The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[kev 99]

Comparing the RN to the USN model of procuring ships is stupid, to build capital ships in the manner of the USN requires a navy to operate enough ships to make it viable, the RN doesn't, won't and probably hasn't been in a position to at any time since before the start of the first world war.

There are reasons why only the USN do things their way, chief amongst them is budget.

You're 24 year cycle of building carriers and amphibs sounds like a great way of keeping shipyard workers happy but wouldn't please the treasury much, not to mention that you've just added a third carrier to the operating budget with all it's extra crew, maintenance and fuel costs plus all the extra aircraft that go with it. It was decided to go to 2 carriers 12 years ago and I can't honestly see why we need 3 other than as a means of keeping workers in jobs.

Steady flow of Frigates/destroyers/subs? lol you've got to be kidding? Maybe if you only build them to last for 15 years it could be viable.

Building the 2 carriers at once is exactly the right way of doing it at the lowest cost. Building both at the same time when the budget is massively screwed and then slowing down the build because of said screwed budget, and then changing the configuration from STOVL to CATABAR mid build certainly isn't the right way of doing it.

I've seen you mention £10b for the cost of the carriers several times now where the hell are you getting it from?

 

[1805]

Comparing the RN to the USN model of procuring ships is stupid, to build capital ships in the manner of the USN requires a navy to operate enough ships to make it viable, the RN doesn't, won't and probably hasn't been in a position to at any time since before the start of the first world war.

There are reasons why only the USN do things their way, chief amongst them is budget.

You're 24 year cycle of building carriers and amphibs sounds like a great way of keeping shipyard workers happy but wouldn't please the treasury much, not to mention that you've just added a third carrier to the operating budget with all it's extra crew, maintenance and fuel costs plus all the extra aircraft that go with it. It was decided to go to 2 carriers 12 years ago and I can't honestly see why we need 3 other than as a means of keeping workers in jobs.

Steady flow of Frigates/destroyers/subs? lol you've got to be kidding? Maybe if you only build them to last for 15 years it could be viable.

Building the 2 carriers at once is exactly the right way of doing it at the lowest cost. Building both at the same time when the budget is massively screwed and then slowing down the build because of said screwed budget, and then changing the configuration from STOVL to CATABAR mid build certainly isn't the right way of doing it.

I've seen you mention £10b for the cost of the carriers several times now where the hell are you getting it from?

Well you have contradicted yourself, you say in a perfect world it would be cheaper to build together....but then we don't live in one, and it hasn't even come remotely near cheaper? Would it be cheaper to have brought an off the shelf Gerald Ford....oh I hear you say we couldn't afford to put aircaft on it....we can't now!!

I actually heard it on the BBC News, but heres a post I think it is a reference to the NAO view, which is were it came from:

Navy's £10bn new aircraft carriers could face the axe because of cash shortfalls

and

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jul/07/nao-report-aircraft-carriers-navy

Do you think it will not come in near that figure? In my web search to find you your evidence I noticed the MOD figure is £6.5bn but only £3.5bn to go, not much with their track record. The NAO figure saidly look credible.

 

[kev 99]

Well you have contradicted yourself, you say in a perfect world it would be cheaper to build together....but then we don't live in one, and it hasn't even come remotely near cheaper? Would it be cheaper to have brought and off the shelf Gerald Ford....oh I hear you say we couldn't afford to put aircaft on it....we can't now!!

I actually heard it on the BBC News, but heres a post I think it is a reference to the NAO view, which is were it came from:

Navy's £10bn new aircraft carriers could face the axe because of cash shortfalls

Do you think it will not come in near that figure? In my web search to find you your evidence I noticed the MOD figure is £6.5bn but only £3.5bn to go, not much with their track record. The NAO figure saidly look credible.

Contracdicted myself? No I haven't, and in fact your explanation of how I have doesn't make much sense. I told you the perfect way to build the 2 carriers, I also told you why this wasn't possible, I'll now go further and say the sad reality is that with the MOD budget as it was we could never afford to do it this way to begin with, or possibly even afford carriers (of any size) at all, and thus the current situation where we're frantically slashing capability in other areas to make it possible. That is not contradicting myself, that is acknowledgement of the reality of the situation.

I suggest you go and look up the meaning of Contradiction in the dictionary, I don't think you've quite got it.

As I suspected you've adopted the worst case of a given possible scenario and presented it as fact as a means of furthering your usual diatribe against the RN; the NAO report says the carriers "Could" cost up to £10bn, I see you've handily substituted the important word with "will".

NAO credible? ha ha, if you've ever had the missfortune of working with them you'd know how laughable this statement was, I have twice now and quickly came to the conclusion that they couldn't find their arses with both hands.

Who mentioned Gerald Ford

 

[1805]

Contracdicted myself? No I haven't, and in fact your explanation of how I have doesn't make much sense. I told you the perfect way to build the 2 carriers, I also told you why this wasn't possible, I'll now go further and say the sad reality is that with the MOD budget as it was we could never afford to do it this way to begin with, or possibly even afford carriers (of any size) at all, and thus the current situation where we're frantically slashing capability in other areas to make it possible. That is not contradicting myself, that is acknowledgement of the reality of the situation.

I suggest you go and look up the meaning of the Contradiction in the dictionary, I don't think you've quite got it.

As I suspected you've adopted the worst case of a given possible scenario and presented it as fact as a means of furthering your usual diatribe against the RN; the NAO report says the carriers "Could" cost up to £10bn, I see you've handily substituted the important word with "will".

NAO credible? ha ha, if you've ever had the missfortune of working with them you'd know how laughable this statement was, I have twice now and quickly came to the conclusion that they couldn't find their arses with both hands.

Who mentioned Gerald Ford

So you admit that the only viable way would have been staggered construction of smaller ships....??

NAO more credible than the MOD? We will have to await and see.

USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78)...it was a joke btw.

 

[Systems Adict]

....I've seen you mention £10b for the cost of the carriers several times now where the hell are you getting it from?

Indeed £10B ??

The x2 carriers were originally in the region of £4B, with the figure increasing to £5B before the SDSR. Since then I've heard it go up to £6.2B, due to the SDSR & 'other delays'.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_class_aircraft_carrier"]Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:QE_class_carrier.jpg" class="image"><img alt="QE class carrier.jpg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b0/QE_class_carrier.jpg/250px-QE_class_carrier.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@en/thumb/b/b0/QE_class_carrier.jpg/250px-QE_class_carrier.jpg[/ame]


So the question is, WHERE did you hear £10B ??

SA :argue

 

[Hambo]

Well you have contradicted yourself, you say in a perfect world it would be cheaper to build together....but then we don't live in one, and it hasn't even come remotely near cheaper? Would it be cheaper to have brought and off the shelf Gerald Ford....oh I hear you say we couldn't afford to put aircaft on it....we can't now!!

I actually heard it on the BBC News, but heres a post I think it is a reference to the NAO view, which is were it came from:

Navy's £10bn new aircraft carriers could face the axe because of cash shortfalls

Do you think it will not come in near that figure? In my web search to find you your evidence I noticed the MOD figure is £6.5bn but only £3.5bn to go, not much with their track record. The NAO figure saidly look credible.

The best case historical re-write scenario would have been no expensive expedition into Iraq and afghanistan. QE and POW built to the original timeline which was to be in service in 2014 and 2016 for a combined cost of £3.9 billion. Had we not had the budget squeeze and war cost the FAA might still be flying Sea Harrier and we would be looking at a smooth move for the Harriers from the CVS to the CVF pending some future arrival of F35.

The cost rise of CVF is nothing to do with its design or planned construction phasing, it was the last government having a black hole of billions, so its repeated attempts to hide a billion or so here or there onto future balance sheets. The actual plan of streamlining shipbuilding is actually quite sensible for the next 20 years , knock out T45 (we might have more without the war costs) , knock out QE,POW as quickly and cheaply as possible (before the government balls up of the budget), then tool up for T26 and build as many as possible, then build something to replace the amphibs and by the time thats finished build something to replace the last T23, then repeat cycle. In that way at least a bare minimum military ship sector is supported by a modest sized RN, but I don't see how we will ever see 20 year runs of ship classes again, we just don't need them in those numbers.

 

[kev 99]

So you admit that the only viable way would have been staggered construction of smaller ships....??

You're putting words in my mouth, I certainly did not say that at all, in fact far from it.

NAO more credible than the MOD? We will have to await and see.[/QUOTE]

When did I say either was more credible than the other? Words in mouth again.

USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78)...it was a joke btw.[/QUOTE]

You have a very odd concept of humour.

 

[1805]

Indeed £10B ??

The x2 carriers were originally in the region of £4B, with the figure increasing to £5B before the SDSR. Since then I've heard it go up to £6.2B, due to the SDSR & 'other delays'.

Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


So the question is, WHERE did you hear £10B ??

SA :argue

Read the post, whether you believe the NAO more than the MOD is down to you and how trusting your are of the relative parties.

Btw I think the original figure was £2.9bn for them.

 

[1805]

The best case historical re-write scenario would have been no expensive expedition into Iraq and afghanistan. QE and POW built to the original timeline which was to be in service in 2014 and 2016 for a combined cost of £3.9 billion. Had we not had the budget squeeze and war cost the FAA might still be flying Sea Harrier and we would be looking at a smooth move for the Harriers from the CVS to the CVF pending some future arrival of F35.

The cost rise of CVF is nothing to do with its design or planned construction phasing, it was the last government having a black hole of billions, so its repeated attempts to hide a billion or so here or there onto future balance sheets. The actual plan of streamlining shipbuilding is actually quite sensible for the next 20 years , knock out T45 (we might have more without the war costs) , knock out QE,POW as quickly and cheaply as possible (before the government balls up of the budget), then tool up for T26 and build as many as possible, then build something to replace the amphibs and by the time thats finished build something to replace the last T23, then repeat cycle. In that way at least a bare minimum military ship sector is supported by a modest sized RN, but I don't see how we will ever see 20 year runs of ship classes again, we just don't need them in those numbers.

The wars came out of the Treasury reserve, not the defence budget, In fact I suspect the MOD has gained from classifiying spend under the emergency reserve.

 

[Systems Adict]

Yet again, some so called 'credible' source has said, I quote directly from the article.....

"The National Audit Office expressed ‘deep concerns’ over the future of the warships which have already been delayed until 2020 to save money.

The NAO warned that the cost of the carriers could spiral to over £10billion – more than twice the original bill."

Read more: Royal Navy¿s £10bn new aircraft carriers could face axe because of cash shortfalls | Mail Online

If we belived EVERYTHING printed by some hack with an axe to grind, or papers to sell, then....

Elvis, Lord Lucan, Michael Jackson & Amelia Erhart would all still be alive,
the moon landings are fake &....
The average house price in the UK is upwards of £175,000.....

To quote Public Enemy...

"Don't believe the Hype !"

SA

 

[1805]

You're putting words in my mouth, I certainly did not say that at all, in fact far from it..

How was it far from it? You said "I'll now go further and say the sad reality is that with the MOD budget as it was we could never afford to do it this way to begin with"

So if it can't be done that way, the only credible one is series construction? I admit this would result in reducing the overal shipbuilding capacity. But the RN can not support this on it's own without exports. But hopefully if we get an independent Scotland this problem should be solved.

 

[1805]

Yet again, some so called 'credible' source has said, I quote directly from the article.....

"The National Audit Office expressed ‘deep concerns’ over the future of the warships which have already been delayed until 2020 to save money.

The NAO warned that the cost of the carriers could spiral to over £10billion – more than twice the original bill."

Read more: Royal Navy¿s £10bn new aircraft carriers could face axe because of cash shortfalls | Mail Online

If we belived EVERYTHING printed by some hack with an axe to grind, or papers to sell, then....

Elvis, Lord Lucan, Michael Jackson & Amelia Erhart would all still be alive,
the moon landings are fake &....
The average house price in the UK is upwards of £175,000.....

To quote Public Enemy...

"Don't believe the Hype !"

SA

This was the NAO not some hack. So you think they will cost £6.5bn then, ie the current figure with 9 years to go....how naive are you??

It actually says "could spiral over £10bn" Personally I wouldn't guarantee any figure, but on track record my guess would be more over £10bn than under.

 

[kev 99]

How was it far from it? You said "I'll now go further and say the sad reality is that with the MOD budget as it was we could never afford to do it this way to begin with"

So if it can't be done that way, the only credible one is series construction? I admit this would result in reducing the overal shipbuilding capacity. But the RN can not support this on it's own without exports. But hopefully if we get an independent Scotland this problem should be solved.

Go back and read the entire paragraph again, and don't go quoting part of a sentence that you think backs up your argument when the rest of it obviously doesn't, it's considered bad form.

 

[1805]

Go back and read the entire paragraph again, and don't go quoting part of a sentence that you think backs up your argument when the rest of it obviously doesn't, it's considered bad form.

I have not mis quoted, you said it could not have been done within the constraint of the situation. It follows to have proceeded on that basis would be madness.

In fairness you didn't agree with series productio as the alternative, but the two others are not practical either, namely: spend more money (they had already put themselves over budget elsewhere) or don't build at all. This has been the RN general view, we will either have the best or nothing.

 

[Systems Adict]

This was the NAO not some hack. So you think they will cost £6.5bn then, ie the current figure with 9 years to go....how naive are you??

It actually says "could spiral over £10bn" Personally I wouldn't guarantee any figure, but on track record my guess would be more over £10bn than under.

I'm sorry 1805, with the current state of the UK printed media & how 'trustworthy' our UK hacks are, do you REALLY think that newspapers like the Daily Mail & The Guardian are papers to be believed ?

Both of these newspapers take great delight in dragging BAE thru the mud at any / most opportunities, then claim to be fair & unbiased when the print a 'good-news' story about them once every other month.

As for the NAO, they have occasionally stuck a paw in the air saying "Sorry, we've made 'a sow's ear of' that report", or mis-quoted figures, or have had a quote taken totally out of context & twisted by the media, so that the media makes a story where there isn't one.

Hence, after a quick trawl of the net, the only newspaper I can find quoting this figure is the Daily Mail.

After all, our government are all about 'openness & honesty', so don't you think that a comment such as this would appear in the hansard, when some MP other asks a question in the house of commons???


Like I said in the P.E. quote.....

SA :dance

 

[Systems Adict]

This has been the RN general view, we will either have the best or nothing.

#1 WHY shouldn't our armed forces have the best, if we can afford it ??

#2 If it's 'nothing' then why are the RN happy to go down the GCS / Type 26 route they've chosen, where IF a n other country comes along & places an order, the RN is / will be happy enough to utilise THAT DESIGN, only fitting specific systems that they currently have, so that they keep training & logistic cost lower ??


...answers on a postcard please....

SA

 

[1805]

#1 WHY shouldn't our armed forces have the best, if we can afford it ??

#2 If it's 'nothing' then why are the RN happy to go down the GCS / Type 26 route they've chosen, where IF a n other country comes along & places an order, the RN is / will be happy enough to utilise THAT DESIGN, only fitting specific systems that they currently have, so that they keep training & logistic cost lower ??


...answers on a postcard please....

SA

1, They can't afford it, well not they way they want to buy it.

2, You missed the point this time the RN didn't chose, the Government told them what they were getting.

 

[1805]

I'm sorry 1805, with the current state of the UK printed media & how 'trustworthy' our UK hacks are, do you REALLY think that newspapers like the Daily Mail & The Guardian are papers to be believed ?

Both of these newspapers take great delight in dragging BAE thru the mud at any / most opportunities, then claim to be fair & unbiased when the print a 'good-news' story about them once every other month.

As for the NAO, they have occasionally stuck a paw in the air saying "Sorry, we've made 'a sow's ear of' that report", or mis-quoted figures, or have had a quote taken totally out of context & twisted by the media, so that the media makes a story where there isn't one.

Hence, after a quick trawl of the net, the only newspaper I can find quoting this figure is the Daily Mail.

After all, our government are all about 'openness & honesty', so don't you think that a comment such as this would appear in the hansard, when some MP other asks a question in the house of commons???


Like I said in the P.E. quote.....

SA :dance

Actually its not my politics but the Guardian is ok, anyway they are just quoting from the NAO, both pieces a very similar no need to do your usual victim blame the hacks bit.

But the real fantasy is BAE wronged in the press!! This company is an major part of the problem, there is far to close a relationship with BAE and Government/civil servants/defence personnel.

It's time there was consideration in breaking up BAE. It made sense to merge defence companies in similar areas but not across the whole sector. I don't think it has worked for either the company or Government.

 

[kev 99]

I have not mis quoted, you said it could not have been done within the constraint of the situation. It follows to have proceeded on that basis would be madness.

If you didn't mis-quote me then why are you at last acknowleding what I've said in the paragraph below?

In fairness you didn't agree with series productio as the alternative, but the two others are not practical either, namely: spend more money (they had already put themselves over budget elsewhere) or don't build at all. This has been the RN general view, we will either have the best or nothing.

The RN Could not afford the carriers no matter which way they were ordered, you can either order then both at once which means more expense now but less overall or order them one at a time which costs less up front and more overall, either way it doesn't matter, they still haven't got the money.

It doesn't even matter if they are the best or not either, the argument is irrevelevant because CVF could of been new build Invincible's and the RN couldn't of afforded them either.

The only way new aircraft carriers become affordable is if the MOD budget is increased now, or you invent a time machine and convince the Government to increase the budget when business is booming; around 2004 when all the cost overruns with Typhoon, Astute, MRA4 etc are known about. Because that is what needed to happen to stop this current mess the MOD is in. While you're at it you can convince all the politicians to stop burying their heads in the sand about how much it costs to build things in this country, until that happens the MOD budget will never be under control.

 

[Hambo]

The wars came out of the Treasury reserve, not the defence budget, In fact I suspect the MOD has gained from classifiying spend under the emergency reserve.

Gordon Brown coughed last year to Parliament that both wars had cost £20billion, which includes an increase of the development and reconstruction budget. The Special Reserve would have paid for some such as UOR's but it doesn't pay for replacing worn out equipment, the vast training effort , nor does it include the health bill for the wounded or the future benefit bill.

We all know Govts give with one hand and take with the other, do you really think those costs have not impacted on the frontline? or that the UK armed forces would not be structured differently without those conflicts, or that we might have seen modest rises in the general MOD budget that might have paid for a few more subs, frigates or helos?

I can think of several items of kit that were binned prematurely simply because they were not considered relevant to two specific conflicts, namely Jaguar - retired despite an excellent upgrade in targetting optics, Sea Harrier - no use in Afghanistan apparently, whereas we will leave Afghanistan in a few years with hordes of vehicles that that can resist roadside bombs but might prove inadequate in any other theatre.

The last government skimped on the MOD budget and skimped on the cost of both wars rather than find the money, unfortunately the current administration will be no better, I will wait to see what else gets cut because we have spent god knows how much blowing holes in the Libyan desert.