britishtrident
|
| posted on 4/3/12 at 09:40 PM |
|
|
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.
[I] “ What use our work, Bennet, if we cannot care for those we love? .”
― From BBC TV/Amazon's Ripper Street.
[/I]
|
|
|
|
|
jeffw
|
| posted on 4/3/12 at 10:09 PM |
|
|
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]
|
|
|
Simon
|
| posted on 4/3/12 at 11:15 PM |
|
|
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
|
|
|
blakep82
|
| posted on 4/3/12 at 11:22 PM |
|
|
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
________________________
IVA manual link http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?type=RESOURCES&itemId=1081997083
don't write OT on a new thread title, you're creating the topic, everything you write is very much ON topic!
|
|
|
franky
|
| posted on 5/3/12 at 08:59 AM |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
alistairolsen
|
| posted on 15/3/12 at 07:59 PM |
|
|
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....
My Build Thread
|
|
|
davidimurray
|
| posted on 15/3/12 at 08:35 PM |
|
|
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.
Gallery 1 http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.116893465324.130778.601005324
Gallery 2 http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.245243755324.181913.601005324&l=a9831a9319
Gallery 3 http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.440671625324.232627.601005324&l=3f0d42c523
Gallery 4 http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.490098255324.297598.601005324&l=efb083b7df
Gallery 5 http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150244028550325.366987.601005324&l=583fd5cd3a
Gallery 6 http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150550640070325.430417.601005324&type=3&l=fe779b358c
Duratec Engine Swap https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10152527759580325.1073741828.601005324&type=1&l=40aae5e72f " target="_blank"> https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10152527759580325.1073741828.601005324&type=1&l=40aae5e72f
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 15/3/12 at 08:40 PM |
|
|
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 look at the two Nimrod fiascos for proof.
[I] “ What use our work, Bennet, if we cannot care for those we love? .”
― From BBC TV/Amazon's Ripper Street.
[/I]
|
|
|
richard thomas
|
| posted on 15/3/12 at 10:05 PM |
|
|
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]
|
|
|
