Even more difficult call, but I wonder how much has already been spent on the move from B to C.
But where has this figure of £1.8bm come form?
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
But where has this figure of £1.8bm come form?
$800 mn is £508 mn at today's exchange rate, & I think that's for a CVN fit with four catapults.
1805: the £1.8 bn figure is from the Torygraph. It may be a load of cock.
Load of old cock is my top vote - I find the figure unlikely in the extreme. Ditto the previously expressed 1.2 billion for buddy buddy refuelling.
Very interesting piece, Babcock is a company that normally avoids press coverage, in contrast to BAE. But probably one of the most important contractors to the RN.
I wonder if much of the precision attack may end up being delivered by cruise missiles/UCAV is the improved performance of the C worth it. However it all depends on how many F35 are acquired; we may be overly cautious on the numbers if it's 80 and they are 25% cheaper?
Whilst it could be debated that the performance of the C may be negated somewhat by depending on the T26 loadout (A70s and so on) and Astutes, it just seems the more logical choice for the RN and the RAF (the latter requiring the C as the B isn't up to replacing Tornado)
Wonder if the 1.8 bn is for both carriers and the telegraph is just showing it's lack of quality journalism again...
I'm not sure of the role for the Tornado's once the F35(b or c)/CVF are up and running. If it is just carry cruise missiles, these can be fired more cheaply from surface ships (even A330s?).
Last edited:
That figure would be closer to the mark in my opinion. I suspect there's some strangeness going on here and it's worth recalling that all the major newspapers repeatedly stated that one or both of the carriers had been or would be sold off to India or Brazil, despite being corrected publicly on several occasions.
We'll know a bit more come Easter I guess.
The Telegraph is actually quoting two conflicting view, from what one would think is a fairly informed quarter (Babcock big player in the ACA).
I believe the engineering study of the carrier conversion costs was budgeted at £80m, not sure if all of that has been spent.
I don't know how much, if anything, would have been spent on the aircraft related costs of the move from B to C. I think we've only bought 'B' test aircraft.
WillS.
I think a sale might have been in the minds of some in 2010, but things are very different now, the poor showing of the RAF in Libya has strenghen the RN's cause. That said I don't think a sale to Brazil could be ruled out.
I wonder if we have actually commited to purchase the EMALS. I really am in both camps on the B v C debate, at this stage with the kit/budget & choices available now. I can see a lot in favour of both.
I always thought the RN saw VSTOL as second best they were forced to adopt. The USMC on the other hand seem to be STOVL zealots.
Maybe not ruled out completely, but very, very improbable IMO. Brazil hasn't expressed any interest in such a large carrier (its future planning is for two smaller carriers, maybe CdG size, built in Brazil), & would only want a cat & trap equipped ship. That complicates things immensely.Brazil would have to buy EMALS & AAG (if the Yanks will sell it) & get us to fit it, or do the work in Brazil, or pay Converteam to finish EMCAT development, or devise a steam catapult solution . . .
All possible, but all tending to hold things up to the point where sticking with the original plan of two smaller home-built carriers in the 2020s looks simpler. Time scale is easier, one lot of development spending, consistent fit out, more money stays at home, etc.
My point was more that it had been reported as actively being discussed/having happened about three times, when in fact, no such overtures had been made *at all* - it was a comment on the reliability of the reporting,
Ian
The RAF needs a replacement for Tornado, as that's end of life around 2015 ish - the money allocated to FOAS has been thrown into the pot for F35C so it's being paid for by the RAF.
Tornado will be out of the picture by then and F35C will be doing the strike role for the RAF and FAA.
That's a good thing potentially for the UK as we'd have a common pool of 5th generation aircraft capable of penetrating contested airspace and doing some damage.
Could the horrendous figures beong quoted on modifying the carriers be part of a plan to make the cancellation fees more palatable to the general public?
I can't see F35c flying from land bases often, particularly if the 2nd carrier is converted. The RAF (although they will still be crewing most of them) is probably going to be out of the attack space, in the same way the SSBN's took them out of the deterrent game in the 60s.
They will probably resurrect FOAS when they realise this to save from disbandment (a huge cost saving).
No, but they'd definitely underpin a U turn on the C > B decision for sure if accurate.
Nope, mainly because talk of cancelling the carriers has not been mentioned, the only decision which seems to hang on the figure being correct is the choice of B or C.
Showing your dislike of the RAF again 1805? Poor showing in Libya? Really?
As for being out of the attack space? do you mean strike game? I think the RAF with Typhoon plus CFT plus Storm Shadow, plus F35, Future UCAV and Voyager is going to be well and truly on the strike game for decades to come.
Two carriers (if we get two) are not going to regularly provide 365 days a year capability. Hansard from 2010 provides information of sea days for Illustrious and Ark Royal between 2006-2009, 123-160 days for Illustrious, 33-147 for Ark due to refit periods, we are not the USN with the ability to keep carriers on permanent station, not on 2, maybe with 3.
Even if we assume new ships will be less maintenance heavy, we need both, or else the F35's will be spending more time flying from land bases if only one ship is kept in active service . We are going to need a capable RAF as well as the carriers, because you can't rule out the carrier being in refit, suffering a fire, hitting a big rock. So your hopes of the RAF being disbanded are a little premature.
As for being out of the attack space? do you mean strike game? I think the RAF with Typhoon plus CFT plus Storm Shadow, plus F35, Future UCAV and Voyager is going to be well and truly on the strike game for decades to come.
Two carriers (if we get two) are not going to regularly provide 365 days a year capability. Hansard from 2010 provides information of sea days for Illustrious and Ark Royal between 2006-2009, 123-160 days for Illustrious, 33-147 for Ark due to refit periods, we are not the USN with the ability to keep carriers on permanent station, not on 2, maybe with 3.
Even if we assume new ships will be less maintenance heavy, we need both, or else the F35's will be spending more time flying from land bases if only one ship is kept in active service . We are going to need a capable RAF as well as the carriers, because you can't rule out the carrier being in refit, suffering a fire, hitting a big rock. So your hopes of the RAF being disbanded are a little premature.