Article

2012-03-29 Britain

Aircraft carrier costs will be half what you think, US tells MoD

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2012-03-29 00:00|| || Front Page|| [3 views ] Top

#1 "Jump jets" > IOW, the AV-B Harriers the F-35 was supposed to replace + which may now be "un-scrapped" to UK strategic, mission requirements + budget barriers.

The only reasons for the UK to keep one
"Vanguard" FBM Sub; while seemingly also building then mothballing the lead "Queen Liz" CVF for 50 years or so is per its superior technology + in particular the UK-PERCEIVED LACK OF MAJOR GEOPOL OR EXISTENTIAL THREAT TO ITSELF + NATO-EU DURING THIS PERIOD.

IOW, LIKE THE USA LONDON BELIEVES IT + NATO-EU IS SAFE FOR 50 YEARS OR MORE FROM THE ISLAMIST GLOBAL JIHAD, BE IT VIOLENT ANDOR POLITICAL-ELECTORAL JIHAD, ETC.

Apparently Sandhurst + Parliament missed or had forgotten that part of Muslim/ME mil histoire' where they kept initiating minor or limited-scale, destabilizing predatory raids agz the Crusader Kingdoms in-between major campaigns = major Crusades???

Posted by JosephMendiola 2012-03-29 00:21|| 2012-03-29 00:21|| Front Page Top

#2 Asking the US Navy to help with cost control is like asking Captain John Smith to take the Titanic 'just a bit closer to that iceberg so we can see it better.'

remember this is the same USN that starred in that spell binding tale 'The $5 Billion Misunderstanding (the A-12 Avenger debacle),' and also sold Congress the fairy tale that the Super Hornet has 85-90% commonality with the regular one, when in reality there is only about 10-15% commonality.
And spent who knows how much on the F-14D 'Bombcat' as well as new wings for the Intruder, only to retire both, sinking the Intruders for fish houses, and cutting up the Tomcats to keep parts out of Iranian hands. (and to bolster support for the Lawn Darts)

Posted by USN, Ret. 2012-03-29 00:33|| 2012-03-29 00:33|| Front Page Top

#3 Brit R/Royce AV-8/Harrier Program needs to have continued DOD sustainment budget backing.

This [...now marginalized] A/C platform, and any subsequent configuration upgrades, provide an awesome array of tactical capabilities to the Department of the Navy.

Posted by canalzone 2012-03-29 01:22|| 2012-03-29 01:22|| Front Page Top

#4 I love carriers but I don't really see the British power projecting anymore. The modern era is about finding an ally who will provide runways or determining that the conflict is not your business. The only real exception is the Falklands and I don't see anything being planned now being ready in time to be a factor, and I'm not sure the British government would have the balls of Thatcher to use the iron fist if required.

Posted by rjschwarz 2012-03-29 04:52|| 2012-03-29 04:52|| Front Page Top

#5 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.

This from the service that hasn't been able to produce a successful new tactical aircraft program in almost thirty years and for whom 'cost overrun' is such a common occurrence that it ought to be in the contracts.

I truly respect and admire the USN, but their procurement people are as bad as the USAF's. I can only imagine what Neptunus Lex would have done with this story.

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2012-03-29 05:50|| 2012-03-29 05:50|| Front Page Top

#6 Of course the estimate is lower. They took the graft out of the estimate. Not to say it isn't still "in there" but that's what cost over-runs are for.

Posted by AlanC 2012-03-29 09:05|| 2012-03-29 09:05|| Front Page Top

#7 I truly respect and admire the USN, but their procurement people are as bad as the USAF's

Who do you think they've remodeled their procurement process after?

Posted by Pappy 2012-03-29 15:51|| 2012-03-29 15:51|| Front Page Top

#8 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...

Contract was signed by the previous PM the dismal Brown, to be built the MP, electoral back-garden and had a clause that meant cancelling them cost more than building them.

Pure pork from the worst Prime-Minister in British history.

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2012-03-29 18:07|| 2012-03-29 18:07|| Front Page Top

#9 With the upcoming dominance of drone aircraft, carriers as we know them will be militarily obsolete. Drones can be launched at much higher g forces and recovered on a barge.

With proper drone design work, the carrier of the future could conduct operations entirely submerged.

At this point carriers are little more than portable political tripwires, which if attacked have so many people on board that the attack guarantees war.

Posted by rammer 2012-03-29 20:17|| 2012-03-29 20:17|| Front Page Top

00:00 JosephMendiola
23:54 JosephMendiola
23:42 crosspatch
23:37 JosephMendiola
23:01 canalzone
22:53 gromky
22:50 newc
22:48 newc
22:48 newc
22:41 canalzone
22:32 Frank G
22:29 JosephMendiola
22:27 JosephMendiola
22:16 Dale
22:15 crosspatch
21:10 Pappy
21:08 Pappy
20:55 trailing wife
20:53 Frank G
20:43 Shimble Guelph5793
20:41 Secret Master
20:25 Barbara
20:22 M. Murcek
20:20 Thing From Snowy Mountain