The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[1805]

Brazil wants a carrier-building capacity for the same reasons as India, France, China, Russia, the USA or us - to build its own carriers, free of any interference from anyone else - and also to show that they can. Brazilian shipbuilders want to build carriers because they want the work. Their workers will vote for congressmen who'll vote for indigenous building. POLITICS.

The trouble with your approach is that you're picking fights you can't win. Remember what happened to Napoleon in the end.

You've acknowledged that trying to sell what you have, rather than what the customer wants, is doomed, but you still insist that we should do it. Brazil has a long-term naval development plan which specifies commonality, local building, value for money & 'good enough'. T45 doesn't fit into that. To succeed, we need to offer what they want - and it ain't CVF, T45, or Astute!

I think you are confusing your reluctance to sell, with their reluctance to buy. I would only offer to sell T45 if this assisted a sale of other ships, I think they have a wow factor which would impress anyone who went aboard. However if they were not interested I would have no desire to sell.

You talk as though Brazil has a massive military agenda and budget, yes there is a desire to locally build but she brought Foch recently and if the money is right then a deal can always be had. The money will be right because as we know (you might not be able to accept yet) a CVF will be sold. I agree this is painful to accept but we have to move on. The focus now should be to ensure that we get one carrier in service ideally before 2020. Unfortunately you are so accepting of anything the MOD/RN says you accept this as fact. Believe me this is not the case.

Ask yourself this simple question, had it been possible to cancel both carriers at less cost than completing them would the Government have cancelled them or not??

Secondly will the RAF be supportive, indifferent or hostile to the commissioning of a CVF with F35 onboard?

In the light of the answers to the above the RN must be much more flexible in its approach to procurement of new kit, and supporting of its industrial base. Quite frankly eveything should be up for sale at a reasonable price (building replacements later is not a big issue and will help maintain production/employment). You many be right on the T45, but a CVF is a real possibility matching timings/cost. It does look like the French are in on the SSN but it there is a chance of an Astute we should go for it.

When you recount the shopping list of the Brazilian Navy they will be flexibile to cost saving opportunities even if they are not all locally built.

 

[Systems Adict]

T26 could be a good candidate for the Brazilian requirement (one variant with with a cut-down version of PAAMS & Aster 50, plus an ASW model with Aster 15), but I fear that you're right & it's too late. It could be a candidate for other navies (e.g. Chile) in the future, if offered with suitable systems.

Here's a couple of 'press releases' from BAE. Read them 1st.....

Support Contract Set To Boost Chilean Naval Capability - BAE Systems

Technology Transfer Key to BAE Systems’ Proposal to the Brazilian Navy - BAE Systems

Now, hopefully you'll all see that...

A. Chile, while still trying to update & maintain her fleet, they aren't quite at the same state as say Brazil (financially), but will no doubt be aspiring to follow Brazil's lead & build indigenously. I also believe that Chile is still very interested in the T-23 hull form & would probably buy any that were up for sale / 'buy' the design & build her own (given the chance).


B. BAE is offering Brazil the opportunity it is looking for, by allowing it access to a new design, that can be ADAPTED to suit their needs & demands (politically / financially / in operational capability / supportability), before anyone else. This offering would appear to be supported by UK Govt, otherwise the T26 type hull probably wouldn't be on the table.


On top of this, it should be CLARRIFIED that, BAE cannot directly sell 'UK / RN' ships. This is something that's organised by 'UK PLC' & involves the UK Govt having offered them in govt to govt deals.

I'm not disputing that BAE hasn't 'benefitted' in the refit / updates to the vessels that have been sold, but that's yet another logical way of 'UK PLC' keeping a capability within the heavy Industry sector, while maintaining employment for workers across the UK & adding funds to the UK's coffers.

Something that any govt who's selling their old ships does....

Pakistan to get refurbished warship from US - Pakistan - World - The Times of India


SA

 

[1805]

Here's a couple of 'press releases' from BAE. Read them 1st.....

Support Contract Set To Boost Chilean Naval Capability - BAE Systems

Technology Transfer Key to BAE Systems’ Proposal to the Brazilian Navy - BAE Systems

Now, hopefully you'll all see that...

A. Chile, while still trying to update & maintain her fleet, they aren't quite at the same state as say Brazil (financially), but will no doubt be aspiring to follow Brazil's lead & build indigenously. I also believe that Chile is still very interested in the T-23 hull form & would probably buy any that were up for sale / 'buy' the design & build her own (given the chance).


B. BAE is offering Brazil the opportunity it is looking for, by allowing it access to a new design, that can be ADAPTED to suit their needs & demands (politically / financially / in operational capability / supportability), before anyone else. This offering would appear to be supported by UK Govt, otherwise the T26 type hull probably wouldn't be on the table.


On top of this, it should be CLARRIFIED that, BAE cannot directly sell 'UK / RN' ships. This is something that's organised by 'UK PLC' & involves the UK Govt having offered them in govt to govt deals.

I'm not disputing that BAE hasn't 'benefitted' in the refit / updates to the vessels that have been sold, but that's yet another logical way of 'UK PLC' keeping a capability within the heavy Industry sector, while maintaining employment for workers across the UK & adding funds to the UK's coffers.

Something that any govt who's selling their old ships does....

Pakistan to get refurbished warship from US - Pakistan - World - The Times of India


SA

This is great news, I'm all for selling designs, the basis of a knowledge economy is IP ownership. I would only sell existing ships to facilitate other orders. I also think the T23 is an outstanding seaboat and a great design, it has always surpised me it has not exported.

 

[swerve]

I think you are confusing your reluctance to sell, with their reluctance to buy. I would only offer to sell T45 if this assisted a sale of other ships, I think they have a wow factor which would impress anyone who went aboard. However if they were not interested I would have no desire to sell.

You talk as though Brazil has a massive military agenda and budget, yes there is a desire to locally build but she brought Foch recently and if the money is right then a deal can always be had. The money will be right because as we know (you might not be able to accept yet) a CVF will be sold. I agree this is painful to accept but we have to move on. The focus now should be to ensure that we get one carrier in service ideally before 2020. Unfortunately you are so accepting of anything the MOD/RN says you accept this as fact. Believe me this is not the case.

When you recount the shopping list of the Brazilian Navy they will be flexibile to cost saving opportunities even if they are not all locally built.

No, you are confusing your keenness to sell with their willingness to buy. Brazil has not shown the slightest interest in Type 45. The only reason it is being discussed here is your obsession with selling it.

Brazil has ambitions. They're not likely to be fully funded, but with the economy growing fast, & pressure from both the military & industry, I expect that the navy will get the replacement escorts & perhaps even the increased numbers of them it wants, & that it'll stick to its 'build locally as much as possible' agenda. The naval plan calls for 16 new frigates eventually, with an initial batch of 5. The latter is solid. It has been approved by the government, & negotiations are in progress. The former is not a huge increase: Brazil currently has 9 frigates, but due to recent retirements forced by age, that's fewer than a few years ago, & they're all at least 30 years old. The new frigate programme is regarded as urgent.

I've not even been referencing what the MoD & RN say, only what the Brazilian MoD & navy say, so I have no idea why you say I'm accepting of something I've ignored.

Yes, Brazil is willing to consider cost saving opportunities. If we offer them 4 T22s for sod-all as a gap-filler pending delivery of T26 modified to their spec & built in Brazil, I think they might be interested, & fairly sure they'd at least evaluate it. But two T45s at £500 mn each plus more locally-built is not a cost-saving opportunity, it's more expensive than what they're looking at, & offers almost none of what they want.

Foch is a red herring. She was bought because she was dirt cheap ($12 mn - little more than scrap value) & met an urgent (according to the navy) need, to maintain carrier-borne aviation. The navy feared that if Minas Gerais was retired without immediate replacement, the capacity would be permanently lost. If current hopes for new domestically-built carriers don't materialise, then a similar situation may recur - but do you think we'll sell a CVF as cheaply? If so, what would be the point? It wouldn't generate any cash for the RN, which is your justification for selling.

One thing I find interesting is that you think a country which you doubt has a massive military agenda would buy a 65000 ton aircraft carrier. A little inconsistent, eh?

We do not know that a CVF will be sold, & it's only a possibility that one will even be offered for sale. Various people (were you one of them?) were saying a few years ago that we knew that CVF wouldn't even be ordered: they were wrong. Nobody knows what will happen in the next 10 years, & nobody ever has. Life is uncertain.

I would only sell existing ships to facilitate other orders.

Then why do you keep raving about selling some of our Type 45s to Brazil? How would that facilitate other sales?

I also think the T23 is an outstanding seaboat and a great design, it has always surpised me it has not exported.

Unfortunately, I think that it was never marketed seriously. As you say, a great design, & it was also superb value for money, but AFAIK there was never a real attempt to offer variants of it to suit what other navies wanted.

 

[1805]

Foch is a red herring. She was bought because she was dirt cheap ($12 mn - little more than scrap value) & met an urgent (according to the navy) need, to maintain carrier-borne aviation. The navy feared that if Minas Gerais was retired without immediate replacement, the capacity would be permanently lost. If current hopes for new domestically-built carriers don't materialise, then a similar situation may recur - but do you think we'll sell a CVF as cheaply? If so, what would be the point? It wouldn't generate any cash for the RN, which is your justification for selling.

One thing I find interesting is that you think a country which you doubt has a massive military agenda would buy a 65000 ton aircraft carrier. A little inconsistent, eh?.

Well I have to agree with the Brazilian Navy, their judgement seems to be sounder than the RN when the gave up the FA2.

I struggle with why the RN needed a 65,000t carrier, so I doubt could justify Brazil building one, but a cheaper than building at home one is a different matter. I am sure we could agree a price far cheaper than they could build one and still enough to get us c18 F35.

 

[swerve]

It doesn't just have to be cheaper, it has to be so much cheaper that it silences the industrial lobby, the national pride lobby, & the self-sufficiency lobby within the military. That's one of several things you either don't or won't understand. It isn't just about price. Of course price matters, but it's only one factor, & not the most important.

Can we sell a CVF to Brazil for 25% or less of building cost? If not, then we probably can't get a sale - & personally, I wouldn't be optimistic unless the price was well below 25%. For such a sale to help other sales (which you say is the only reason you'd support selling existing ships), we'd have to more or less give the ship away. Given the choice of foreign ship A at £1 bn, or locally-built ship B at £2 bn, I reckon Brazil would choose B. Someone would calculate that with taxes, workers pay coming back into the local economy, running costs etc. it would be a better deal, & that would be eagerly jumped on by a pack of congressmen, state representatives, etc., & the 'buy secondhand CVF' idea would become politically impossible. Knowing all that, I doubt it'll ever be considered.

You keep discussing this as if Brazilian politics has no influence on their spending decisions, when in reality it's the determining factor.

 

[1805]

It doesn't just have to be cheaper, it has to be so much cheaper that it silences the industrial lobby, the national pride lobby, & the self-sufficiency lobby within the military. That's one of several things you either don't or won't understand. It isn't just about price. Of course price matters, but it's only one factor, & not the most important.

Can we sell a CVF to Brazil for 25% or less of building cost? If not, then we probably can't get a sale - & personally, I wouldn't be optimistic unless the price was well below 25%. For such a sale to help other sales (which you say is the only reason you'd support selling existing ships), we'd have to more or less give the ship away. Given the choice of foreign ship A at £1 bn, or locally-built ship B at £2 bn, I reckon Brazil would choose B. Someone would calculate that with taxes, workers pay coming back into the local economy, running costs etc. it would be a better deal, & that would be eagerly jumped on by a pack of congressmen, state representatives, etc., & the 'buy secondhand CVF' idea would become politically impossible. Knowing all that, I doubt it'll ever be considered.

You keep discussing this as if Brazilian politics has no influence on their spending decisions, when in reality it's the determining factor.

The self sufficiency on a single purchase/50 years does not come into it, and the national pride thing is not strong in Brazil and would be overcome by operating such an impressive ship. The industrial lobby is not impossible either simply recycle the savings into local construction, weight this againts the complexity of building a one off local ship of say 40,000t (look at the issues India has faced and they are far more commited (with reason they have enemies)

 

[kev 99]

Brazil doesn't want a one off carrier, they want 2.

 

[Systems Adict]

....I struggle with why the RN needed a 65,000t carrier.

Hmmm....

The idea was probably along the lines of...

A. @ 20,000 GRT, an Invincible class CV was adequate, but not a patch on the likes of HMS Eagle, or the previous Ark Royal.

B. @ > 100,000 GRT a Nimitz class CVN was TOO BIG & was Nuclear powered (it would also have has us tied to the US, in ways that no UK Govt would ever really want).

C. The FRENCH have a CVN that's approx. >60,000 GRT. We NEED to have BIGGER one !


The comprimise was a ship of 65,000 GRT (+/- 2,000 GRT), non-Nuclear powered, capable of maintaining Approx. 25 Kts, able to carry 24 A/\C, + helicopters & being crewed by less than 700 staff.

(Note :Facts & Figures are recovered from my head & will probably be off by a margin... !)


To help solidify some of the facts, here's some of the stuff that's been published by the Alliance....

Key Facts - Aircraft Carrier Alliance


SA

 

[SASWanabe]

Realisticly there is no country who want/need a carrier (Could sell to the Pakistanis') only way i see i ever happening is if a couple smaller militarys "Share" it.

i personaly think you'll never be able to sell it, i still think Australia/Canada are the most likely people who would buy it. tho even that is highly remote.

 

[KiwiRob]

Systems Addict, you also forgot steel is cheap and air is free, it probably hasn't cost much more building a 65,000 ton CVF than it would have cost to build a 40,000 ton CVF, the design costs would be roughly the same, the only real difference would be in the amount of steel required.

At 1805 Brazil also has very strict local content rules, when the comapny I work for sells lights for Brazilian projects we have to have some local content, no local content, no sale. Most suppliers in the marine industry are setting up local plants and joint venturers, the numbers of ships and rigs required by Brazil is staggering. I wonder how much Brazilian content CVF has

 

[1805]

Hmmm....

The idea was probably along the lines of...

A. @ 20,000 GRT, an Invincible class CV was adequate, but not a patch on the likes of HMS Eagle, or the previous Ark Royal.

B. @ > 100,000 GRT a Nimitz class CVN was TOO BIG & was Nuclear powered (it would also have has us tied to the US, in ways that no UK Govt would ever really want).

C. The FRENCH have a CVN that's approx. >60,000 GRT. We NEED to have BIGGER one !


The comprimise was a ship of 65,000 GRT (+/- 2,000 GRT), non-Nuclear powered, capable of maintaining Approx. 25 Kts, able to carry 24 A/\C, + helicopters & being crewed by less than 700 staff.

(Note :Facts & Figures are recovered from my head & will probably be off by a margin... !)


To help solidify some of the facts, here's some of the stuff that's been published by the Alliance....

Key Facts - Aircraft Carrier Alliance


SA

Where did you get the CDG as 60,000t, I have never seen a figure like that quoted? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_aircraft_carrier_Charles_de_Gaulle_(R91)

 

[Systems Adict]

Where did you get the CDG as 60,000t, I have never seen a figure like that quoted? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_aircraft_carrier_Charles_de_Gaulle_(R91)

Like I said in my previous post, the facts & figures were pulled from memory & aren't to be quoted directly. That's why I posted the CVF link.

As for link to CdG....

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_aircraft_carrier_Charles_de_Gaulle_%28R91%29"]French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle (R91) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Charles_De_Gaulle_(R91)_underway_2009.jpg" class="image" title="The Charles De Gaulle nuclear-powered aircraft carrier"><img alt="The Charles De Gaulle nuclear-powered aircraft carrier" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/99/Charles_De_Gaulle_%28R91%29_underway_2009.jpg/300px-Charles_De_Gaulle_%28R91%29_underway_2009.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/9/99/Charles_De_Gaulle_%28R91%29_underway_2009.jpg/300px-Charles_De_Gaulle_%28R91%29_underway_2009.jpg[/ame]

(this one works... !)

Well, the CdG is approx 40,000 GRT, the Invincible class are approx 20,000 GRT. The point I was making wasn't the figure being correct, but a mentality that basically stated " WE are going to have a BIGGER ONE than you...!"

I think that ethos can be ratified, by the fact that the ships will be approx 65,000 GRT when completed...

Systems Addict, you also forgot steel is cheap and air is free, it probably hasn't cost much more building a 65,000 ton CVF than it would have cost to build a 40,000 ton CVF, the design costs would be roughly the same, the only real difference would be in the amount of steel required.

While I love the underlined 'quote' as a throw-away comment & the design cost impact would be minimal between 40 & 65,000 GRT, the build costs of increasing the size of a ship by 1/3 rd, even before it's been built could almost double the price of the contract.

Using some rough numbers, if a ship @ 40,000 GRT has 900 compartments & we scale up by 1/3 rd to 1200, that's 300 'sets' of lights, switches & power sockets, 300 loud speakers & telephones, 300 floor coverings & 'x' amount of paint, 'x' amount of furniture, 'x' amount of smoke / fire detection, etc, etc. The list could just keep growing as we start to look at the 'weeds'.

Now IF , the contract with the suppliers had been agreed for a 40,000 GRT ship with 900 compartments & an additional 1/3 rd of materials is required, you can pretty much bet your bottom dollar that, to a man, each supplier would not look at this as a contract extension, but a new order.

In other words, x2 sets of equipment per ship = double material purchase costs. Add to that the additional build time, testing, fuel costs for the overall size of the ship thru life, plus all the other thru life costs, then the ACTUAL overall cost of the ship is more likely to be trebled.

I know that some might scoff, saying I'm being pessimistic, but I'm drawing from a 'well know Industry fact' from the IT sector.

IF a computer manufacturer fits x1 faulty resistor / component to a production run of PC motherboards, & he finds the fault during board manufacture & testing, it costs him the price of acquiring & replacing the component (approx x10 times the price of the individual component), to fix each board.

If he doesn't find out till the units are shipped to resellers / stores, then the price to repair each board is approx x100 times the cost of the component.

...& if he doesn't find out till after the unit is at the customer / end user, then the price becomes x1000 times the cost of the component, to repair each board.

Small changes to designs have BIG cost IMPACTS !!!


...So do you still think "Steel is cheap & air is free" ???


SA

 

[kev 99]

...So do you still think "Steel is cheap & air is free" ???

SA

Yes, but it's rather misleading and a rather more acurrate statement might go something like this: "steel is cheap and air is free, unfortunately construction does cost a lot of money though".

 

[swerve]

The self sufficiency on a single purchase/50 years does not come into it, and the national pride thing is not strong in Brazil and would be overcome by operating such an impressive ship. The industrial lobby is not impossible either simply recycle the savings into local construction, weight this againts the complexity of building a one off local ship of say 40,000t (look at the issues India has faced and they are far more commited (with reason they have enemies)

Why do you keep up this rubbish? You're making it all up! As said by others, Brazil has strict local content laws nowadays. Have you followed the fighter procurement saga? It's all about politics & local content.

Single purchase/50 years? Oh dear. Think again. An aircraft carrier is not a monolithic unit, but a complex agglomeration of many pieces of equipment.

Brazilian shipbuilders want to build three of them, not one. They may not get the chance, of course, but they'll still fight for the chance, & getting an order for one makes two more possible.

Other Brazilian manufacturers will back them to the hilt, because they want to make & sell the equipment to be used on the ship, from radars downwards. They'll see it as a dual opportunity, both to get the build contract & to get government backing for technology transfer. And of course, once you've put the equipment on in the build, you get follow-up support work, instead of that going to a foreign supplier. One-off?

You are, yet again, arguing without reference to Brazilian points of view. You really think that national pride is not strong in Brazil? Ever been there? Know many Brazilians? It's obvious you've not paid any attention to their politics. Minas Gerais was once the butt of very cruel jokes, based on its perceived resemblance to a character in a TV soap opera who looked impressive but who had erectile problems. Someone else's cast-off as a symbol of national pride would be at risk of similar mockery, & the navy has no desire for further humiliation.

I also note that you decline to answer most of my points. I presume that's because you've realised that I'm right.

 

[1805]

Like I said in my previous post, the facts & figures were pulled from memory & aren't to be quoted directly. That's why I posted the CVF link.

As for link to CdG....

French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle (R91) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(this one works... !)

Well, the CdG is approx 40,000 GRT, the Invincible class are approx 20,000 GRT. The point I was making wasn't the figure being correct, but a mentality that basically stated " WE are going to have a BIGGER ONE than you...!"

I think that ethos can be ratified, by the fact that the ships will be approx 65,000 GRT when completed...



While I love the underlined 'quote' as a throw-away comment & the design cost impact would be minimal between 40 & 65,000 GRT, the build costs of increasing the size of a ship by 1/3 rd, even before it's been built could almost double the price of the contract.

Using some rough numbers, if a ship @ 40,000 GRT has 900 compartments & we scale up by 1/3 rd to 1200, that's 300 'sets' of lights, switches & power sockets, 300 loud speakers & telephones, 300 floor coverings & 'x' amount of paint, 'x' amount of furniture, 'x' amount of smoke / fire detection, etc, etc. The list could just keep growing as we start to look at the 'weeds'.

Now IF , the contract with the suppliers had been agreed for a 40,000 GRT ship with 900 compartments & an additional 1/3 rd of materials is required, you can pretty much bet your bottom dollar that, to a man, each supplier would not look at this as a contract extension, but a new order.

In other words, x2 sets of equipment per ship = double material purchase costs. Add to that the additional build time, testing, fuel costs for the overall size of the ship thru life, plus all the other thru life costs, then the ACTUAL overall cost of the ship is more likely to be trebled.

I know that some might scoff, saying I'm being pessimistic, but I'm drawing from a 'well know Industry fact' from the IT sector.

IF a computer manufacturer fits x1 faulty resistor / component to a production run of PC motherboards, & he finds the fault during board manufacture & testing, it costs him the price of acquiring & replacing the component (approx x10 times the price of the individual component), to fix each board.

If he doesn't find out till the units are shipped to resellers / stores, then the price to repair each board is approx x100 times the cost of the component.

...& if he doesn't find out till after the unit is at the customer / end user, then the price becomes x1000 times the cost of the component, to repair each board.

Small changes to designs have BIG cost IMPACTS !!!


...So do you still think "Steel is cheap & air is free" ???


SA

I would have preferred 3 x 45-50,000t actually built one after the other as the USN does, slightly more expensive that building together (although not as we have ended up doing).

 

[1805]

Why do you keep up this rubbish? You're making it all up! As said by others, Brazil has strict local content laws nowadays. Have you followed the fighter procurement saga? It's all about politics & local content.

Single purchase/50 years? Oh dear. Think again. An aircraft carrier is not a monolithic unit, but a complex agglomeration of many pieces of equipment.

Brazilian shipbuilders want to build three of them, not one. They may not get the chance, of course, but they'll still fight for the chance, & getting an order for one makes two more possible.

Other Brazilian manufacturers will back them to the hilt, because they want to make & sell the equipment to be used on the ship, from radars downwards. They'll see it as a dual opportunity, both to get the build contract & to get government backing for technology transfer. And of course, once you've put the equipment on in the build, you get follow-up support work, instead of that going to a foreign supplier. One-off?

You are, yet again, arguing without reference to Brazilian points of view. You really think that national pride is not strong in Brazil? Ever been there? Know many Brazilians? It's obvious you've not paid any attention to their politics. Minas Gerais was once the butt of very cruel jokes, based on its perceived resemblance to a character in a TV soap opera who looked impressive but who had erectile problems. Someone else's cast-off as a symbol of national pride would be at risk of similar mockery, & the navy has no desire for further humiliation.

I also note that you decline to answer most of my points. I presume that's because you've realised that I'm right.

I know quite a few Brazilians and sadly like the British they show very little interest in their navy. A CVF would effectively be secondhand anyway, not sure its covered by local content legislation you mention. I hardly think a CVF could be regarded as a cast-offs.

I can't quite understand your position, I am saying we should actively seek buyers for a ship that will not see RN services, by so doing helping to preserve the chance of operating a single CVF with a decent air group.

I notice this before when we where discussing the assault fleet, you just go into denial and can't accept the situation or respond creatively to the challenge.

I can't find anything on ARA getting a carrier do you have a link?

 

[Systems Adict]

...I also note that you decline to answer most of my points. I presume that's because you've realised that I'm right.

fftopic

I often wish this forum had 'LIKE / DISLIKE' buttons, similar to facebook, to see if people agreed / disagreed with our comments.....

SA

 

[StobieWan]

Using some rough numbers, if a ship @ 40,000 GRT has 900 compartments & we scale up by 1/3 rd to 1200, that's 300 'sets' of lights, switches & power sockets, 300 loud speakers & telephones, 300 floor coverings & 'x' amount of paint, 'x' amount of furniture, 'x' amount of smoke / fire detection, etc, etc. The list could just keep growing as we start to look at the 'weeds'.

Now IF , the contract with the suppliers had been agreed for a 40,000 GRT ship with 900 compartments & an additional 1/3 rd of materials is required, you can pretty much bet your bottom dollar that, to a man, each supplier would not look at this as a contract extension, but a new order.

In other words, x2 sets of equipment per ship = double material purchase costs. Add to that the additional build time, testing, fuel costs for the overall size of the ship thru life, plus all the other thru life costs, then the ACTUAL overall cost of the ship is more likely to be trebled.

I know that some might scoff, saying I'm being pessimistic, but I'm drawing from a 'well know Industry fact' from the IT sector.

IF a computer manufacturer fits x1 faulty resistor / component to a production run of PC motherboards, & he finds the fault during board manufacture & testing, it costs him the price of acquiring & replacing the component (approx x10 times the price of the individual component), to fix each board.

If he doesn't find out till the units are shipped to resellers / stores, then the price to repair each board is approx x100 times the cost of the component.

...& if he doesn't find out till after the unit is at the customer / end user, then the price becomes x1000 times the cost of the component, to repair each board.

Small changes to designs have BIG cost IMPACTS !!!


...So do you still think "Steel is cheap & air is free" ???


SA

You're picking over tiny bits and blowing them far beyond any meaningful comparison. A ship 1/3 as large still only requires the same amount of catapults, arresting gear, deck edge lefts, radar etc. The really really expensive stuff isn't the light fittings - neither does a 1/3 larger ship in fact usually have 1/3 as many more compartments - a few more of course, but mainly you get a bigger hangar area, more deck space, more engineering space, more bunker space etc. Your point about the manufacturer seeing this as a new contract isn't relevant either - we're talking about designing the thing from *scratch* as a 65Kt carrier.

You'll need more power for the thing but not that much more - providing you pick the right GT's then they scale relatively cheaply and there's plenty in that power range to pick from. The CVF's have two GT's and four diesels - those numbers scale nicely and the units aren't likely very much bigger - so for a 1/3 increase in size, you get a disproportionate increase in useable space - both on the deck and inside the hangars.

Let's face facts, a whole bunch of people with access to plenty of operational data went with 65Kt as the right size for the air wing intended. If you wanted to save a billion on costs for the CVF's, zip back in time and slap the labour government stupid before they can intentionally delay the assembly in order to defer (but drive up) costs.

The contract for the catapults and arresting gear stacks up at 600 million .

Steel for the ships?

Queen Elizabeth Class (CVF), Royal Navy Future Aircraft Carrier - Naval Technology


Scroll down or search - the 80Kt steel plating for the *pair* of carriers tops out at £65 million. Desalination is quoted as £3 million for example.

Steel is cheap, air is free. There's a reason that mantra gets repeated through the industry. It's the stuff inside the ships that costs the larger portion of the final unit cost.

Just to reiterate, total steel costs for a 5,2 billion program, 65 million - a shade over 1% of the cost of the two ships. That's likely to get lower as a proportion of costs if the carriers rise in price further.

65Kt gets us a ship which is very much more capable in terms of sortie rates, cab uptime and lower day to day risks in plane handling.


In other words, it gets us a better carrier at a minor premium in cost.


Ian

 

[KiwiRob]

I would have preferred 3 x 45-50,000t actually built one after the other as the USN does, slightly more expensive that building together (although not as we have ended up doing).

And how do you know this, are you a naval construction specialist? Or is it just a guess?