tegwin
|
| posted on 3/3/12 at 09:59 AM |
|
|
Seeing the world through locost eyes...Warships
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]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would the last person who leaves the country please switch off the lights and close the door!
www.verticalhorizonsmedia.tv
|
|
|
|
|
snapper
|
| posted on 3/3/12 at 10:17 AM |
|
|
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
I eat to survive
I drink to forget
I breath to pi55 my ex wife off (and now my ex partner)
|
|
|
franky
|
| posted on 3/3/12 at 10:19 AM |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
tegwin
|
| posted on 3/3/12 at 10:22 AM |
|
|
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would the last person who leaves the country please switch off the lights and close the door!
www.verticalhorizonsmedia.tv
|
|
|
franky
|
| posted on 3/3/12 at 10:24 AM |
|
|
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.
No its not quite true, the typhoon has quite a few issues that other 'modern' stuff doesn't have.
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 3/3/12 at 10:41 AM |
|
|
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...
|
|
|
franky
|
| posted on 3/3/12 at 10:47 AM |
|
|
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...
Also that'd leave us in American pockets again, who's sure how long the 'special relationship' will last? I'd put 50p
on top level military brass/think tank leaders not being happy that we've got to use their nuclear missile set-up too.
|
|
|
designer
|
| posted on 3/3/12 at 10:59 AM |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
JeffHs
|
| posted on 3/3/12 at 11:49 AM |
|
|
'Roast the decks' can't be true. The Liftfan that produces the vertical thrust blows cold air not vectored jet pipe.
|
|
|
jollygreengiant
|
| posted on 3/3/12 at 11:54 AM |
|
|
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.
Technically speaking thats wrong, the basic design priciples of the Harrier are from just after the war, you know that thing that happened where
people acquired a LOT of real time knowledge about what service personel really want, need and generally speaking, works. Then after experimenting
with no-brainers like the flying bed-stead a british engineer thought of a way of making the system actually work and they built the Kestrel (i think
that was the first variant).
Then we created the 'Harrier'.
Now the americans have always been jealous of it and our ability. So then the long hunt political hunt started. Eventually they convinced the British
government that it needed a re-design of the wing and I believe that the latest variant had a 'carbon composite wing designed by the
'yanks' at their expense (thanks to Tony and his cronies as a cost saving measure for us) but this meant that (i believe) this ended up
with the yanks acquring all the rights to build the and manufacture the Harrier, including the Pegasus engine design principles because the
'Yanks' could do it better.
As for the aircraft not being combat competitive any more, they said this about the Spitfire after the second world war and the start of the jet age,
however, the truth of this was that the Spitfire WAS still combat competitive when the boffins did a fly-off between a jet and a Spitfire, they found
that the jet stood little chance of shooting down a Spitfire, infact the Spitfire stood a VERY good chance of downing a jet, to the extent that the
only real defence a jet had was to use its superior top speed advantage and not be in the vacinity. So the non combat competitive is really just a
smoke screen put in place by high officials as a reason for us not to use the Harrier any more. The real reason I think you will find is that we can
no longer afford to buy the Harrier (or spares) from the Yanks.
Just My Humble Opinion and Slant on the real politics involved. Anything that we have built and has been too good for the Americans has been killed
off by them, Original transonic jet design (
JGGMiles M52 Linky ), TSR2, Concord (how many boeings have 'fallen' out of the sky with
exploding fuel tanks), etc. God bless america and our 'special' relationship.
Beware of the Goldfish in the tulip mines. The ONLY defence against them is smoking peanut butter sandwiches.
|
|
|
tegwin
|
| posted on 3/3/12 at 12:07 PM |
|
|
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.,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would the last person who leaves the country please switch off the lights and close the door!
www.verticalhorizonsmedia.tv
|
|
|
franky
|
| posted on 3/3/12 at 12:10 PM |
|
|
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.,
A cold war situation though?
|
|
|
tegwin
|
| posted on 3/3/12 at 12:13 PM |
|
|
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?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would the last person who leaves the country please switch off the lights and close the door!
www.verticalhorizonsmedia.tv
|
|
|
franky
|
| posted on 3/3/12 at 12:21 PM |
|
|
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?
The situation you're thinking of is called Op attika, to counter the cold war threat of Russian Bear bombers dropping strategic bombs on the
UK, its 1950's thinking. If it ever came to that it'd be submarine launched nuclear missiles. Part of the reason they took nuclear
weapons off the RAF.
The russians only do it now to probe our early warning, and not weekly, more like every few years as a joke. The American QR base closed down in
Europe years ago so we have no ability now anyway.
|
|
|
JeffHs
|
| posted on 3/3/12 at 12:59 PM |
|
|
Oops yes, stupid oversight. Of course there is a swivel nozzle at the rear. I withdraw my previous comment!
|
|
|
perksy
|
| posted on 3/3/12 at 01:00 PM |
|
|
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 ?
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 3/3/12 at 01:00 PM |
|
|
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...
While I agree the F35 particularly the V/STOL version looks like a major cock-up, a repeat of the the F111 mess but the US Navy has a long history
of trying to force US Marine Corps into using the equipment it wants the Marine Corps to use hence pressuring the RN and Marine Corps into buying
the US Navy version of the aircraft. I strongly suspect the US Marine Corps has formed the opinnion their F35's will either be subject to
sever delays or never be delivered, hence their buying up of the UK Harrier stocks.
What I suspect may happen by stealth is the UK may end up buying either new or re-manufactured F18's at least in the interim.
[I] “ What use our work, Bennet, if we cannot care for those we love? .”
― From BBC TV/Amazon's Ripper Street.
[/I]
|
|
|
designer
|
| posted on 3/3/12 at 01:55 PM |
|
|
quote:
But how can the cost of something grow so much from the original 'estimate' ?
The first price is 'always' to ensure you get the project, after that it doesn't matter as the job is 'started so it will be
finished'!!
The people in charge have nobody to answer to, money does not matter to them as they never spend their own.
|
|
|
Ninehigh
|
| posted on 3/3/12 at 08:05 PM |
|
|
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?
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 3/3/12 at 08:58 PM |
|
|
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]
[I] “ What use our work, Bennet, if we cannot care for those we love? .”
― From BBC TV/Amazon's Ripper Street.
[/I]
|
|
|
morcus
|
| posted on 3/3/12 at 09:54 PM |
|
|
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.
In a White Room, With Black Curtains, By the Station.
|
|
|
jollygreengiant
|
| posted on 3/3/12 at 11:29 PM |
|
|
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.
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.
Beware of the Goldfish in the tulip mines. The ONLY defence against them is smoking peanut butter sandwiches.
|
|
|
owelly
|
| posted on 4/3/12 at 12:52 AM |
|
|
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.
http://www.ppcmag.co.uk
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 4/3/12 at 09:21 AM |
|
|
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.
--
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Anonymous
|
|
|
morcus
|
| posted on 4/3/12 at 09:39 PM |
|
|
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.
Is there somewhere we can read more about this as it seems very intresting.
In a White Room, With Black Curtains, By the Station.
|
|
|
