Reply With QuoteDon't forget what the T-45's were built for! We can sit those in the north to prevent an 'arctic circle invasion'Originally Posted by CMN
Ah thanks for that, never thought about the stress of long term use
As for the £400M to upgrade the carriers, i thought they were designed to use the EMCATS and it was just a matter of installing them, the R&D cant be that much for them and if it was couldn't we buy them off the yanks.
Don't forget what the T-45's were built for! We can sit those in the north to prevent an 'arctic circle invasion'
Designed for them, yes, but it's a brand new technology (on this scale at least), and everything from the software costs to building something designed to withstand constant movement on all axis for ~50 years is no mean feat. Often it's the simple things that'll catch you out in naval architecture. If you've ever wanted a new bit of software for whatever company you work for, you'll be utterly gobsmacked at what they quote you for something that doesn't exist in physical form. Steel has long been the cheapest component of shipbuilding (which is why I'm always irritated by those who say ''let's scrap the QE class, and design a couple of smaller cheaper ships'').Ah thanks for that, never thought about the stress of long term use
As for the £400M to upgrade the carriers, i thought they were designed to use the EMCATS and it was just a matter of installing them, the R&D cant be that much for them and if it was couldn't we buy them off the yanks.
I've no doubt we're sharing info with the yanks, various UK companies are the world leaders in electo-magnetic and electro-motive technologies, which puts us in a very strong position (the French wanted conventional cats in their CVF because they lack the industrial experience to make the venture worthwhile). However, the US system is designed solely for the Ford class, and to be retrofitted to the later Nimitz's. They are to different dimensions, with different power requirement, different manning requirements etc.. You can't simply take an exhaust from a Rolls-Royce, and slap it onto a Maseratti, if you see what I mean.
That makes sense, thanks
Also my materials teacher would be proud of you hes has been saying since day one that steel is cheap when compared to other building materials
Strategic defence review to prioritise cyber security
A major increase in resources devoted to combating the threat posed by internet attacks will feature in next week's strategic defence and security review, the government's cyber tsar signalled today. Neil Thompson, director of the Office for Cyber Security, spoke of a "step change" in the government's approach to the threat. Cyber attacks were "cheap, quick, and deniable", he said. Thompson was addressing a Royal United Services Institute conference on the future of the "critical national infrastructure" – utilities such as gas, water and the National Grid – a day after Iain Lobban, director of GCHQ, the government's eavesdropping and encoding centre, warned of a "real and credible" threat of cyber attack on Britain's infrastructure.
Full Article: guardian.co.uk
http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/1...port_2010.aspx
Ministry of Defence: The Major Projects Report 2010
Central departmental decisions by the Ministry of Defence to try to balance the defence budget have reduced its cash-flow requirements in the short-term but at a long-term cost that represents poor value for money for the taxpayer. According to today’s National Audit Office report, not making realistic budgetary provision for all likely project outcomes and slowing down projects have resulted in a £3.3 billion increase in a single year, 2009-10, in the total cost of the 15 largest defence equipment projects.
[...]
The MOD did not make realistic budgetary provision for all potential costs, for example, on the Typhoon combat aircraft where the Department decided that it needed to spend £2.7 billion on the programme including the purchase of 16 additional aircraft to meet contractual agreements. It has slowed down projects such as the Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers, leading to further project cost growth of £650 million. And, to address cost overruns, the Department has also reduced the number of items, and therefore capability, to be procured. For example, Nimrod MRA4 reconnaissance aircraft numbers have progressively reduced from 21 to nine, making the aircraft’s unit cost three times the figure originally expected.
Yep, sounds like the Labour years alright. Chronic underfunding, fudged PFI deals, constant delays, cuts and alterations to requirements, and add to that an endless game of musical chairs of Secretaries of Defence...all in all a wonderful mess that they sh*t onto the lap of the new government. I really do not envy Liam Fox, he has a mountain of work to do to bring the MoD back into shape, but hopefully he can bring some much needed reform and stop the rot. It simply cannot be allowed that 10 or more percent of the defence budget be p$ssed down the drain year on year for nought.
Interesting piece in the Times today, written by Liam Fox himself.
It revealed some shocking statistics about Labour's mismanagement of defence. It also stank to me of someone trying to soften the coming blow by shifting blame. He basically said; this is gonna hurt, but they made me do it!
A few lines from it here:
http://www.defencemanagement.com/new...y.asp?id=14444
(I refuse to subscribe to the online Times, so no full article I'm afraid)
Couple of news for you Brits:
Article continued @ FlightglobalNew arrival boosts RAF's Reaper fleet
By Craig Hoyle
The UK Royal Air Force has taken delivery of the last General Atomics Aeronautical Systems MQ-9 Reaper unmanned air vehicle funded under an urgent operational requirement deal to support coalition operations in Afghanistan.
Referred to by the RAF as a remotely piloted air system, the Reaper air vehicle was delivered to Kandahar airfield in late September using one of the service’s Boeing C-17 strategic transports. It is due to enter use this month.
Article continued @ FlightglobalAirTanker: FSTA preparations on track
By Craig Hoyle
Preparations to field the UK’s Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) are on track, with the first two sponsored reservist pilots recruited and 11 military engineers having recently been selected to support the Royal Air Force’s fleet of modified Airbus A330-200s.
An eventual 14 of the aircraft will be based at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire starting from late next year, having been ordered via a roughly £10.5 billion ($16.8 billion) private finance initiative deal to run until at least 2035.
The EADS UK-led AirTanker Services consortium has already managed the construction of a new two-bay hangar at Brize Norton, and associated office and training school facilities are also nearing readiness. The company, which has 45 employees, will move on to the base next May, but the FSTA service will eventually have 500 staff, including 300 military personnel and 175 engineers.
2nd Bn Royal Anglians settling in to Cyprus as Theatre Reserve Battalion.
DEFENCE BUDGET FINALISED
It's finally over!
The reports which have been coming out in various papers over the past couple of days have proven to be true, with the Treasury making an 11th-hour bid to rip more out of defence, the PM has personally intervened.
We know the cuts will be less than 10%
We know the have compromised with the MoD, who thought they might get as low as 6%
I'm going for the middle-ground, and saying we'll take an 8% hit.
That's bearable, with some clever spending, over a 5 year period.
It means we will sustain almost all the major procurements. It means the vast majority of manpower will survive. It means continued support for Afghan. It means that we aren't simply going to slip away into the middle-ranking international abyss.
I think this was probably as good as we could have hoped for.
When it's confirmed in a few days, barring any appalling shocks I'll be raising a glass to Dr Fox.
Forgive my ignorance, how much is 8% of the budget?
About 2 and a half billion.
Spread over the length of the parliament, so that's 2% cuts year on year. It still sucks, but after we have trimmed the ranks of the Generals, Admirals, Comodores and the 80 000 strong army of MoD civil servants, it might not be as bad as it could have been.
I am reassured that Fox, from the get go, has insisted on hitting the backroom first and on reshaping the civilian side of the MoD to make it more efficient (he also wants to promote defence exports a great deal more).
Unless the economy takes a turn for the worst, and if we keep on track to finish the Afghan mission by 2015, the armed forces could ride this one out without too much pain, I hope.
The UK only has 80k civil servants ?
Anyway to get back on track exactly how will that affect future participation in programs such as the A400M F-35 and the others ? I mean 2% per year is not like an easy figure even though from what i read it could of been much worse.
Posting Permissions
