Agree on the other points, but this aspect may well be more complicated. 2 CVF have a bigger replenishment footprint (fuel!), so are easier to mission-kill.
Aircraft Carriers III
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Agree on the other points, but this aspect may well be more complicated. 2 CVF have a bigger replenishment footprint (fuel!), so are easier to mission-kill.
Errr...yes. But £1.5bn of those costs were incurred as a result of HM Treasury delaying the build at the height of the financial crisis to save £100m in year. This ended up costing c£1.5bn. This is widely known and documented...
There's a degree of risk. But its minimal. The CVN's rely on conventionally powered escorts that need replenishment, and they go nowhere without them. They also require replenishment with solid stores and AVGAS from tankers and stores ships. Realistically the CSG's replenishment needs won't be significantly different in terms of time and numbers of RAS between nuclear and conventional. Given the QE's smaller personnel numbers and faster Heavy RAS gear its likely that she'll do an evolution quicker as well.
It may make sense, but it won't fly? it really won't
Jura The idiot
General
to me this:
and your sentence Yesterday at 3:06 PM
sound like carts of cow manure, and whatever pathetic excuses you will or won't post, the PoW cost is not "c£2.5bn in reality"
How so?
AVGAS? AVGAS was for piston powered engines. The last piston powered aircraft was the C-1 Trader COD which was retired in 1988. The USN exclusively uses JP-5. JP-5 is also used to refuel DDGs & CGs. Deployed CVN frequently refuel their escorts...by the way CVN's take on fuel every 3-5 days. the bunkers holding fuel are not allowed to deplete below 50%.
The difference between the £1.5bn and £1.65bn is the money wasted after Liam Fox ordered a review on catobar conversion and F-35C instead of F-35B. All because the F-35B was seen as a little shaky at the time.
Like I said the decision to slow the build is very well documented and was ordered by the Treasury to save £100m in year costs at the height of the GFC. It was very well documented at the time and the result of that decision as well.
£6.2 billion minus £1.5 = £4.7bn....
Which means I'm also being very generous at 1 ship costing £2.5bn as the programme cost included upgrades to dockyards, naval bases, onshore power supplies and onshore training facilities. The PoW is also being built significantly quicker which has an enormous effect on total costs. Quite frankly I'd be justified in having its price as closer to £2bn. But I thought I'd be very generous. If you don't understand Programme costs, IPA reported programmes or GMPP reporting it might be a little hard to grasp...
2 ships, will naturally have an advantage over 1, any enemy will have to deploy more resources to destroy/disable 2. A sub for example is unlikely to get into a firing position that will endanger both ships if they have a modicum of seperation. Having 2 decks means that in the event of one being shut down due to an accident or damage that aircraft can be recovered and got back into the fight. Or in relation to forward deployment if you have a surprise attack 1 may be in port and more vulnerable as a result, the other could be at sea. Just look at the Pacific Campaign in WW2, in the early days the USN had limited numbers of CV's. Lack of an aircraft carrier for an operation could lead to it being cancelled, later on when there was a surfeit of them the damage to 1 vessel wouldn't restrict operations 1 jot.
Sorry meant aviation fuel...
I know it won't. But the FFG(X) competition might mean the USN has started thinking again...the use of the USS America and USS Tripoli as surrogate CSG's is an encouraging sign as well.