British carriers may shrink..

[MKSheppard]

ROFLFOLOL
ROFLFOLOL
ROFLFOLOL
ROFLFOLOL
ROFLFOLOL
ROFLFOLOL
ROFLFOLOL
ROFLFOLOL


Get Story Here

BAE says it cannot build ships to budget
By Mark Odell
Published: July 14 2003 5:00 | Last Updated: July 14 2003 5:00


The Royal Navy may have to accept a sharp reduction in the size of its two new aircraft carriers after BAE Systems warned it could not build the designs to budget.

The company, which is Britain's biggest defence contractor, has told the Ministry of Defence that it would cost up to £4bn to construct the pair, compared with the £2.8bn costing in January.

BAE won the lead role on the programme to build the warships - the biggest ever to be built in Europe - after a bitter battle with Thales of France.

The navy has been told there are no more funds available. So to meet the original budget, planners have been asked to consider designing smaller and less sophisticated ships.

One MoD official said: "The choice is bleak. We either find more money or we build smaller carriers."

Any move to shrink the ships would reduce their effectiveness and ability to "project power" around the world.

Instead of carrying up to 48 aircraft each, as planned, each vessel could carry as few as 20. This reduction could also affect the UK's commitment to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter - a joint programme with the US - which will be carried on the ships.

Tony Blair was planning this week to use the unprecedented level of US-UK co- operation on the F-35 to convince George W. Bush, US president, to ease restrictions on the sharing of sensitive defence technology. Such a move would make it easier for BAE to merge with an American defence company.

The MoD said the review was "normal" at this stage of the procurement cycle. It denied that the capability of the ships would be reduced. "Regardless of the final decision we are confident that the carriers will be able to fulfil the requirements identified in the SDR [strategic defence review]."

The government's decision to split the carrier contract earlier this year was denounced as a fudge by critics. Although BAE is leading the programme it was forced to build the ships to Thales' design. Over 40 years the contract will be worth about £9.2bn, including support and maintenance.

The scale of the budget overrun raises fresh doubts about BAE's ability to manage big defence contracts. Earlier this year taxpayers were forced to pay £700m to bail the company out on cost overruns on the Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft and Astute submarine programmes.

But rival industry executives and MoD officials say the government's decision to force BAE to build the ships to the Thales design is largely to blame.

The government is also expected this week to make a decision on whether to award a multi-billion pound contract for Hawk fighter jets to BAE.

[kojikun]

::grumble::

[Montcalm]

Smaller carriers is still better than no carrier at all,see Canadian navy.

[kojikun]

Smaller carriers is still better than no carrier at all,see Canadian navy.

Canadian what now?

I'd like to know how britain can't find the money..

[Xenophobe3691]

Wow. This is the first time I've heard of Defence contracts being cut short. Don't they scrimp on Education to pay for these? Or is that just in the US?

[Montcalm]

Smaller carriers is still better than no carrier at all,see Canadian navy.

Canadian what now?

I'd like to know how britain can't find the money..

"Watch it freakazoid"

[Stravo]

So the British want to start projecting power? You can't do that unless you're willing to spend money to do it. The US Navy of today ain't cheap. BTW is this a victory for US naval phiolosohy of the 20th century that the other major European powers want to emulate it now?

[Vympel]

So the British want to start projecting power? You can't do that unless you're willing to spend money to do it. The US Navy of today ain't cheap. BTW is this a victory for US naval phiolosohy of the 20th century that the other major European powers want to emulate it now?

With only sufficient deck space for 48 fighters, I'd hardly call that a sincere form of flattery to the supercarriers

[MKSheppard]

With only sufficient deck space for 48 fighters, I'd hardly call that a sincere form of flattery to the supercarriers

Considering that the Invincibles can only carry 12 Harriers, I'd say a 48
plane air wing is a big boost

[kojikun]

isnt it safer to have multiple smaller ships then one big one carrying your planes? more targets, more missiles..

[RadiO]

So the British want to start projecting power? You can't do that unless you're willing to spend money to do it. The US Navy of today ain't cheap.

Do me a favour... Phone the British government and tell them that, if they still want our armed forces to get involved in every US and UN operation going, they'll have to get busy with the cheque book.
The war in Iraq was something like the fifth shooting war (or operation, whatever) Britain has been involved with since Blair came into power... and yet his government is still cutting back on defence. Doesn't make sense.

BTW is this a victory for US naval phiolosohy of the 20th century that the other major European powers want to emulate it now?

Yes and no. Historically the RN has operated mid-to-large carriers for power projection and defensive work, and it did not lose that capability by choice.
The current plan appears to be intended to create a carrier force that can:
A) work with US forces on something like an equal level
and
B) allow Britain to "go it alone" with greater capability than is currently the case.
The European connection at the moment seems tenuous; the only other country with a true CV is France, which has always maintained a CTOL carrier force. But then, most of the British armed forces' work with their mainland counterparts is primarily done though NATO rather than the EU. That may change, of course.

[Stravo]

So the British want to start projecting power? You can't do that unless you're willing to spend money to do it. The US Navy of today ain't cheap.

Do me a favour... Phone the British government and tell them that, if they still want our armed forces to get involved in every US and UN operation going, they'll have to get busy with the cheque book.
The war in Iraq was something like the fifth shooting war (or operation, whatever) Britain has been involved with since Blair came into power... and yet his government is still cutting back on defence. Doesn't make sense.

FIVE shootiung actions?? WOW, I had no idea. Is Blair a Conservative or Labor? (I'm ashamed I don't know but I vaguely recall that he and Clinton got along very well on a personal level because they shared the same basic politcal philosphy and that that same personal relationship is missing between he and Bush.

I wonder if Britain's emphasis on their relationship with the US is in some way a response to the impending unity with the EU. I know there's been a lot of grumbling in GB about joining the EU. Perhaps by aligning themslevces so strongly with the US they are sort of trying to preserve a sense of identity.

[Vympel]

isnt it safer to have multiple smaller ships then one big one carrying your planes? more targets, more missiles..

Not really. Smaller ships means less room for essential equipment like sensors and self defense weapons, as well as less endurance.

[Tsyroc]

Wow. This is the first time I've heard of Defence contracts being cut short. Don't they scrimp on Education to pay for these? Or is that just in the US?

Maybe the problem is that the Brits have picked up some bad US defense industry accounting habbits. Now if they go through there and change the prices on all the toilet seats and hammers to what they really cost I bet they'll be closer to their original budget.

[Montcalm]

Wow. This is the first time I've heard of Defence contracts being cut short. Don't they scrimp on Education to pay for these? Or is that just in the US?

Maybe the problem is that the Brits have picked up some bad US defense industry accounting habbits. Now if they go through there and change the prices on all the toilet seats and hammers to what they really cost I bet they'll be closer to their original budget.

You`ve been watching ID4 again hmm

[Iceberg]

isnt it safer to have multiple smaller ships then one big one carrying your planes? more targets, more missiles..

Larger ships take more missiles to sink, have better subdivision, more self-defense weapons (Nimitz carries three CIWS, three ESSM and two RAM to Invincible's three CIWS and no missile self-defense systems) and provide a larger CAP, which benefits all ships of the battlegroup.

[Xenophobe3691]

Wow. This is the first time I've heard of Defence contracts being cut short. Don't they scrimp on Education to pay for these? Or is that just in the US?

Maybe the problem is that the Brits have picked up some bad US defense industry accounting habbits. Now if they go through there and change the prices on all the toilet seats and hammers to what they really cost I bet they'll be closer to their original budget.

You`ve been watching ID4 again hmm

Hey, it isn't as bad as NASA, I can tell you that

[NecronLord]

So the British want to start projecting power?

Start? Ugh, Americans... no conception of what really goes on in europe. (no offense)

[Stravo]

So the British want to start projecting power?

Start? Ugh, Americans... no conception of what really goes on in europe. (no offense)

None taken, but just when precisely was Europe even trying to project power in the last twenty years??

[NecronLord]

None taken, but just when precisely was Europe even trying to project power in the last twenty years??

When it last wanted half the world calling it the great satan and the other half waiting for it to become weak, and when they wanted massive and futile commitments of troops to stop terrorism caused by the above policy. IE never, we've done the whole colonialism thing, it doesn't work.

[0.1]

I wonder why they don't consider retrofitting some of their older SSBNs with cruise missiles. I believe the older class (don't remember the name right off the bat) can carry 16 SLBMs, now wasn't there some thought about retrofitting the Ohios so that they could do 4 cruise missiles or so in place of each SLBM? The Brits ought to think along the same route.

Carriers are great in that they have recallable weapon platforms that can be on station for days on end, but the costs are quite excessive once you toss in the need for escorts and so forth.

Cruise missile armed SSBNs would be a more economical way of projecting force. You don't need multiple ships guarding, you may need one SSN in attendance, but the rest of the world isn't all that good on ASW (at least, none of the traditional opponents that the Brits will have to face). The only potential question is an issue of resupply, the Brits will probably have to have some means of resupplying cruise missiles once the munitions are expended, may be a milch cow like the Germans had in WWII.

[Iceberg]

You can't project power with SSNs or SSGNs - a submarine is a potent power-denial weapon, but it lacks the awesome Presence of a battleship or a carrier. Visibility of threat is necessary for power projection, and submarines by nature of their mission are invisible.

[0.1]

Please note I did say project force. I don't see any reason why the Brits would need to project power. They have the Americans to do that for them. Let's face it, the Brits and the Americans have in general the same foreign policies. Power projection comes down to money, and the Brits no longer have their strategic bases located all over the world as they once did.

Economically speaking, the Brits are no longer as capable as they once were. Presence is all well and good, but what do the Brits need presence for? Their present navy with the Invincible and Ocean class more than adequate in their missions parameters. The only reason to have a carrier command is to rival the French and may be the Russians. And what is the good of having a French carrier or a Russian carrier that's never used and are easily dwarfed both in number and size by their American counterparts.

[NecronLord]

To clarify on the above. Europe has no need of a power projection policy. We don't need to project our power on anyone, european millitaries serve a defensive/peacekeeping role.

The point of power projection is to get what you want by intimidation. Frankly, having everyone terrified of the US is better for the EU than having them terrified of the EU. The US does the blowing-things-up, and gets the resultant mistrust/ill-feeling/terrorism, and this causes nations to be more favourably disposed to the EU than the US, with allows the EU to reap in the profits in trade.

[0.1]

Nerconlord,

Surely you are not saying that if the U.S. (all of it) went away today, there won't be someone in the EU that tries to fill that power vacuum and become the next superpower. The only reason the EU nations are in that defensive/peacekeeping role today is essentially because they've put themselves into that position thanks to the last century. But take away the top dog, and nations of the EU will inevitably vie for superpower status. Perhaps they'll do it together, but until the Germans own all of France again, that will not likely happen.