UK carrier policy: dumb or dumberer

[Malthus]

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.

That'd be a good tactic! Distract the enemy!   

Worked for Major Sharpe in Sharpe's Revenge. 

[KRonn]

An entire Nimitz class carrier only cost about $4 billion.  That's the same as the retrofit cost to ad catapults and arresting gear.

  Wow... Hey Brits, go with the plane that doesn't need the cats. Or just build a whole new carrier from scratch to handle catapults! It'd be cheaper.   

[grumbler]

We'd probably be better off just building "new" F-14s, F-16s, A-10s, F-15s, etc....

I ran a USN study for the next-generation strike aircraft back in the early 90s.  The choices were the F-14E, the A-6F, and the F-18 E/F (only the first having been actually built).  The F-14E was the clear winner, the F-18 E/F the clear loser.  I briefed all the way to the Defense Science Board.  The ultimate decision, of course, was to go with the clear loser. Bureaucracy has a way of defeating even the most blatant of facts.

[Ed Anger]

I miss the F-14.

[CountDeMoney]

We'd probably be better off just building "new" F-14s, F-16s, A-10s, F-15s, etc....

I ran a USN study for the next-generation strike aircraft back in the early 90s.  The choices were the F-14E, the A-6F, and the F-18 E/F (only the first having been actually built).  The F-14E was the clear winner, the F-18 E/F the clear loser.  I briefed all the way to the Defense Science Board.  The ultimate decision, of course, was to go with the clear loser. Bureaucracy has a way of defeating even the most blatant of facts.

Then I blame you.

Stoopid F/18s. 

[Admiral Yi]

The Defense Science Board threw up too many strawmen.

[FunkMonk]

The Defense Science Board threw up too many strawmen.

[jimmy olsen]

People should remember this was originally spun as a job creation scheme by the then Labour government, that it was a corporate welfare programme was an unspoken secondary reason and their value as capital ships is entirely incidental as they'll never be used in naval warfare.

I predict one will spend virtually all it's life in Portsmouth as huge museum symbol of impotence and the 2nd will never be fully completed and will probably end up as an artificial reef and diving attraction off a major seaside town. 

Given Argentina's sabre rattling and all the oil discovered in the Falklands I guarantee you they'll be finished.

[Tonitrus]

Maybe we can trade some our old, unused carriers to the British for lease on some of their islands again...like the Falklands. 

[Neil]

I miss the F-14.

Too much awesome.  And I bet you it cost a fortune in maintenance, what with the VG wings.  It was all about saving money for a while there.  Peace dividend.

[CountDeMoney]

I miss the F-14.

Too much awesome.  And I bet you it cost a fortune in maintenance, what with the VG wings.  It was all about saving money for a while there.  Peace dividend.

When the F/18s can't scramble far enough and fast enough to intercept the mega-ASMs from the Backfires, then we'll know what the real costs would be.

[Ed Anger]

VAMPIRE! VAMPIRE!

[The Larch]

People should remember this was originally spun as a job creation scheme by the then Labour government, that it was a corporate welfare programme was an unspoken secondary reason and their value as capital ships is entirely incidental as they'll never be used in naval warfare.

I predict one will spend virtually all it's life in Portsmouth as huge museum symbol of impotence and the 2nd will never be fully completed and will probably end up as an artificial reef and diving attraction off a major seaside town. 

Given Argentina's sabre rattling and all the oil discovered in the Falklands I guarantee you they'll be finished.

The UK doesn't need brand new carriers do defeat Argentina militarily.

[Viking]

I miss the F-14.

Too much awesome.  And I bet you it cost a fortune in maintenance, what with the VG wings.  It was all about saving money for a while there.  Peace dividend.

When the F/18s can't scramble far enough and fast enough to intercept the mega-ASMs from the Backfires, then we'll know what the real costs would be.

I think this is the point where I suggest that if the US Navy can't afford swing with F-14s the Russian Long Range Strategic Air Forces can't really afford their Blackjacks and Backfires. At some point the speed of those missiles reach such a level that trying to chase them down no longer made any sense.

[Brazen]

Soooo... anyone watch Newsnight last night?

UK RAF "overspent on Voyager air tanker contract by billions"

The UK Royal Air Force (RAF) is paying billions of pounds extra for the much-criticised lease of its new Voyager air-to-air refuelling aircraft, BBC Two Newsnight has claimed.

According to Newsnight, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) could have acquired 14 aircraft for a cost of GBP50 million each, instead of the GBP150 million each paid as part of a GBP10 billion leasing agreement.

Newsnight said it has seen evidence, including another buyer's contract, that the real price should be as little as GBP50 million, and expert opinion that there would be a discount available to customers buying 14 aircraft, plus an estimated GBP10 million conversion cost.
British Defence Secretary Philip Hammond defended the contract, but added: "I will go back to the MoD and look personally at what is being done around this PFI contract."

The British Government had signed a 27 year Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contract with Air Tanker, a consortium of Airbus, Rolls-Royce, Cobham, Thales, and Babcock, in 2008, despite warnings from prominent military and political figures.

As per the contract, 14 converted Airbus A330s, called Voyager by the RAF, are being leased to the military by the AirTanker for refuelling, transport, and medical flight missions, at a cost of GBP750 million each up to 2035.

Public Accounts Committee (PAC) chairwoman Margaret Hodge said: "What I now need to do is get the National Audit Office to do a further investigation of this contract."

Former Chief of the General Staff Lord Dannatt, who raised the issue of the Voyager cost with the incoming government two years ago, said: "If it does turn out to be factually correct that the MoD has paid two-to-three times more than it should have done for the same aircraft, then that is shocking."