Astute cost and delays
£2.58 billion to £3.6 billion
would the increase in cost and delays have been the same if the 8 submarines been confirmed from the beginning instead of the government only slowly confirming
construction of follow on submarines.
Type 45 cost and delays
£5.47 billion to £6.46 billion
same sort of question as the one above would the ships of been cheaper if the 12 ships where being built instead of only 6 ships.
Type 23 cost
if anyone has read the UKNDA website it shows that the cost of the type 23 changed from one ship to another and i was wondering if any one knew the
reasons for why each ship price was so different.
Eurofighter
total cost could begin at £14 billion and goes on up to £29 billion.
This seems to be a large price to pay for an aircraft that until the aircraft carrier gained media attention was seen as a Cold War warrior unable to perform
half of its actual role until more money was spent on it at a later date. Why did we willingly pay so much for them
even with the increased cost and delays when we had shown a willingness to pull out of joint european projects before (horizon). Also if we remained in the program and we knew we were going to need new aircraft for our new replacement carriers did we not try
to push for a carrier capable aircraft or varient , if they had would the French have remained in the project and so push down the cost of each individual
fighter.
im probably using too much hindsight to assessing the Eurofighter .
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 coru320 |
Just a few questions for the board |
Lead | |
|
Registered Member
Posts: 10 ( 3-Jun-2008 07:34:14) |
|
||
|
Rob |
|||
|
Posts: 640 ( 3-Jun-2008 08:23:58) |
The latest (2003 or so) price was iirc 19 billion. |
||
|
CSpook |
Type 45 | ||
|
Posts: 103 ( 3-Jun-2008 09:58:17) |
I seem to recall seeing a report/article way back when T45 was first ordered, that BAE had offered the MoD to build all 12 T45 under a fixed price contract if
all ordered together. MoD rejected the deal - didn't want to commit all that cash upfront. However, had they accepted they would have had all 12 for less
than they are currently paying for six. I hope that someone might be able to find the article and convince me that this is not just my fertile imagination at
work.
|
||
|
hulahoop7 |
|||
|
Posts: 1122 ( 3-Jun-2008 11:06:18) |
Doesn't work like that though does it? BAE would have gone crying to the government at some point, and the UK tax payer would have bailed them out again.
|
||
 Zen9 |
|||
|
Posts: 3583 ( 3-Jun-2008 11:26:01) |
Astute, and T45.
A larger order would logicaly reduce the induvidual cost of each ship, though its debatable whether the total cost would be less. For Astute because as far as I can remember its being built in one shipyard, then logic says yes, this should be cheaper, in fact the last boat will be much cheaper than the first. T45 is less certain I think on that front. Eurofighter. a.k.a Typhoon 1. it is not a single use 'Cold War Relic', it is a multirole aircraft and of much needed capability. UK has no Jaguars left, no Phantoms, no Lightnings, only the ADV Tornado which is not a fighter, but a bomber destroyer. Typhoon gives the RAF a machine as fast as a Lightning, if not more, while being almost as cheap as a Jaguar to run, while being more multirole than a Phantom. The cost rises are far more the result of politics than industry. The stop in production while Tranche2 was negociated added costs, the pause in the program while Germany sought a cheaper option nearly doubled the costs and added a couple of years delay to the whole program. I could go on, but the media are very anti-british when it comes to any military aircraft as history shows. No we did'nt expect to get nice big new flexible carriers that could operate STOVL or CTOL aircraft, giving us the choice. At that time the future of the FAA was a supersonic STOVL type, by the time the CVF started it was rather late for Typhoon. Navalisation could have been considered at an earlier stage but the changes and costs would be substantial. |
||
|
Meeware |
|||
|
Posts: 1766 ( 3-Jun-2008 12:33:38) |
The cost over runs on Astute are pretty well documented, take a look at Richard Bs site for the nitty gritty. In a nutshell, Vickers took on the work with a
poor skills base, due to some extended down time. They also put in place several new construction techniques that were, in theory, far more efficient, plus a
theoretically excellent CAD CAM package. However, all those things put together turned into a collosal %%!% up, with the low point being reached when an entire
hull section was incorrectly welded up. Rumour says it was upside down, but it was definitely wrong.
Correcting that level of miss managment, brnging in US experts in CAD CAM and fixing Astute, whilst managing the huge delays on the follow on boats, meant that the cost exploded. It is on track now, and going well, but the overall number of boats ordered would not have directly impacts the issues that caused the original problems. What migh have made a difference is a more consistent drum beat of sub construction, keeping up skill levels and giving Vickers the opportunty and financial security to incrementally update their design and construction techniques. What is salutary to recognise is that this perfect storm of revolutionary construction practive, relatively low skilled workforce and critical high cost defense system is exactly what we are letting ourselves in for with the CVF super block programme. Utter idiocy if you ask me- if you think Astutue was bad, you've seen nothing yet! |
||
|
perfectgeneral |
Drumbeat for CVF | ||
|
Posts: 383 ( 4-Jun-2008 00:36:34) |
I believe it is possible to build CVF a super-block at a time over an eleven year period. If the vessel has a design life of 33 years this could lead to a
continuous drumbeat of orders for three aircraft carriers (that could be accelerated for extra orders) that are steadily updated in design and production
techniques.
This would avoid the sudden 5,000-7,000 surge in workers that building two CVF quickly requires. Roughly 1,500-2,000 would be employed continuously. I'd love to hear of any faults in this arguement. I can see that keeping the yard open all the time would cost more, but I'm sure that it still works out cheaper than the starting up costs and mothballing costs each time more carriers are needed (5,000 redundancy payments?)
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Want10Destroyers/
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/4Subs88Months/
Last Edited By: perfectgeneral
4-Jun-2008 00:41:50.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
Bledlow |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 86 ( 4-Jun-2008 09:21:35) |
perfectgeneral wrote: You still need a dockyard capable of putting together the blocks & finishing the ships. Do you intend to build all the blocks there? If so, why build
in blocks? If not, what will it be doing while the blocks are building?
|
||
|
RLBH |
|||
|
Posts: 746 ( 4-Jun-2008 10:26:25) |
Actually, on the 'why build in blocks' question - that's what modern shipyards do. Almost all ships are built in blocks, with the possible
exception of USN supercarriers; it's only that the British shipbuilding industry and/or government sees the need to shift big chunks of ship around the
country on barges.
Building in blocks makes life a lot easier for the shipyard, because more work can be done in the workshop and less needs to be done on the berth. |
||
|
Bledlow |
|||
|
Registered Member
Posts: 87 ( 4-Jun-2008 10:54:39) |
RLBH wrote: Yes, but that's on what's virtually a production line basis. Makes perfect sense in that context, but if you're building one ship over 11 years, with a dockyard which may not be doing anything else . . . . . You start getting into the problem of maintaining the blocks you've built, & maybe having to overhaul them before assembly. Also, you can't complete them to the level of blocks which will be assembled as soon as finished, as you'll have to keep much of the ship vacant for the equipment you'll fit at the end, but which hasn't been developed when you start building. You see? The slowness of the build has already negated many of the advantages of block building. BTW, it isn't just the UK. The French, Danes, etc. have recently had the simpler blocks of their warships built in E. Europe.
|
||
|
Nathan |
CV dockyard | ||
|
Posts: 2259 ( 4-Jun-2008 14:04:37) |
But why would you want a dockyard that only builds carriers? The RN/RFA has a need for other large ships too: LPD, LPH/LHDs and the bigger RFAs. We also need
to refit the carriers.
With hindsight we should have built a new yard at the end of the Cold War, preferably in Portsmouth or Devonport with 2 dry docks capable of taking CVF sized ships. By now it would have built Ocean, Albion & Bulwark (or preferably 2 x 30-40k ton LHDs), the Waves, Bays and be starting work on CVF. For MARS it could take cheap foreign built large hulls and convert/finish them for semi-military use. We'd have the ideal site for CVF refits too. I think you can still achieve a decent tempo and sustainable drumbeat of large ship (ie. much bigger than a DDG) work - if you look at the wider picture without having to resort to extreme measures like a dedicated yard for CVs building one every 11 years or more. |
||
- Battleship Vs Battleship
- Should Battleships Be Back In Service?
- The United States Navy
- The Royal Navy
- The European Navies
- The Commonwealth Navies
- The Asian Navies
- Aircraft Carriers
- Fighting Ships Of The World
- Submarines
- Designing A Navy/Ship
- The Land Forces
- The Air Forces
- The Naval Fiction Board
- The Politics Of War
- Naval Help
