Ok, So I read in the news about the Queel Elizabeth class aircraft carriers that were ordered by the labour government. Initially costs at 3Bn, now
closer to £7Bn each.
Camerons government has decided that they dont want to use the VTOL version of the F-35 so want to fit launch and retrievel gear to the ships (cats
and traps)..... At an estimated cost of £1Bn
Now, I have never build a ship, or even an aircraft carrier... BUT.... You would have thought that with £1Bn the locostbuilders community could do a
pretty damn good job of building an entire carrier complete with launch and retrievel system...
WHY does it have to be so expensive!? Where on earth is the money going! If they choose to use the steam launch system, its design has been perfected
over the years and will be easily transposed onto the deck of the new ship....
Also, whilst im having this rant, everyone knows that when you decide on a project, sign of the design and get the contractors started, making changes
as you go will cost huge amounts of money... and yet changes seem to be being made weekly with ever increasing costs... WHY!? I swear most of the
decisions that come out of government are based on little more than guesswork....Would love to see their justification for all these billions that are
being spent on changes to something that was designed to work properly in the first place...
Add to the above the fact that we have a perfectly good typhoon aircraft...why not make a marine varient of that and land it on carriers.... rather
than buying another plane.... Still cant figure why they sold the harrier to the US!
And they wonder why we are in such a crappy state financially!
Edit to add the BBC article:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17233867
[Edited on 3/3/12 by tegwin]
[Edited on 3/3/12 by tegwin]
Big job
Big redesign
All the under flight deck structures are affected
This will be a further debt pushed on to the next government and probably the one after that.
It is projected to 2020
It will mean for me job cuts in excess of the current 56% projected to 2015
The Harrier is a 1960's design and is no longer combat competitive against anything. The typhoon is too unstable, as in it won't fly
without computers to use to land/launch on a carrier.
The project's cost so much as the goverment uses it as a way to keep UK companies making money, oh and they're ran by the civil service who
can pay £28 for a lightbulb, if you've ever worked for them in any guise you'd know why.
quote:
Originally posted by franky
The typhoon is too unstable, as in it won't fly without computers to use to land/launch on a carrier.
.
quote:
Originally posted by tegwin
quote:
Originally posted by franky
The typhoon is too unstable, as in it won't fly without computers to use to land/launch on a carrier.
.
Is this not true for any modern plane though!? The f-35 will be no different.
One problem they've found with the F-35 is that the vertical take-off version is likely to roast the carrier's flight decks - the US
Navy's not impressed just at the moment, as they would have to replace or rebuild the decks of all of their carriers to make them more
heat-proof.
Looking through all the news items etc. I'm starting to get the impression that the F-35 is a very expensive turkey...
quote:
Originally posted by David Jenkins
One problem they've found with the F-35 is that the vertical take-off version is likely to roast the carrier's flight decks - the US Navy's not impressed just at the moment, as they would have to replace or rebuild the decks of all of their carriers to make them more heat-proof.
Looking through all the news items etc. I'm starting to get the impression that the F-35 is a very expensive turkey...
It's the public purse.
There are no overheads to consider, no deadlines to attain, no running costs to account for, and no profit required!!
All the ingredients to waste money.
'Roast the decks' can't be true. The Liftfan that produces the vertical thrust blows cold air not vectored jet pipe.
quote:
Originally posted by franky
The Harrier is a 1960's design and is no longer combat competitive against anything. The typhoon is too unstable, as in it won't fly without computers to use to land/launch on a carrier.
quote:
Originally posted by JeffHs
'Roast the decks' can't be true. The Liftfan that produces the vertical thrust blows cold air not vectored jet pipe.
quote:
Originally posted by tegwin
quote:
Originally posted by JeffHs
'Roast the decks' can't be true. The Liftfan that produces the vertical thrust blows cold air not vectored jet pipe.
You are forgetting that the main engine is also vectored down as well... that would be HOT as all of the combustion air will go that way..
Because of the nature of the engine (less bypass air than a harrier) the air will be a lot hotter than that which a harrier would have put out....
I have to agree ... the harrier has been developed and refined over the years.... someone showed me a report a while ago about the readiness time of a tornado Vs harrier with full loads (fuel and weapns)....
The "logical" assumption is that the supersonic tornado would be faster on target..... but it wasnt... the harrier could get up in the air quicker even though its transit time was slightly longer it would be on target quicker. Was a very specific scenario based around rapid defense from Scotland.,
I cant remeber the name of it... but we have aircraft on standby in Scotland for rapid reaction.... they intercepted a Rusky aircraft last year... So still a real issue perhaps?
quote:
Originally posted by tegwin
I cant remeber the name of it... but we have aircraft on standby in Scotland for rapid reaction.... they intercepted a Rusky aircraft last year... So still a real issue perhaps?
Oops yes, stupid oversight. Of course there is a swivel nozzle at the rear. I withdraw my previous comment!
Sorry if i'm being abit thick
But how can the cost of something grow so much from the original 'estimate' ?
We've seen it happen with aircraft aswell as these ships
So what's going wrong ?
Are the manufacturers going in too cheap in the first place or is it the spec' is changing
after the order is placed ?
quote:
Originally posted by David Jenkins
One problem they've found with the F-35 is that the vertical take-off version is likely to roast the carrier's flight decks - the US Navy's not impressed just at the moment, as they would have to replace or rebuild the decks of all of their carriers to make them more heat-proof.
Looking through all the news items etc. I'm starting to get the impression that the F-35 is a very expensive turkey...
quote:
But how can the cost of something grow so much from the original 'estimate' ?
I'd imagine that the large costs (initially) is for equipment that Doesn't Break.. I mean if you're in one of them planes and the control from the flightdeck tells you that you can't land because we have a plane stuck in that launch system what do you do?
No item on a big ship is trivial cost wise catapults and arrestor gear need a lot of personnel to operate and maintain them, in contrast a ski jump
needs zero extra crew and near zero maintenance.
The extra personnel imply not only wages costs but training & support, food & accommodation and management and pensions costs.
[Edited on 3/3/12 by britishtrident]
In 2006 I attended a meeting of some kind of leading marine engineering group to which I was invited by the department of Naval Architecture and
marine engineering at Strathclyde and Glasgow Universities (It was one department shared between two universities) to discuss these ships and I have
to tell you your wrong about when the decission to not get VTOL planes was taken. This was just over 5 years ago so my memory of the subject is a
little fuzzy but the type of planes to be used was disscussed at this meeting and I believe they were explaining to the group why the choice had been
made to go for conventional take off planes and I'm sure it was because it worked out cheaper in the long run and that the VTOL planes on offer
were inferior to the conventional ones, and that the cap-trap set up would allow more variety of planes to be used. The whole system is designed to be
convertable which is one of the reasons it cost so much.
As for the increases in cost, the main one is the increase in the value of metal, plain and simple. I studied Naval Architecture for two years and had
to take a course titled 'the Business of Ship Building' twice and I've probably still got the notes for it in my garage and there are
huge sections on how the cost of material changes, and how this is the buyers problem rather than the builders and happens in every industry.
Increases in fuel costs and all the other economic crap also has an effect. It's not as bad as it seems though because it means more work.
I personally think the odds of Britian being involved in a fairly major war in the next 10 years are huge so I personally would like them to spend as
much money as is needed for us to have the best equipment possible, and I don't think that includes Harriers. During the Korean war, Peter
Carmichael shot down a MiG 15 from a Hawker sea fury, a plane designed during world war 2. For my money going toe to toe with a modern fighter jet in
a Harrier and winning would be just as impressive as his action in what was pretty much WW2 surplus in the Jet age.
quote:
Originally posted by morcus
I personally think the odds of Britian being involved in a fairly major war in the next 10 years are huge so I personally would like them to spend as much money as is needed for us to have the best equipment possible, and I don't think that includes Harriers. During the Korean war, Peter Carmichael shot down a MiG 15 from a Hawker sea fury, a plane designed during world war 2. For my money going toe to toe with a modern fighter jet in a Harrier and winning would be just as impressive as his action in what was pretty much WW2 surplus in the Jet age.
The cost increase from contract award to completion is caused by many things but the increase in material cost is easily calculated and even if the
cost of raw materials increased by 10%, the cost of the contract wouldn't increase by anywhere near that much.
I recently put together a tender contract to upgrade a bulk fuel installation. I ended up with four tender offers on the table.
The cheapest one was too cheap. There was no way I could award the contract to someone who had failed to budget for simple health and safety
matters.
The next cheapest company had just been taken over by another company who had a reputation for asset-stripping new aquisitions, so that one went in
the bin. The remaining two companies were asked back to discuss a few things.
From releasing the tender details to this point took around four months.
The preferred contractor was contacted and the paperwork started moving from my office, up through the on-site MoD suits and off to Whitehall for the
all important signatures.
When the paperwork left me, the price was @ £600,000. When I spoke to our Commanding Officer (I'm a civvy on an RAF base) he mentioned the
contract, which was now £1,300,000! I expected the figures to wander north a bit but ffs!
I asked for a breakdown of the costings but was told it was nothing to do with me now, as I had done my bit but the CO did send me a note with a few
numbers on it: they paid a bloke £30,000 to proof-read the contract! They also paid someone £45,000 to check for any gaps in the contract whixh could
attraxt extra costs. They paid someone £50,000 to check the drawings and another company got £50,000 to check over the H&S documents.
All these 'extra costs' were through 'external consultants' employed by the MoD.
So you can see why the costs can spiral.
I was told many years ago by someone at a MOD supplier that the original cost goes in to get the contract (not too high or too low), but the contracts say that ANY deviation from the original specification will increase the cost - that's where the suppliers make their money. Specify a colour change for the corridors and it's £100,000's, an en-suite toilet for the Captain after it's signed and you'll be paying millions in additional 're-engineering' costs.
quote:
Originally posted by jollygreengiant
As I said in an earlier post on the subject regards piston V jet, the boffins at boscombe down (i think that is where the fly of was done) found that once it came down to a dog fight then 99% of the time piston toped jet because it could out turn a jet and the jets best defence agains a piston engined (or otherwise manouverable) aircraft was to not be there and use the jet speed advantage to get away, preferably before he took hits from the other aircraft.
As each war plane generation succeeds the one before it trades one aspect of capability for another, this is nothing new all the monoplane
fighters of WW2 could be out turned by the Gloster Gladiator. The Sea Harrier was in its final freshly rebuilt and upgraded FA2 form was a very
capable well armed and reliable weapons system and would have been fit for purpose until newer aircraft type was fit for service had it not been
scrapped by the then labour government 2006.
One of the reasons the Sea harrier was so successful in the Falklands was it proved capable of operating effectively in the appalling weather
conditions of a South Atlantic winter with absolute minimal maintenance.
The RAF Harriers GR9 that stood in for them were a very capable all weather ground attack aircraft capable of carrying the most advance air to
ground weapons system s in the UK inventory the only real failing iwas the lack of a (working) gun pack something that could have been rectified by
fitting the gun packs from the first generation Harriers. The US Marine Corps have now bought 72 of these retired aircraft and intend using some of
them to replace high hour F/A18s.
The more I have found out on the web about the F35 project the more doubts about it it has all the hallmarks of a lemon.
Where to start...
Th S/VTOL version of the F-35 cannot land back on the carriers in vertical mode with all its weapons still on board. So this means at the end of
every patrol ditching very expensive ordnance before recovering the aircraft. The S/VTOL version also had significantly reduced range and could not
operate effectively when 'Hot & High'.
The conventional version of the F35 is the correct decision (indeed F/A 18 would be a cheap and excellent choice) and would give the RN a significant
uplift in capability compared with the Sea Harrier or GR9.
The reason that a conventional carrier is an issue is that there is not ready source of steam on the QE class to power the steam catapults. The US
carriers are basically steam powered (Nuclear kettle !) but the RNs carriers will be diesel/electric like most modern ships. This means we need an
alternative way of launching the aircraft...enter the Electromagnetic Mass Driver Catapult
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/17/navy_catobar_pilots/). Note the need for AEW as well as strike aircraft hence why the conventional carrier
is a better bet.
Problem is you need power to do this....electric power. Easy enough from a Nuclear reactor but more difficult from Diesel/Electric.
But...if you can sling an aircraft off the end of a ship with this technology (and it has been working in trials) what is to stop you doing the same
to a projectile at much higher velocities.
Enter the Railgun. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBTbhSFfuNM This technology could see the return of the Battleship and the demise of the Carrier
as the dominate surface combat vessel just when we get two new ones for the first time since the old Ark Royal paid-off. Think of a railgun firing
hypersonic projectiles over hundreds of miles...several times a minute. Impossible to stop and all you need to do it is energy and a dumb projectile.
Welcome to the new world where your ships/aircraft/tanks/etc vapourise as it gets hit by hundreds of kilos travelling at Mach 8.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/02/railgun-real-gun/
Literally ...speed kills.
[Edited on 4/3/12 by jeffw]
Material costs don't factor greatly in the overall cost of building a boat. These ships will weigh iro 100,000 x £400/tonne = £40,000,000 out of
an orig est of £38,000,000,000 ie 1/850th
Real reason for costs is because civil service really couldn't give a flying thingy about what it does with the money handed over by
taxpayers.
ATB
Simon
i think the reason it cost so much (without reading everything on here) is probably because on an aircraft carrier, it has to work perfectly, all the
time every time, no exceptions.
how many cars on here are used as daily drivers? doing at least 12k miles a year, without a single fault over a few years? i'd be surprised if
any... think thats where the billions come into it.
there's no time for winter rebuilds in a war
quote:
Originally posted by blakep82
i think the reason it cost so much (without reading everything on here) is probably because on an aircraft carrier, it has to work perfectly, all the time every time, no exceptions.
how many cars on here are used as daily drivers? doing at least 12k miles a year, without a single fault over a few years? i'd be surprised if any... think thats where the billions come into it.
there's no time for winter rebuilds in a war
A combination of "public sector" industry, a government who wishes to maintain a native ability to build ships (and planes and so on) and a customer between the two who is predisposed to constantly changing their mind covers the main basis....
Not aircraft related, but I'm living it at the moment as I'm part of a big multi million pound project
The problem is that no change can be made in isolation. When the design is initially carried out, It will be reviewed at various stages, equipment,
structurally, process, operations, maintenance, occupational safety, process safety, design for manufacture etc etc. When that is all done you can
finally start manufacturing.
Then some one comes along and says they want to add item X. Every review you have previously done now has to be revisited at some point. Potentially
one small change to a structure might expose a pipe containing a dangerous substance and as a result the electrical system may have to be moved, then
that requires a re-design of your safety systems and it all just builds up.
Then you finally get on to make the changes so first you have to start by working out what can stay and what has to change. Then work out how to do
it. Then take out all the work you've done previously, then modify and replace. You've now go to do all your quality control again, revisit
your quality file, update all the records, recomission any systems you've changed, and then test it.
Of course during this time you need extra labour, plant, equipment etc. Specilaist kit such as cranes is always at a premium so if you
'engineered' your project tightly at the start they should be in constant use. So now you either need to work extra hours, buy more kit or
hire it in.
The cost of re-working is horrendous often many more times that of the original build.
quote:
Originally posted by franky
quote:
Originally posted by blakep82
i think the reason it cost so much (without reading everything on here) is probably because on an aircraft carrier, it has to work perfectly, all the time every time, no exceptions.
how many cars on here are used as daily drivers? doing at least 12k miles a year, without a single fault over a few years? i'd be surprised if any... think thats where the billions come into it.
there's no time for winter rebuilds in a war
It a shame that none of them do work perfectly most of the time, that's why you need 2/3 off them so one can always be undergoing a re-fit etc.
One of the main reasons is a changing threat, what the ship is designed for one day isn't what it is needed for 5 years into the build, then same again 5 years later or another 5 years later when its finally put to sea. Constant changes cost money and so does poor decision making which the MOD/Civil service does best.
Just my two'pennorth.....
The thing is with these scale of projects, it's just a measure of complexity....
The numbers £'s sound astronomical (which they absolutely are) to most people, but we are not talking about Bob building a garden shed here and
deciding he needs another window....or Frank building a seven and deciding to dry sump it....
Projects of this scale require micro-managing...that's a fact....they are just a complex item....
Contracts for tender and subsequent manufacture drawn by Governments are designed to cover a myriad of unforeseen arisings (dependancies, assumptions
and exclusions etc) which are scrutinised constantly by project managers who are soley employed to monitor and control costs and progress.
The timescales from concept to delivery on this type of product are long...technology moves quickly....making today's cutting edge concepts
obsolete tomorrow....it's termed 'planned obsolecence' in the motoring industry (buy this new car..it's much better than the
previous one), but not in the defence industry....these type of products are to be in service for half a century if not more.....
Inevitably, upgrades are demanded by the Customer which costs money.
Not just for the upgraded item....
Change management. Assuming (a low estimate) 1000 suppliers of equipment/materials are engaged to manufacture product, any change can demand
unbelievable hours expenditure assessing feasibilty which is inevitably (contractually) carried out with/alongside the Customer even before it hits
the drawing board (CATIA these days I suppose...), then the laborious task of discussing change with sub-contractors starts....which in itself is
expensive by virtue of contract small print.....these discussions are fed back to prime Customer before any decision to move forward are
approved....
Not talking 5 minutes effort here, every manhour charged at the individual Company rate (plus expenses - rarely are suppliers, prime contractor and
Customer sat in the same street...travel, hotels etc).....
Then change costs are assessed, more discussions before change agreed, potential for tender for changed item manufacture from other sources, more
meetings.....all costing....
As implied above in a post (davidimurray), all change then re-written into the 'grand design'....meaning amendments to potentially thousands
of drawings, specifications, operating procedures, maintenance procedures, training materials etc.....somebody has to manage all of this to assure
safety of product.
Not to mention stress consideration, design change, configuration control, safety cases, etc etc blah blah blah.....
In this industry it can be extremely frustrating trying to emulate what British industry did very well about 50 years ago....which is designing,
manufacturing and marketing extremely advanced and effective engineering products (specifically military items) quickly from drawing board to
delivery...however there is (probably correctly) much more stringent control on expenditure in this day and age...it''s controlled by
Project Management...and it's intentions are to be applauded....but it's methods inevitably cause more delay and cost than it is meant to
save. Industry's hands are tied to a degree...
By the way, Nimrod MRA4 was an amazing product...I've been on it....the way it's demise was executed made me want to cry.
Just a pure shame.....
[Edited on 15/3/12 by richard thomas]