Article

2006-11-02 Britain

UK Carriers face new delay over rising cost

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-11-02 07:49|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 That's £3.8bn for 2 carriers. That carrier pictured lost out. The Brits are going to build jump jet carriers.

A Nimitz carrier cost $5bn and carries more aircraft than the 2 Brit carriers combined, carries the E2C, nuke powered so has much more room for avgas and stores, has catapults for full fuel/full warload flights.

Posted by ed 2006-11-02 10:12|| 2006-11-02 10:12|| Front Page Top

#2 Color my face red. But the point still holds, even if they only get Nimitz carriers. Though Norm Schactman estimates the outyear cost of a Nimitz to be higher than a CVN 21. The $5billion is in historic dollars for the GHW Bush.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-11-02 10:35|| 2006-11-02 10:35|| Front Page Top

#3 The basic problem with jump jet carriers is that the planes take off with little fuel and weapons. While adequate for a defensive carrier protecting Atlantic convoys, it will be in serious danger attacking land targets. Those carriers will have no E2C, but short ranged AEW helicopters and will be within range of land based aircraft long before the the carrier's jump jets can attack the land bases. A very scary proposition that gives the British little capability to operate by themselves. They should have gone with CTOL carriers and the F-35C and limited the jump jets to the small carriers.

Posted by ed 2006-11-02 10:54|| 2006-11-02 10:54|| Front Page Top

#4 What always stopped the Russians cold was that only the US has ever mastered the ability to stabilize one of those big suckers. That is, beyond a certain size, it's like balancing an elephant doing a handstand with one foot on a bowling ball.

Right now, China is discovering the same nightmare, and I wouldn't be surprised if they build a big carrier that doesn't make it out of the harbor before it visits the bottom.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-11-02 13:06|| 2006-11-02 13:06|| Front Page Top

#5 Wow Anonymoose, I never have heard that, but when you look at the ship it makes sense. But given current design technologies I don't understand how center of gravity issues could not be overcome.

Posted by remoteman 2006-11-02 14:44|| 2006-11-02 14:44|| Front Page Top

#6 I doubt the Japanese will have any difficulty building one when they want to. Yamato was pretty tough to sink.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-11-02 14:51|| 2006-11-02 14:51|| Front Page Top

#7 Consider that Hokkaido, Honshu, Shikoku, and Kyushu are impossible to sink by any known technology.

Posted by Slaviger Angomong7708 2006-11-02 15:14|| 2006-11-02 15:14|| Front Page Top

#8 remoteman: The Russians basically gave up at anything larger than 2/3rds Nimitz class. Even then they only have one that will float in that size, the other was always too unseaworthy.

Back in the day, they had one that capsized in a still harbor on a clear day, never even making its maiden voyage out of port.

One effort led to a successful small carrier, with planes stored on deck. Unfortunately, the deck was too small for landings, with less than 50% success rates. So they cantilevered a extra section of deck, which did the trick. But then, some bureaucrat said "Extra deck space! Let's add another plane!"

Back to less than 50% successful landings.

Aircraft carriers are as much art as science. Any day now I expect the Chinese to have an awful disaster, because they, like the Russians, just figure they can slap one together.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-11-02 15:21|| 2006-11-02 15:21|| Front Page Top

#9 NS, you gotta also remember lead time in production costs and effectively mass manufacturing. These aircraft carriers (CVFs) are also essentially one off production units hence a higher per unit cost potentially. Also might want to remember none of the US nuke powered aircraft carriers have ever been sold to anyone. I'd suspect we'd rather make a new reef than even give up to Nimitz to the Brits and Aussies.

Posted by Valentine 2006-11-02 17:34|| 2006-11-02 17:34|| Front Page Top

#10 The fixed costs on the CVN 21 are estimated to be $5 billion for the class. So the first model will be $13 billion. Follow ons will be $8 billion per ship. While each one is customized from going down the learning curve, there are economies. Newport News would love to get as many orders for the class as possible.

We sold the Brits the Trident D-5 and SSBN to go with them. I think that's as close to the family jewels as a CVN, especially as they are already buying the F-35 and getting some sort of source code.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-11-02 17:40|| 2006-11-02 17:40|| Front Page Top

#11 Since they are looking to run Harriers anyway, why not sell them the LHAs or LHDs? The LHAs are scheduled for retirement beginning in 5 years, build 2 more LHDs and retire them early. Then sell them to the Brits, who would then have a Harrier carrier with the built-in amphibious assault capabilities.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2006-11-02 18:06|| 2006-11-02 18:06|| Front Page Top

#12 Heck if we started a formal replacement building program now, we could have all of the LHAs replaced in about 7 years, with SLEP run on the first two in the next 4 years. That would let us equip the British Navy with 2 Harrier carriers in 4-6 years, the Indian Navy with 2 of the same in 6-9 years, with one left over for Taiwan. And with the SLEP running about $1 billion per ship, we could sell the LHAs to them for $2 billion each, recoup all our major costs and keep our shipbuilders going for another decade.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2006-11-02 18:41|| 2006-11-02 18:41|| Front Page Top

19:47 Speng Thater
15:37 Speng Thater7808
18:12 Speng Thater
18:39 Jon Carry
18:35 Jon Carry
18:23 John Fn Kerry
23:59 Zenster
23:56 Leigh
23:49 Zenster
23:38 Zenster
23:27 Jan
23:16 Anonymoose
23:11 Zenster
23:09 Mick Dundee
23:06 Annoying Australian Guy
23:00 Jesing Ebbease3087
22:59 mcsegeek1
22:57 mcsegeek1
22:49 mcsegeek1
22:46 mcsegeek1
22:42 Abdominal Snowman
22:26 Alaska Paul
22:26 Deacon Blues
22:19 xbalanke