CVF contract signed

[Raesene]

starts to sing "Rule Britannia"...

from the RN website:

MOD Signs £3 Billion Contracts For Aircraft Carriers

The MOD today signed contracts with industry to build the two future aircraft carriers. The contracts, worth in the region of £3 billion, were signed with the newly-formed UK maritime Joint Venture, BVT Surface Fleet, and the Aircraft Carrier Alliance onboard HMS Ark Royal, one of the Royal Navy’s existing aircraft carriers and currently the Fleet Flagship.

Contracts authorised today encompass work worth:
£1,325M for the construction of giant sections of both ships by BVT Surface Fleet at Govan on the Clyde and Portsmouth;
£300M for the construction of giant sections of the ships at the BAE Systems yard at Barrow-in-Furness;
£675M for the bow section and final assembly and completion of the ships by Babcock Marine, with assembly taking place at Rosyth;
£425M for design and engineering for Thales UK; and
£275M for design and supply of Mission Systems for BAE Systems Integrated Systems Technologies (Insyte).

Defence Secretary, Des Browne, said:
“This is a historic day for everyone in defence. The two aircraft carriers will provide our forces with the world-class capabilities they will need over the coming decades. They will support peace-keeping and conflict prevention, as well as our strategic operational priorities.
“Today’s contract signing seals the future for thousands of jobs, and ensures that we will have a Royal Navy fit for the 21st century.”

Baroness Taylor, Minister for Defence Equipment and Support, said:
“This is truly a national project, involving companies from the Clyde to the Solent. Construction work will create or sustain around 10,000 UK jobs at the peak of production.
I am delighted that we have signed the contracts for manufacture today and I look forward to first cutting of steel for this exciting project later this year.”

The future aircraft carriers, to be named HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince Of Wales, will be the biggest and most powerful surface warships ever constructed in the UK. They will provide our forces with world-class capabilities, supporting peace-keeping, conflict prevention and our strategic operational priorities. They will be a highly versatile and potent joint defence asset, able to meet the widest range of tasks.

First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Jonathon Band, said:
“I am delighted with today’s news that the contract for the two new aircraft carriers, to be named HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince Of Wales, has been agreed and signed. These ships, with their embarked aircraft, will provide the UK with a potent and powerful aircraft carrier force that will deliver air power in support of the full range of future operations at sea, in the air and on land.”

Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy, said:
“Today’s contract signature marks an important step forward in the Carrier Strike programme. These ships will provide additional options for projecting offensive air power at a time and place of our choosing, and I very much look forward to the arrival of both the carriers and the extremely capable Joint Combat Aircraft on the frontline”.

Alan Johnston, CEO of BVT Surface Fleet, said:
“This is an important announcement for BVT and for the UK maritime industry at large, guaranteeing work for years to come across the country.
“We are looking forward to delivering these very important ships to the Fleet in the next decade and intend to begin construction work later this year.”

Once the carriers enter service in 2014 and 2016 respectively, they are expected to remain in the fleet for at least thirty years

animation video

Sky News:
Navy Orders Biggest Ever Warships
7:22am UK, Thursday July 03, 2008

Geoff Meade, defence correspondent

The Royal Navy's biggest ever warships will finally begin to take shape on Thursday with the long-awaited signing of contracts to build two new super carriers.
The ceremony, aboard HMS Ark Royal in Portsmouth, ends months of uncertainty over whether hard-pressed defence budgets could stretch to the costliest vessels ever commissioned.
The new ships, to be named Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales, will cost around £4bn to build and should both be in service in ten years' time.
At 65,000 tonnes they'll be more than three times the size of Britain's current three carriers, and dwarfed only by the US Navy's 100,000 tonne Nimitz class.
Instead of the traditional construction of laying the keel and building upwards, the new ships will be prefabricated in sections at four dockyards.
The project is expected to provide 10,000 jobs on Clydeside, Barrow and Portsmouth.
Flight decks of almost three hundred metres will give room for aircraft to take off whilst others are landing and the design of the superstructure in two separate islands will provide more aircraft space.
The ships should be able to carry 40-50 aircraft, compared with the 14 capacity of the present flat tops.
However, because the US-designed Harrier replacement may not be ready in time, it's expected that initially, air power will be provided by Britain's aging fleet of jump-jets.
The signing ceremony, by Baroness Taylor, Minister for Military Procurement, will finally end a long argument within the services over how money is shared.
Some in the Army have argued that Britain should rely on American for seagoing air support, and spend money on better armoured vehicles.
However the Navy seems to have won the battle.
Although, as the bills begin to tot up, the carriers may come at the price of fewer new submarines and escorts as the fleet gets ever smaller.

[MKSheppard]

Still room to cancel one.

[Stuart Mackey]

If they were smart they would be getting another three in addition. But we all know they wont.

[Starglider]

If they were smart they would be getting another three in addition. But we all know they wont.

The above price does not include the airgroup, crew training/recruitment or operating costs. Another three carriers plus airgroups plus crew would likely be an additional £9 billion or so even allowing for economy of scale effects. The UK's current defence budget is £37 billion/year of which £8 billion/year is capital acquisitions for all three services.

Are the benefits of another three carriers really worth that kind of money?

OTOH cutting NHS spending by just 8% (i.e. reversing a fraction of Labour's NHS bloat spending) would probably pay for them.

[Stuart Mackey]

If they were smart they would be getting another three in addition. But we all know they wont.

The above price does not include the airgroup, crew training/recruitment or operating costs. Another three carriers plus airgroups plus crew would likely be an additional £9 billion or so even allowing for economy of scale effects. The UK's current defence budget is £37 billion/year of which £8 billion/year is capital acquisitions for all three services.

Yep, and nowhere near enough resources given current commitments, typical Treasury ethic that.

Are the benefits of another three carriers really worth that kind of money?

Give you two carriers, in a pinch, to deploy quickly with a deployable reserve. But the big question is what are you defending?

OTOH cutting NHS spending by just 8% (i.e. reversing a fraction of Labour's NHS bloat spending) would probably pay for them.

Sounds familiar.... NZ Labour put a huge amount into heath, which is good, problem was that there was little visible result for it, which is bad.

[atg]

I don't really get why people in the UK are complaining about the cost of these carriers. The £3.2billion that BBC is quoting as the cost currently converts to approximately AUD$6.6billion. Australia is currently buying three destroyers for AUD$7billion. Seems like the UK is getting a much better bang for buck.

[Dalek Sec]

[/quote]cutting NHS spending by just 8% (i.e. reversing a fraction of Labour's NHS bloat spending) would probably pay for them[quote]

Cutting a small fraction of NHS spending would easily get the royal navy enougth for the carriers and and there would be enougth left to improve the rest of the fleet as well. But that would never happen. Cuts in ship numbers are unfortunatly very likely.

[Jade Falcon]

It would help the costs if the cuts in NHS spending would be in the bloated and quite overdone bureacracy.

[Starglider]

It would help the costs if the cuts in NHS spending would be in the bloated and quite overdone bureacracy.

But that would be inhumane! Surely you can't be considering actually firing civil servants? Destroying jobs? That's against all that is right and good and old labour!

Recently I find myself hating Gordon Brown's lot a little more every day.

[Jade Falcon]

But that would be inhumane! Surely you can't be considering actually firing civil servants? Destroying jobs? That's against all that is right and good and old labour!

Recently I find myself hating Gordon Brown's lot a little more every day.

I feel unclean here, but in defence of Brown, this isn't solely his fault. Blair said that he would clean out the bloated trust system way back in 1997, and it has been a problem since the Tory days.

Saying that, Blair and/or Brown should have had the balls to actually do something about it. Does a hospital really need so many junionr deputy assistant vice managers?

[Raptor]

I think everyone is starting to hate Gorden Brown more everyday. At least Blair made it sound it was getting better, and not just one pile of shit after another, is what it has seemed like for months now.

Saying that, Blair and/or Brown should have the balls to actually do something about it. Does a hospital need so many junior deputy assistant vice managers

If they did, the unions thinking of the 'patients' would strike, not of course thinking of themsleves. The NHS, is the largest employer in the WORLD for christs sake, and its bang for buck is failing, with stupid ideas coming in and out of fashion on a weekly basis.

Back to the carriers, a good idea in theory. Yet do we believe they will be delivered on time let alone budget? I worry we'll have a gap of about 2-3 years of having no carriers active. And why did we have to have STOVL carriers? Their going to be bigger than the French one, yet no cataplut, what a waste. But we shouldn't be ignoring the rest of the surface fleet. I think three smaller carriers, bigger than the current, smaller than the new ones, backed up by a more multi-role fleet. While being US and EU allies, we shouldn't depend on them soley for sea based air support (especially Europe) while MOD think is we won't go major operations without the US or Eu, we should plan for it, remember the Falklands, Sierra Leone we had no outside support, and ROE with our own forces differs from others. We should always be prepared for our own defence and actions without depending or trusting our neighbours and allies.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I actually question whether they'll even get built. In 2014, Britain will have far bigger problems to worry about than shiny ships, or any military equipment for that matter.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I actually question whether they'll even get built. In 2014, Britain will have far bigger problems to worry about than shiny ships, or any military equipment for that matter.

Once a programme is authorized, it's almost impossible to stop. Even if they're the last warships built for the Royal Navy for a seventy-five years, they will get completed.

[Jade Falcon]

The have your say section on the BBC website was full of the usual.

It took three arguments mainly.

1. The work in Scotland was 'political, undeserved and to appease Labour votes'

Answer-The Yard in Goven is owned by BAE Systems, a national, nay multinational company, not just Scottish. The Rosyth one I'm not sure of, last I heard Babcock had something to do with that.

Also Plymouth and the neglected Barrow-in-Furness yard is getting work. These numpties can't seem to consider that the carriers are built in sections simultaneously, and that the number of yards able to do the work is limited, especially as shipbuilding in the UK as a whole is much reduced. Also, there were Engineering jobs in England. Mainly it's the Daily Mail reading 'Little Englander' types that accuse the scots of anti English behaviour that do this, not seeing how hypocritical they are. We are meant to be a United Kingdom after all.

2. Money could be spent elsewhere . Three main points in the HYS are equipment for frontline troops, council housing, and last but not least, the NHS. One of the posters said the NHS is 'terminally short' of funds. No it isnt, there's more money than before, it's mostly badly used. My mum had to go to hospital twice recentl, once for a cataract operation, and another was being rushed in at 4 in the morning due to not being able to breath. Both times, care was excellent.

3. The usual loonies talking about imperialism and colonialism. So I guess Argentina was a colonial power, and Spain and Italy are since they both have mini carriers. These seem to fall under the anarchist/communist/lony fringe.

[Kanastrous]

I wonder if having spent so much on building and fitting out ships like this, the British government might not find itself encouraged to craft policy that justifies the expense.

[Sidewinder]

I second the question, "Why make a carrier that big one that can only accomodate VTOL/STOVL aircraft? Why not put in a catapult?" I know the Harrier is the only carrier-borne aircraft the RN has in service, but the gap between "Harrier that is slow as fuck, carries a picnic basket's worth in weapons, and runs out of fuel before it flies far enough that the carrier doesn't have to put itself within range of the enemy's missiles" and "Lightning II that is in development hell, which means the RN will pay an arm and a leg for shit it won't get before the middle of the next decade, if at all" can be filled by the F/A-18E Hornet or the Rafale.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I think the carriers have a provision to use a catapult if they really want to, which was why they went with a Thales design.

[Sea Skimmer]

I think the carriers have a provision to use a catapult if they really want to, which was why they went with a Thales design.

It has provisions for two catapults and arrestor gear, but unless F-35B is outright canceled the RN is never going to have to money to fit them. Catapults would be most useful for launching something better then a freaking Seaking helicopter as an AEW platform.

[Edward Yee]

I actually question whether they'll even get built. In 2014, Britain will have far bigger problems to worry about than shiny ships, or any military equipment for that matter.

Which is?

[Starglider]

I had a working lunch with the MD of a company I've done various AI projects for recently. He's an Iranian ex-pat and likes to go on about how the US is the great evil and the UK isn't far behind. This purchase came up and he was ranting about how he didn't want his tax money to be spent on 'killing machines'. Apparently the UK doesn't need a military because there is really no risk of anyone invading us. I'm serious, I actually said 'so we don't need national defence then?' and he claimed that it was unnecessary because no other world leaders would ever want to invade the first world.

I actually question whether they'll even get built. In 2014, Britain will have far bigger problems to worry about than shiny ships, or any military equipment for that matter.

Which is?

Oh come on, it's Admiral Valdemar, you know the answer. PEAK OIL IS COMING TO KILL YOUR BABIES AND NOTHING YOU CAN DO WILL STOP IT.

Fortunately I can feel smugly superior here, because the brand of catastrophism I subscribe to (unfriendly seed AI) is just so much cooler and more final than mere mass starvations and civil wars.