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 ||
03/29/2012 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11131 views]
Top|| File under:
#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???
#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)
#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.
#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.
#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 ||
03/29/2012 5:50 Comments ||
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.
#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.
#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.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
