Navy carriers '£1bn over budget', page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times

reply posted on 10-7-2009 @ 03:19 PM by Retseh

The only thing you can ever guarantee with a British military development initiative is that it will be late, and grossly over-budget.

The ASRAAM programme was perhaps the ultimate expression of this trait, 28 years in development, only completed with the purchase of an off the shelf seeker head from Hughes, and inferior to almost every other modern AAM available today.

My prediction - they'll build the first one, which will be delivered late and hugely over-budget, the air wing and self defence weapons will be stripped to reduce cost overheads. The only reason for its completion will be to preserve jobs in the ship building industry.

They will seek foreign buyers for the second shell, no one will be stupid enough to waste their money on it, and finally the British will declare the completed ship to be the world's most advanced aircraft carrier.

reply posted on 11-7-2009 @ 04:10 PM by Fang

reply to post by Retseh

And the Littoral Combat ships? Now there's a glowing example of an on time on budget project. I'll spare your blushes by not mentioning the DDG 100. The JSF? 35% over budget and rising? Boeings Future Combat Systems project, hows that coming along? Even the C-130 avionics upgrade, a pretty straightforward project, 323% over.

Asraams problems were primarily political with the UK and Germany bickering over different requirements. Meteor is shaping up rather nicely don't you think?

How many Margarita's do you have before you start posting?

reply posted on 13-7-2009 @ 07:33 AM by KDM_Souljah

The tories are no friends of the Royal Navy. Don't ever think otherwise.

[edit on 7-7-2009 by Ulala]

the tories do actualy look after the armed forces and i can say that beacuse i have family in the armed forces who vote tories becuase they look after the armed forces pensions which they will need in the near future

reply posted on 13-7-2009 @ 10:37 AM by fritz

For your information, the first steel for the hull of the HMS QE, was cut on Thursday or Friday by the Princess Royal, HRH Princess Anne.

None of you may know this but, once that first piece steel has been cut, in the history of the Royal Navy from the Dreadnaughts till today, the RN has ever had a ship cancelled!

We here in GB UK Ltd, live on a tiny little island. We are surrounded by water and, because of that, we need a navy to patrol our part of the North Sea [where our vital gas and oil platforms are], the English Channel [to keep the French out] and the same can be said of the Irish Sea.

As I understand it, aircraft carriers are often known as force multipliers and because of this, are used to project their parent country's power throughout the world.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we in the UK a bit of a small fish in a very large pond? Even the Russians have a brown water fleet bigger and more powerful than the Royal Navy.

Not the Navy's fault of course. They can only sail what they're given. This leads me nicely to the point of my post.

We [GB UK Ltd] are shortly to sign up for Trident DIII or DIV and the boats for them, at an estimated £20B!

Utter waste of money, if you ask me. We'd be better off with another couple of nuclear armed cruise missile boats like the new Astute class of subs.

By cruising down that sea lane, we can afford the two new carriers and those crazy American aircraft to fly off them.

reply posted on 13-7-2009 @ 11:13 AM by Retseh

Originally posted by Fang
reply to post by Retseh

And the Littoral Combat ships? Now there's a glowing example of an on time on budget project. I'll spare your blushes by not mentioning the DDG 100. The JSF? 35% over budget and rising? Boeings Future Combat Systems project, hows that coming along? Even the C-130 avionics upgrade, a pretty straightforward project, 323% over.

Asraams problems were primarily political with the UK and Germany bickering over different requirements. Meteor is shaping up rather nicely don't you think?

How many Margarita's do you have before you start posting?

Firstly, no one said that all US military development programs run smoothly, but since you predictably defend your own nations inefficiencies by pointing out those of the US, it's worth pointing out that the US has legislative mechanisms in place that automatically kill off out-of-control development initiatives, your system has no such mechanism.

We also have many hundreds of development programs in progress at any point in time, so the failure rate is naturally going to be higher, but then so is our success rate, as witnessed by the fact that both ASRAAM and the Astute class submarine required the use of US development teams to make them work (plus the Germans having to fix the SA80 of course).

On the other hand, I cannot think of a single UK military development project that delivered on time and on budget, or if it did, it did so by fielding an inadequate piece of kit (SA80, Tornado F.2, and now of course the disastrous Bowman radio system).

Finally, grow up and spare me the snide comments, address the subject, not the poster.

[edit on 13-7-2009 by Retseh]

reply posted on 13-7-2009 @ 04:41 PM by Fang

reply to post by Retseh

Well the impression you undoubtedly sought to give was that this problem exclusively afflicted UK Defence projects but your belated and uncharacteristic humility is refreshing.

The problem with the US legislative systems designed to "automatically kill, out of control development initiatives" is that they aren't 'automatic' or fast, resulting in huge amounts being written of, as doomed 'Initiatives' drag on for years. Cancellation is normally followed by a critical and useless 'Wise after the Event' committee report, something our Parliament has elevated to an art form. The other thing you have which we don't, is of course the 'Pork Barrel' factor.

Perhaps you could have saved a lot of time and bandwidth by listing the on time and on budget projects along side the failures. As for US help with ASRAAM? I suppose so, if that's what you call buying an off the shelf component. Help with Astute, yes but not in design or development (we are quite good at that) but in getting the new production facility up to speed. Thanks for that.

The SA80? Yes, H&K (at that time a subsidiary of BAE) did a good job working to the specs. they were given. The SA80, as has previously been detailed on this board, is now a highly effective and reliable weapon. Its accuracy has never been in doubt.

The Tornado ADV is in fact a good aircraft and well suited to its principal role, the Defence of UK Air space. Two seats, twin engined, swing wing, long patrol times over the North Sea approaches, a role it is in many ways better suited than the Typhoon.

Who knows perhaps there is something to be said for sticking with something until you get it right, rather than writing of hundreds of millions and going back to square one?

Dropping the snide comments? That would be nice wouldn't it. But it's not going to happen. It's a bit late for you to try 'The message and not the messenger' routine. I've made my feelings about you and your views very clear. So step out of line and expect a friendly slap on the back of the legs.

[edit on 13/7/09, by Fang]

reply posted on 13-7-2009 @ 06:31 PM by Retseh

reply to post by Fang

I could go into detail about the suitability of the Tornado ADV with a cement nose, or the fact that the Electric Boat team did actually have to help with the final design of the Astute, or how an accurate rifle that doesn't go bang is (or rather was) useless. Or how about development initiatives like the A-7 Corsair, where the primary contractor agreed to pay a penalty fee for every day the aircraft was late, name me a single UK development inititive with similar controls. Now of course we have the issue at hand, and I stand by my predictions for your carriers, let's see who's right.

But you negate all of that by revealing that you have allowed your dislike of my views to morph into an issue with me personally, something I find quite bizarre on discussion forums, and a sign of emotional immaturity if ever there was one. I assure you I have no such personal disdain for you. But go ahead and let your emotions get the better of you, it does seem to be in your nature.

reply posted on 14-7-2009 @ 01:51 AM by paraphi

Originally posted by Retseh
On the other hand, I cannot think of a single UK military development project that delivered on time and on budget, or if it did, it did so by fielding an inadequate piece of kit (SA80, Tornado F.2, and now of course the disastrous Bowman radio system).

The SA80 had problems which were fixed. The M16 also had problems when it was introduced and after a redesign these were fixed. Was there not a US Congress investigation spurred on by the propensity of the weapon to jam, resulting in servicemen being killed by the enemy? The introduction of successful weapons often involves a cycle of modification before the weapon is optimised.

You mentioned Astute in an earlier post, so just to mention that the involvement of US industry in the Astute programme was around improvements to the manufacture of the boats, as this was seen as a factor / risk in delays leading to cost rises. To be sensible, most major projects involve foreign companies - and that would apply to US projects too. It is the case that a US company became involved in the project which is no big deal – they just so happen to be experts.

On topic...

We have to wait and see what happens to CVF. The fact is that one is now building, so there will be at least one. Whether some people like it or not, the CVF will be highly capable and be an advanced and spacious ship, as befits the expectations of the RN crew. Whether there will be two is unknown at this time. However, the big spend will be on the aircraft to fly off the new carriers and with reported cost escalations of the F35 project, the reductions in aircraft buy may happen first.

Regards

reply posted on 15-7-2009 @ 06:41 AM by SKUNK2

Originally posted by Retseh
reply to post by Fang

I could go into detail about the suitability of the Tornado ADV with a cement nose, or the fact that the Electric Boat team did actually have to help with the final design of the Astute, or how an accurate rifle that doesn't go bang is (or rather was) useless. Or how about development initiatives like the A-7 Corsair, where the primary contractor agreed to pay a penalty fee for every day the aircraft was late, name me a single UK development inititive with similar controls. Now of course we have the issue at hand, and I stand by my predictions for your carriers, let's see who's right.

But you negate all of that by revealing that you have allowed your dislike of my views to morph into an issue with me personally, something I find quite bizarre on discussion forums, and a sign of emotional immaturity if ever there was one. I assure you I have no such personal disdain for you. But go ahead and let your emotions get the better of you, it does seem to be in your nature.

I agree with every thing you say. But i have to say one thing though, the L85A1 was rubbish because it used M16 internals. When H&K upgraded the weapon it became the most reliable assault rifle on the planet (it still is) not forgetting it is the 2nd most accurate and hard hitting 5.56mm gun.

Us British always seem to mess up big projects, its because my government is retarded. They cannot commit 100% to a project, then even if they do it turns out to be useless junk most of the time (Vector,Starstreak,Husky,Jackal). I fear that our carriers will be cancelled half way through being built, just like what happened years ago(5-10?) with that nuclear submarine which was being built. We wasted billions.....

reply posted on 15-7-2009 @ 07:01 AM by Fang

reply to post by Retseh

Everyone knows about the delay in the delivery of the Foxhunter radar and it's temporary 'Blue Circle' replacement. Once fitted and integrated, Foxhunter proved an excellent set and the Tornado an aircraft well suited to UK needs. Agile it was not, a good long range missile platform, it was. You are wrong about Astute. US help was in manufacturing organisation, particularly in integrating CAD and the production process and going back to the A7 Corsair to support an argument really is clutching at straws. Why not the Brewster Buffalo?

But none of this is the real issue. Your selective use of information and 'anecdotes' on other threads, appears to be driven solely by your contempt for Britain and all things British, something you have been very honest about and something which has even drawn comment from other US posters. But that's Fair enough.

Like most people in the UK I am uncomfortable with and suspicious of, overt displays
of patriotism, so my reaction to your posts is not borne out of a 'My country right or wrong' attitude. I would have ignored you had you not displayed a similar disdain towards other social groups. One thing history has taught us in these islands is that it is a mistake not to confront and challenge such attitudes.

Perhaps you should go back and review some of your posts. At the very least they might make you think twice about challenging other peoples emotional maturity.

Paraphi is probably right, this is a little off topic.

[edit on 15/7/09, by Fang]

[edit on 15/7/09, by Fang]

reply posted on 15-7-2009 @ 09:20 AM by deckard83

Found the article explaining the cost increase.
www.defensenews.com...

Using several shipyards for an extra 2 years was bound to cost.

reply posted on 3-8-2009 @ 02:36 PM by fritz

reply to post by Fang[/url]

I concurr Fang! The problem with Retseh is that he appears to wear his heart on his sleeve.

I've no problem with this at all. Indeed, I support England first and the UK second.

However where we differ is in my ability to accept criticism against me personally or against my country, provided that criticism is backed up by hard fact.

For Retseh:

May I respectfully suggest that you read the BTS Thread: "For people who don't like us (Americans).

I was the last poster and I think I have spelt it out as the rest of the world sees you.

[edit on 3-8-2009 by fritz]

reply posted on 3-8-2009 @ 03:33 PM by Laurauk

reply to post by fritz

Just as much I will support Scotland brfore I support the UK.

Lets get down to the nitty gritty. If you want Fritz. I am game if you are!!

reply posted on 3-8-2009 @ 03:40 PM by IAF101

Originally posted by Ulala
It's quite unbelievable that one project can see its costs rise by 25% in only a year.

£5 billion ? That's over USD$8 billion. Can't help thinking the RN would be better served by 3 Wasp class ships with any money left over being used to increase the numbers of Type 45's. That'd make for a better balanced fleet too.

Thats what you get for building things in the West these days!

A Chinese yard could have churned out 2 carriers for the same cost provided they had all the technology to do so.

With the cost of living so high in the West, manufacturing is no longer feasible, especially the kind of manufacturing that involves a lot of manpower like ship building.

reply posted on 4-8-2009 @ 10:37 AM by Retseh

reply to post by fritz

I'm not really sure what you're talking about, and have no interest in visiting other threads that don't have anything to do with building carriers or defence initiatives in general.

To be honest you just seem to be trolling.

I've made my prediction for the Queen Elizabeth class - one in service but stripped of equipment, and the second offered for sale on the international market.

Let's see what happens

reply posted on 6-8-2009 @ 01:42 AM by Ulala

The Telegraph's reporting this morning that the government are abandoning the jump jet version of the F-35 in favour of the CV version. Which should mightily please the Royal Navy, which gets a conventional aircraft carrier from day one without the need for modifications at a later date.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

reply posted on 6-8-2009 @ 01:45 AM by fritz

reply to post by Retseh[/url]

Retseh, I was not having a pop at you. Far from it. I was trying to defend your somewhat lopp-sided point of view.

By way of an explanation, I said you tend to wear your heart on your sleeve.

In other words you make your stand and, rightly or wrongly, defend the point of view you have taken, even if it sometimes appears to have taken on a my country is better than your country slant on things.

In pointing the way towards the other thread, I was trying to make you understand that everybody does not like or support the United States of America, they way you proudly do.

In other words, "My country - Right or Wrong!"

reply posted on 6-8-2009 @ 01:53 AM by fritz

Originally posted by Laurauk Just as much I will support Scotland brfore I support the UK.

Lets get down to the nitty gritty. If you want Fritz. I am game if you are!!

Let's get it on!

Hadrian got it just about right - build a bloody great wall to keep you lot out.

Scrap the Barnet Formulae and see how you lot get on without our hard earned cash.

Close Rosythe, Faslane, Gaerlochhead, Cultybraggen and all the other military bases;

Shut down all the military related industry and created jobs here in the heart of the dis-united kingdom, England.

Kick out all the money-swindling Scottish MP's and govern England for and by the English.

Need I go on?

reply posted on 6-8-2009 @ 07:10 AM by neformore

I predicted a long time ago that only one of these carriers will get built, and that the other would be "indefinitely mothballed" awaiting budgetary approval.

One thing is for sure, Britain will not - ever - scrap its nuclear deterrent. Its the difference between us being a power on the world stage and small Island off the coast of Europe.

I can see HMS Queen Elizabeth being built and commissioned, Ark Royal and Illustrious being retained and Invincible being sold.

I can also see the F-35 funding being cut - either the order will be dropped down in numbers or dropped completely.

reply posted on 2-9-2009 @ 04:47 PM by gambon

Originally posted by SKUNK2

Originally posted by Retseh
reply to post by Fang

I could go into detail about the suitability of the Tornado ADV with a cement nose, or the fact that the Electric Boat team did actually have to help with the final design of the Astute, or how an accurate rifle that doesn't go bang is (or rather was) useless. Or how about development initiatives like the A-7 Corsair, where the primary contractor agreed to pay a penalty fee for every day the aircraft was late, name me a single UK development inititive with similar controls. Now of course we have the issue at hand, and I stand by my predictions for your carriers, let's see who's right.

But you negate all of that by revealing that you have allowed your dislike of my views to morph into an issue with me personally, something I find quite bizarre on discussion forums, and a sign of emotional immaturity if ever there was one. I assure you I have no such personal disdain for you. But go ahead and let your emotions get the better of you, it does seem to be in your nature.

I agree with every thing you say. But i have to say one thing though, the L85A1 was rubbish because it used M16 internals. When H&K upgraded the weapon it became the most reliable assault rifle on the planet (it still is) not forgetting it is the 2nd most accurate and hard hitting 5.56mm gun.

Us British always seem to mess up big projects, its because my government is retarded. They cannot commit 100% to a project, then even if they do it turns out to be useless junk most of the time (Vector,Starstreak,Husky,Jackal). I fear that our carriers will be cancelled half way through being built, just like what happened years ago(5-10?) with that nuclear submarine which was being built. We wasted billions.....

Mqay i point out Hand k modified the l85 when under BRITISH ownership,and may i point out that your Nuclear carriers electronics and other systems are carried out by a BRITISh company/////

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >> ^^TOP^^