 billion IN ERROR - which it always writes off as politically unpalatable to try to recover.

[arfur sleep]

Lost soul said:

But not until we have wasted fortunes developing our own system

probably

[Lost soul]

Eric Mc said:

I wish people would place these numbers into context. Every year, the Government gives away Tax Credits of £2 billion IN ERROR - which it always writes off as politically unpalatable to try to recover.

Does not make it right

[Corsair7]

Eric Mc said:

I wish people would place these numbers into context. Every year, the Government gives away Tax Credits of £2 billion IN ERROR - which it always writes off as politically unpalatable to try to recover.

Dont care. Two wrongs etc.

I have no problem with them building a couple of super carriers, as long as they proove useful and we can defend them well enough to actually use them. My main concern is they build them then they decide its 'too risky' to put the in harms way and they end up fighting wars from harbour, just like the Argies did 30 years ago with their carier.

Political suicuide to use and then lose such a capital ship.

[aeropilot]

Corsair7 said:

'too risky' to put the in harms way and they end up fighting wars from harbour, just like the Argies did 30 years ago with their carier.

The Argies didn't though. After we sank the Belgrano, the Veinticinco De Mayo stayed firmly put in port and played no part in the fighting. Some of her a/c were flown down to the airbases in the southern part of the country closest to the FI and undertook comabt missions, but they weren't operated from the carrier as such while it was in harbour.