E-MAIL THIS LINK
To: 

Aircraft carrier costs will be half what you think, US tells MoD
The US Navy has intervened over the adaptation of a British aircraft carrier for a new generation of fighter jets, to assure ministers that the cost will be less than half the Ministry of Defence's estimate.

Converting HMS Prince of Wales
Assuming it is ever built, a dubious assumption...
so that it can be used by the Joint Strike Fighter will require significantly less than the £2 billion quoted by officials, the assistant secretary of the US Navy, Sean J Stackley, insisted.

In a letter seen by The Daily Telegraph, he told Peter Luff, the defence procurement minister, that the necessary equipment would cost £458 million before installation. Defence experts estimate the installation cost at £400  million.

The carrier project has been overshadowed by cost and technical issues. In the Strategic Defence and Security Review of 2010, which scrapped Harrier jump jets, the Coalition opted for a conventional take-off and landing model of the new, American-built fighter instead of a jump-jet variant. But ministers were on the point of changing their minds after MoD officials forecast that the cost of adapting a carrier to use the conventional planes would rise from £500 million to £1.8 billion.

Following the intervention by the US Navy, David Cameron has ordered a Treasury-led re-examination of the project. The Major Project Review Group will submit a report on April 16 which it is understood will be considered by the National Security Council the next day.

The letter from Mr Stackley outlined studies concerning a sophisticated but untested catapult system to help aircraft reach take-off speed.
That would be the electromagnetic system that is to replace steam catapults.
He reassured the British that the risks of the project, and of a new arrester wire system for deck landings, would be underwritten by the US, which is installing the system on one of its carriers. Mr Stackley ended by saying: "The department of navy is committed to supporting the success of the UK CVF (conventional carrier)."

The Americans sent the letter following tense meetings with British officials on the margins of Mr Cameron's trip to Washington last week.

"They want to ensure that the information the British Government is working from is accurate because currently that quite clearly is not the case," said a Whitehall source.

Two British carriers are being built, but one will be mothballed following the SDSR.
Makes no sense to build it then.
It's one way to store spare parts...
Reverting to jump jets for both of them would not help American military planners, who want to be able to base a squadron of their own jets on a British carrier.
Since the U.S. will be going down a carrier or two by 2025...
There are also said to be technological concerns over the jump jet version of the fighter and the Americans might be positioning themselves to ditch it altogether.

"This letter could be a warning shot saying if you Brits go back to jump jet carriers then there might be no planes to fly off it," said a defence source.
Translation: the U.S. doesn't have to build the jump jet version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
Richard Scott, of Jane's Defence Weekly, said: "The trouble the Government has is in getting reliable cost data but at least the costs the Americans are giving are quite reassuring."
Not calculated the way they did Obamacare before it passed, one hopes.
An MoD spokesman said: "Work is ongoing to finalise the 2012-13 budget and balance the equipment plan. This means reviewing all programmes, including elements of the carrier strike program me."
The Brits really ought to have the ability to launch conventional aircraft from perhaps the only carrier they'll build for the next fifty years. I really don't see them building and mothballing a second carrier, so Prince of Wales will be it. A jump jet only carrier, for Harriers or F-35B fighters, makes no sense in the long term. Do it right or don't bother and invest the money in Type 45 destroyers, subs and intel ships instead.

Posted by: Steve White 2012-03-29
http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=341830