Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United Kingdom Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: VT, BAE to finalise JV after MoD gives go-ahead to Navy Carriers
DragonReborn    5/20/2008 2:45:52 PM
So the Carriers still looking pretty certain then? But will we have much to fly off them once their built?? h!!p://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2008/05/20/afx5029874.html ONDON (Thomson Financial) - VT Group Plc. and BAE Systems Plc. (other-otc: BAESF.PK - news - people ) will launch their long-awaited joint venture to combine their shipbuilding and naval support operations after the UK Ministry of Defence approved a project to build two aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy, the companies said Tuesday. The two groups said they would finalise arrangements for the venture, which has been on hold while they awaited the MoD's go-ahead for the carriers. There had been speculation that the 4 billion pound CVF carrier project, first announced last July, might fall victim to defence spending cuts. BAE and VT said they expect to sign the JV transaction documentation shortly. The agreement will then be subject to VT shareholder approval. BAE chief executive Mike Turner said: 'This is an important milestone in the development of the CVF programme and plays a major part in the long term sustainability of the UK naval sector and the transformation of our business. 'The programme will provide a strong order book and forward workload over the coming years and, most importantly will provide our armed forces with significantly enhanced capability.' In a separate statement, the MoD said it had completed all the necessary financial, commercial, and management arrangements for the project, adding that the super aircraft carriers will be the biggest and most powerful surface warships ever constructed in the United Kingdom. The new VT-BAE joint venture will be a key member of the Aircraft Carrier Alliance which will construct and assemble the new carriers at shipyards in Portsmouth, Barrow-in-Furness, Glasgow and Rosyth, said the MoD. Other members of the alliance include Bab International Group Plc. and Thales (other-otc: THLEF.PK - news - people ) UK. Bab said the contract will be worth some 600 million pounds to Bab through the duration of the programme to 2015. Thales said the contract will be worth well over 500 million euros to the group. 'We are delighted with the decision which has been taken today. We have been working on the programme since the very beginning and the design which has been processed so far is a Thales design,' said CEO Denis Ranque. VT is also awaiting a government decision on a 6 billion pound military flight training contract and last week said it and Lockheed Martin (nyse: LMT - news - people ) were expecting to reach a financial close on the project before the end of May.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25   NEXT
Herald12345       5/21/2008 10:45:53 PM

As if Raytheon or Boeing aren't as bad.

Raytheon? RAYTHEON? Have you seen what' they've been doing recently? They are a shining beacon of HOPE in the wasteland of American technology.

I'm sure we could find some rubbishness anywhere if we looked hard enough.

Not as likely as you would at Thales, or if you looked at those manager losers at LockMart,  but I tend to agree.

Could have been worse though. Northrop and GD are hardly shining examples of boat building at the moment.

Too right about that.
Herald

 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer       5/22/2008 6:11:35 AM
Actually one of the key aspects of the design is to learn from cruise ship designs in terms of habitability, cost effective 'hotel' facilties and all the things that traditional naval ship designers are not very good at.  Presumably Thales has something to offer from French cruise ship construction.  The goal here is to reduce operating costs and have a far smaller crew that US carriers. Other aspects of the design seems to have been developed by MoD dealing with expert naval architects and system engineers to ensure the task of operating a floating airfield is as efficiently as possible.  Then there's the whole construction thing of building the ships in larger chunks and assembling them.  This is actually an area where there is a lot of UK expertise, probably as much as anywhere else, it come from the mega structures of the offshore oil industry, and BAE and VT have been working together in a far smaller but similar way on T45. 
 
I'd also suggest that MoD has a heavy weight IPT in place, with talent from all over, not just defence people.  Their risk management is getting quite good, but the remaining risk area is the ability of the wider defence organisation to act sensibly when the inevitable issues emerge that need resolution.  In the end this will come down to the IPT leader and his SRO, particularly thee latter's ability to keep the wider stakeholders on track.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       5/22/2008 11:18:38 AM


Actually one of the key aspects of the design is to learn from cruise ship designs in terms of habitability, cost effective 'hotel' facilties and all the things that traditional naval ship designers are not very good at. 

Have you looked at the end-user track history of those cruise ships, friend? Fires, sinkings, and explosions.  Real good engineering expertise there. US naval standards are there FOR A REASON.

Presumably Thales has something to offer from French cruise ship construction.  The goal here is to reduce operating costs and have a far smaller crew that US carriers.

After the Chuckles de Gaulle, the Laugh-it-ups and the Forbin debacle,  how can you write that sentence with a straight face? There are goals and there are goals.  You cannot  trade off one characteristic without paying for another in a warship-usually the tradeoff is in BLOOD.


Other aspects of the design seems to have been developed by MoD dealing with expert naval architects and system engineers to ensure the task of operating a floating airfield is as efficiently as possible.

There is NOTHING the French know about aircraft carrier operations that they've invented or discovered. NOTHING. Britain's expertise is historical and may not be current. I can see numerous design mistakes in the QEs from where I sit and realize that Britain's naval architects have badly bungled the QEs design. The size of the hanger footprint and the way you've run the exhaust stacks from your engines in your carrier design are two GROSS indicators. Flight deck layout for STOVL or CTOL is a JOKE, the way you've designed the takeoff runs. You make the ship a HUGE radar target by the way the TWO islands are sited, etc.  And that is just the obvious design gaffes. I hate to see what the pitch roll on that top-heavy design looks like.

 Then there's the whole construction thing of building the ships in larger chunks and assembling them.  This is actually an area where there is a lot of UK expertise, probably as much as anywhere else, it come from the mega structures of the offshore oil industry, and BAE and VT have been working together in a far smaller but similar way on T45. 

 Big deal. Visit Pusan or Newport News, or  Kobe.

I'd also suggest that MoD has a heavy weight IPT in place, with talent from all over, not just defence people.  Their risk management is getting quite good, but the remaining risk area is the ability of the wider defence organisation to act sensibly when the inevitable issues emerge that need resolution.  In the end this will come down to the IPT leader and his SRO, particularly thee latter's ability to keep the wider stakeholders on track.

In simple English, you suffer from the same problems we do, your MoD equivalent to out PEO, has its collective head up its collective ass.  And you actually believe those folks when they tell you they know what they are doing.

All the more remarkable, since the Daring [EXAMPLE] is such an outstanding AAW escort, armed with the WORST naval SAM ever fielded and THEY let that mistake happen.


Herald

 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer       5/23/2008 1:09:46 AM
It appears that CVF is being designed for a crew of some 1450, this seems fairly small for a ship of this size and function, I think this is about 1/3 the USN's size for ships that are neither 3 times the displacement nor 3 times the size of airgroup.  On of the ways of achieving this is by learning from cruise ship practice in minimising crewing requirements for operating the ship and efficient habitability (and for the underinformed MoD stated this a year or so back, so they clearly think they're onto something).  
 
It also seems that Thales is responsible is for the design of the ships' air operations, not the ship per se, although air ops are clearly the key issue.  It's interesting that it's expressed in these terms.  Somewhere I've seen something about the daily sortie rate required, but can't remember the numbers and have no idea how this compares with USN practice or whether its 3 times the CVF sortie rate.  Clearly efficient use of man(& woman) power is an issue here as well.
 
Navies are often very conservative organisations.  However, UK is making increasing use of commercial type standards for some aspects of their larger warships (eg Ocean) and seems to be concluding that this is value for money and does not compromise their naval role.
 
Perhaps CVF is causing panic in some quarters. after all if UK with no expertise can do it just imagine what those fiendishly cunning Chinese will come up with :-)
 
Quote    Reply

prometheus       5/23/2008 5:22:57 AM



Thales has its criminal mits in this disaster in the making.

You will BITTERLY regret this mistake.

Herald



You may well be right Herald. We're not experienced any more at constructing Carriers, and the build strategy and consortium certainly seems complex.

 

Personally I have come to the conclusion that they are over-ambitious. We don't have the aircraft, the pilots, the crew or the money to run to equip and run them properly. Until 2018 or so, they will have Harrier GR9's and goodness knows when the Sea King ASAC's will be replaced. It's all a bit third rate really.

 

I feel that we should have replaced the Invinceable's with a ship closer to the size and function of your Wasp class (or our old Hermes) with a load of say 6 fighters and 20 helicopters. That's far more realistic and affordable than the Queen Elizabeth's.  

 

Our failure in Iraq (with Afghanistan going the same way of being a mixture of small tactical successes but overall strategic failure) shows that the UK simply can't cut it any longer. Compared to the efforts you Yanks are making, we've become an irrelevent joke. I'm not sure I care too much as I never agreed with Iraq anyway, but when I hear that the Iraqi Prime Minister dislikes us because we released prisoners so the the gangs in Basra would let 4th Rifles retreat to the airport without being shot at, it kind of brings home what a shower we have become.


The type of carrier you propose offers no more capability than the current invincibles, which, while having shown sterling service, are extremely limited in terms of it's flexibility, the air wing you propose is worse than useless, those six fighters could neither defend the ship, let alone a task force, nor allow for any decent strike force.
There is nothing overly ambitious about the QEs, they are the right kind of carrier we should have been building since the Ark royal was scrapped in 78. The availability of the airwing is now in the hands of LM/BAE/NG to get aircraft into producton for 2014. While the FAA does currently have problems with keeping pilots, the RAF does not, the basic experience required to operate STOVL aircraft is still there and the naval air wings can be rebuilt as the F-35 comes into production, even if it means operating a mostly RAF air wing for a while. 
 
As for the Iraq/Afghanistan thing, the British are still in there, while the UK and US may disagree on a lot of things in Iraq, it's still worth noting that the Iraqi army that fought in Basra recently was trained by the British and supported by both British and US artillery/air support, not such an inconsequential role to have played. Afghanistan is far from finished, it is not just the role of the British, those forces are performing well on the ground by all accounts - if NATO fails in south asia it will be the fault of all, not just the British.
 
Hardly a shower yet.
 
Quote    Reply

Wicked Chinchilla       5/23/2008 10:18:18 AM

 

Perhaps CVF is causing panic in some quarters. after all if UK with no expertise can do it just imagine what those fiendishly cunning Chinese will come up with :-)



This is a rather foolish statement.  For one, The British do have historical experience even if they are making a cock of it with the QE class currently so that comparison is just very incorrect. 
 
Secondly, why would the U.S. be in a panic over the CVF?  Because it might bruise our ego?  After all its not like the Brits and U.S. are going to fight one another anytime in the forseeable (and good ways past it) future.  The U.S. would much rather have a well-designed and optimum functioning carrier for the British than not since it might actually relieve some pressure from its own carrier fleet.  Not to mention when the allies deploy together a better carrier has a greater chance of making a comparitively meaningful contribution vs. what foreign carriers are actually able to do currently. 
 
Thirdly, in reference to the Chinese, a floating airfield does not a carrier make.  No matter how ambitious they are everyone screws up their first attempts (and even the later ones with the QE's apparantly...)  Not to mention the fact that you also need an aviation group properly trained.  You need all the expertise of deck management, arms management, ship management etc.  We are talking about a carrier here not a destroyer or what not, a carrier.  Completely different skillset of which the Chinese have no experience and every other nation on Earth has limited modern experience with the exception of the United States.
 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       5/23/2008 12:04:49 PM
I'd like to see an objective explanation of why the QE class is so terribly bad.

No doubt I'll get an explanation from Herald but it won't be terribly, if at all, objective. If it isn't a stream of invective.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Now FK, about invective.   5/23/2008 12:55:37 PM

I'd like to see an objective explanation of why the QE class is so terribly bad.

No doubt I'll get an explanation from Herald but it won't be terribly, if at all, objective. If it isn't a stream of invective.

You aren't a fool. The question is a very good one, As for the explanation: I gave one about the Charles de Gaulle about a year ago. That explanation includes the QEs as a carrier design example. 

I 'll try to dig  it up and provide a current version.

But for now there are some things that drove the QE design decisions.

-One is cost. These carriers are simplified as much as the RN dares to make their construction CHEAP.
-Another is the Falklands experience where the RN learned some lessons about fleet air defense that are DIFFERENT from what the USN has learned. That affected the Queen Elizabeth's designs radically
-The last is inter-service politics. For some reason, the RAF had to put its two cents into the process.

More later, but the design choices finally made as i pointed out were compromises-in some cases good, in most cases bad.

Herald
 
Quote    Reply

interestedamateur       5/23/2008 2:40:27 PM






Thales has its criminal mits in this disaster in the making.

You will BITTERLY regret this mistake.

Herald



You may well be right Herald. We're not experienced any more at constructing Carriers, and the build strategy and consortium certainly seems complex.

Personally I have come to the conclusion that they are over-ambitious. We don't have the aircraft, the pilots, the crew or the money to run to equip and run them properly. Until 2018 or so, they will have Harrier GR9's and goodness knows when the Sea King ASAC's will be replaced. It's all a bit third rate really.

 I feel that we should have replaced the Invinceable's with a ship closer to the size and function of your Wasp class (or our old Hermes) with a load of say 6 fighters and 20 helicopters. That's far more realistic and affordable than the Queen Elizabeth's.  


Our failure in Iraq (with Afghanistan going the same way of being a mixture of small tactical successes but overall strategic failure) shows that the UK simply can't cut it any longer. Compared to the efforts you Yanks are making, we've become an irrelevent joke. I'm not sure I care too much as I never agreed with Iraq anyway, but when I hear that the Iraqi Prime Minister dislikes us because we released prisoners so the the gangs in Basra would let 4th Rifles retreat to the airport without being shot at, it kind of brings home what a shower we have become.


The type of carrier you propose offers no more capability than the current invincibles, which, while having shown sterling service, are extremely limited in terms of it's flexibility, the air wing you propose is worse than useless, those six fighters could neither defend the ship, let alone a task force, nor allow for any decent strike force.
There is nothing overly ambitious about the QEs, they are the right kind of carrier we should have been building since the Ark royal was scrapped in 78. The availability of the airwing is now in the hands of LM/BAE/NG to get aircraft into producton for 2014. While the FAA does currently have problems with keeping pilots, the RAF does not, the basic experience required to operate STOVL aircraft is still there and the naval air wings can be rebuilt as the F-35 comes into production, even if it means operating a mostly RAF air wing for a while. 

 As for the Iraq/Afghanistan thing, the British are still in there, while the UK and US may disagree on a lot of things in Iraq, it's still worth noting that the Iraqi army that fought in Basra recently was trained by the British and supported by both British and US artillery/air support, not such an inconsequential role to have played. Afghanistan is far from finished, it is not just the role of the British, those forces are performing well on the ground by all accounts - if NATO fails in south asia it will be the fault of all, not just the British.

Hardly a shower yet.
With regard to the Carriers Prometheus, I would argue that I'm simply being realistic. I agree with your point about my ideas being no more effective than the Invincable's, but we can barely find the money for the new carriers, let alone their escorts, systems, crews, aircraft etc etc.. If we can't do it properly then why bother? Buy something more realistic and act accordingly (or to put it another way cut your coat to the size of your cloth).
As for the army, I'm not denigrating our individual soldiers. Funnily enough I don't even blame our politicians since to really pull our weight in Afghanistan and Iraq would require conscription and vast expenditure. The problem is that they haven't really been effective in either of those countries - and in fact I would argue that they've failed. We British seem to have this mentality that the army is really great and we can still pull our weight in the world, whereas events are now conclusively showing that we can't.

 
Quote    Reply

flamingknives       5/23/2008 3:22:54 PM
According to NATO, as of 1st April 2008, the UK has 7750 troops in Afghanistan, which is twice what anyone else has (apart from the US) and roughly 40% of the US commitment. The US being 5 times the population and 7 times the military expenditure of the UK.

Granted the US has a much larger commitment in Iraq, but then they're not working on a peacetime budget anymore, while the UK is. 

If you want an example of not pulling weight, try:
Germany,
France,
Italy,
Spain
Ireland.

 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics