Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Naval Air Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales
giblets    2/9/2004 5:06:30 AM
The two Uk aircraft carriers are alreay named, and that is about the only thing that is definite at the moment. In terms of size, apparently the RN has decided that the ships are indeed going to be 280m, 65,000 toners, after previously looking at smaller 260m 55,000 toners. Apparently it was thought that to get a decent 55 tonne vessel, and keep the operational effectivness would require too much new technology and risk. The new vessels are likely to cost £5billion for the pair, which, whilst far higher than the original MOD price of £3billion, is still FAR cheaper the the USN at £6.6billion for one carrier (CVN21). It is still up in the air as to whether the French Navy will still seek to aquire a new ship based on the UK design, which could lower costs.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT
giblets    RE:HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales - Shawn   2/10/2004 6:05:10 AM
The report i read was inthe sunday times: link basically as you say there are too many risks with trying to get the same performace out of a smaller ship
 
Quote    Reply

bsl    RE:HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales - Shawn   2/10/2004 6:57:33 PM
<<'steel is cheap and air is free'.>> But bigger warships cost more. If you find someone arguing that a 65ktn carrier would cost no more than a 50ktn carrier, keep tight hold of your wallet and don't appear interested when he asks if you'd like to buy a bridge..
 
Quote    Reply

shawn    RE:HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales - Shawn   2/10/2004 7:34:06 PM
I think the argument is not that a 55kt carrier cost the same as a 60kt carrier, but more that the 65kt carrier will do more, more flexible and future proof, than the 55kt carrier for the additional cost. (I think all the prices quoted are for the pair, thus initial estimated cost of 3.9billion pounds versus the 'reality' cost of 5 billion pounds) I won't mention a certain navy's recent experience with a carrier that came out undersize, and who's cost cutting lead to a blow out in cost.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    Oblique carrier reference - Shawn   2/10/2004 7:44:13 PM
Gee shawn, I still reckon you've earnt a ticket to hell for inciting another flame war.. ;)
 
Quote    Reply

shawn    RE:Oblique carrier reference - Shawn   2/10/2004 9:22:29 PM
Really? I thought it was oblique enough that the French, Indians and Brazillians would start a flame war on which carrier I was refering to... ^_^
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    RE:Oblique carrier reference - Shawn   2/10/2004 9:26:40 PM
OMG, three free tickets to hell... lol. Must be the biorythms, you are normally as straight as a freemasons sword. ;)
 
Quote    Reply

Jack Tar    RE:HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales - BSL   2/11/2004 1:40:49 AM
<> I'm only quoting the 1SL Sir Alan West when I said 'Steel is cheap and air is free', but what do I know?!! Larger ships obviously cost more, but not by as much as we think, especially for a multi-billion pound project, and the benefits far outweigh the slightly bigger cost. Everyone else on this thread: I'm not going to get into a flame war regarding other carrier projects, BUT, you can all draw your own conclusions. ;) (hehe)
 
Quote    Reply

giblets    RE:HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales + HMS ????   2/11/2004 3:17:11 AM
The point made was that in order to get the same amount of usage (launch and recoverey rates) from a smaller ship, systems would have to be developed in order achieve this,w hich entails a lot more risk, and therefore money (especially as military projects have a tendency to balloon!). A larger ship is probably financially a safer bet for cost,a nd it is better we look at a realistic figure now, than later, when everyone will omplain about another cost overrun! As for the thrid carrier, will this not be far less likely with the increased cost? Especially if the larger ship does not create interest from the French (therefore making four sister ships).
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege    RE:HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales - BSL   2/11/2004 4:31:48 AM
< If you find someone arguing that a 65ktn carrier would cost no more than a 50ktn carrier, keep tight hold of your wallet and don't appear interested when he asks if you'd like to buy a bridge. >> I mentioned the fact that Queen Elisabeth 2 passenger liner cost 900 million $ with 120 000 t displacement.To add 15 000 t to the carrier don't cost a lot if systems are the same.
 
Quote    Reply

giblets    RE:HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales - French Strategy   2/11/2004 5:30:51 AM
Strategy, what do yout hink of the chances of France buying one of these? Especially now the price has gone up? And you last carrier was 41,000tonnes?
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy