UK carrier policy: dumb or dumberer

[Gups]

Does any other country do defence procurement as badly as the British? We'd do better just catapaulting burning bundles of £50 notes at our enemies.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/may/10/hammond-aircraft-carrier-u-turn

Philip Hammond insisted he would "not blindly pursue" a key defence programme personally endorsed by the prime minister as he announced a U-turn over the type of fighters needed for the military's two new aircraft carriers.

The defence secretary said the delays and costs of putting the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) wanted by Downing Street on the carriers were now too great, and the Ministry of Defence had accepted "our approach must change".

Putting a brave face on the decision, MoD officials admitted it was easy to be clever with hindsight, but rejected suggestions the about-face had been caused by the rush to complete the 2010 strategic defence and security review (SDSR).

In the review, David Cameron demanded the military buy the F35-C version of the JSF, which needs "cats and traps" to launch it from deck. He then mocked Labour for buying the less capable F35-B, which takes off like a harrier jump jet.

But the MoD has pirouetted again, with Hammond telling MPs the costs of converting the carriers to take "cats and traps" had risen so much, and the delays to the F35-C had become so great, it was right to revert back.

Defence officials said the MoD had already spent £40-50m to convert one of the carriers. They predicted the total cost of putting "cats and traps" on both of the new ships would total £5bn – 10 times the amount estimated in 2005.

However, a source denied Cameron's decision could be described as a mistake.

"Hindsight is an easy thing," said a senior source. "We can all make judgments about what happened last week. We know more now than we knew then. The judgment [in 2010] was a reasonable one. It is easy from this position to say we would have made a different choice." The source said further analysis of costs in recent months had shown "unexpected" problems.

In his statement to the Commons, Hammond also tried to deflect criticism from Downing Street. "The 2010 SDSR decision on carriers was right at the time, but the facts have changed."

The carrier programme has been dogged by delays and technical problems that were compounded by the decision to buy the F35-C. Though it is a better all-round fighter than its sister aircraft, putting "cats and traps" on the ships pushed up costs so much the MoD was told it would have to mothball the first of the carriers, the Queen Elizabeth, as soon as it was built.

By reverting back to the jump jet version of the JSF, which is much closer to production, the Queen Elizabeth should now be ready for operations, equipped with 12 fighters, by 2018.

The decision also means the RAF will fly the "B" version of the JSF, with each aircraft, being built by the US firm Lockheed Martin, now thought to cost between £50m and £100m.

The U-turn was supported by the heads of the three services and the chief of the defence staff, General Sir David Richards, as well as Hammond, the defence source said.

The defence secretary asked Downing Street to endorse the move in March, but was rebuffed.

During sharp exchanges at Westminster, the shadow defence secretary, Jim Murphy, accused the government of wasting two years, and claimed the government's approach was "as incoherent as it is ludicrous".

Murphy called on the prime minister to apologise for his incompetence, and questioned why the government had been in such a rush to scrap the UK's only aircraft carrier, Ark Royal, before a replacement was available.

"Standing at the dispatch box, the prime minister announced his plans to reverse Labour's carrier strike policy, scrap the Harrier, sell Ark Royal, build two carriers but mothball one, sack trainee pilots and downgrade British power at sea.

"But this U-turn has now gone full circle and nothing has been gained. Two years wasted."

The former Labour defence secretary Bob Ainsworth told MPs the government had taken the right decision. The U-turn had brought "some sanity" to the carrier programme, he said.

"But I can't go along with the excuse ... that the facts have changed," he said. "The fundamental facts were there at the time and have not changed. We have been in an extremely expensive cul-de-sac for the last 18 months as a result of a shambles of an SDSR."

Hammond said he was "not interested in trading insults about what happened in the past".

[Barrister]

I don't think it's the fault of UK military procurement, but rather the fault of the very flawed JSF program.  We've been having similar fallout over our own plan to buy the planes as well.

[Admiral Yi]

Does any other country do defence procurement as badly as the British?

Canada buys stuff from Britain that even you guys think is crap.

[Barrister]

Does any other country do defence procurement as badly as the British?

Canada buys stuff from Britain that even you guys think is crap.

In our defence we didn't actually pay any money for those subs.

[Ed Anger]

Does any other country do defence procurement as badly as the British?

Canada buys stuff from Britain that even you guys think is crap.

In our defence we didn't actually pay any money for those subs.

Beaver pelts?
55 Gallon drums of Poutine?
Celine Dion records?

[CountDeMoney]

Does any other country do defence procurement as badly as the British?

Hells yeah; look at the US budget.

[Brazen]

By trying to be all things to all people, the JSF has failed to meet anyone's requirements.

Late-stage simulations found the cats and traps wouldn't work on the target aircraft carriers as the arrestor hook was too close to the JSF wheels so it would skid off the deck and into the briny.

[CountDeMoney]

Is the jump jet version of the JSF going to possess supersonic capability?

[Grey Fox]

Seriously, that fighter jet program is such a disaster.

[MadBurgerMaker]

Is the jump jet version of the JSF going to possess supersonic capability?

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20100614/DEFSECT01/6140307/F-35B-STOVL-Fighter-Goes-Supersonic

E:  Here's the same one, BF-2, fucking around (sea trials) on the Wasp last year: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLYrHlUOudc&feature=fvwrel

E2:  Well, I guess that could be either -2 or -4, since they were both apparently there.  Doesn't really matter.

[Admiral Yi]

One of the problems with the JSF program is the way other countries were given the option of coming in at the development stage in exchange for a break on per unit price.  If you change your mind deep into the development stage you're kind of fucked.

[Josquius]

Does any other country do defence procurement as badly as the British? We'd do better just catapaulting burning bundles of £50 notes at our enemies.

Clearly we have the best black projects in the world.
There must be a working time machine beneath Milton Keynes or somesuch.

[Berkut]

Late-stage simulations found the cats and traps wouldn't work on the target aircraft carriers as the arrestor hook was too close to the JSF wheels so it would skid off the deck and into the briny.

Meh, the claims that the F-35C "won't work" are simply silly.

A problem was found in testing. That is the purpose of testing - to find problems. There is no reason to believe the problem is intractable.

The hook issue is fallout from this being the first stealth aircraft designed to land on a carrier. The tailhook has to be able to be covered up when not in use, and hence the design resulted in it being too close to that landing gear. They will fix it, and proceed.

The hysteria that "OMG THE CARRIER PLANE CAN NEVER LAND ON A CARRIER!" is silly.

[Richard Hakluyt]

I just do not understand how installing "cats and traps" can cost £2.5bn per vessel 

[MadImmortalMan]

I just do not understand how installing "cats and traps" can cost £2.5bn per vessel 

Well, not traps. I'd imagine installing the catapult would be a big deal though. I'm assuming they are steam-driven ones.