Thread: £1bn overspend on the new carriers

Originally Posted by whitecity

I remain unconvinced that H&W has the required depth. I am happy to be corrected with evidence to the contrary - rather than speculation.

As this point seems important to the discussion I checked-

http://www.naval-technology.com/proj...-21/specs.html

This gives the draught of a Ford Class CVN as 7.8m
The Harland And Wolff dock is more than big enough to deal with a 100,000T aircraft carrier. Thats a defnitive answer from the dimmension data on a CVN and HArland and Wolff's own data on dock size.

Bear in mind draught can also be reduced by removing some of the weight. In dry dck or in construction there will be no aircraft, fuel, stores or couple of thousand warm bodies to weigh the ship down.
In addition the depth qouted by Harland and Wolff does not account for seasonal increases in tide depth, when the Queen Mary/ Queen Elizabeth liners were built then there was only a few days of the year when the tide was high enough to launch them.

As this debate stirred some curiosity in me I have checked and the data shows that the UK could technically build 100,000tonne aircraft carriers in existing facilities if we so chose.

Originally Posted by ottar

Originally Posted by whitecity

My bold. There is NOTHING in the link to suggest that DD12 is not already the dimension that I originally posted. Nor is there anything in the link you posted to suggest that the dredging requested in 2006 provides a sea change in the operation of the facility. There is nothing to suggest it isn't already "suitably dredged". Your comments now are merely speculative.

I think I spent long enough in the industry to understand the workings of dredging, drydocks and lockgates without being merely speculative. You don't need to apply for planning permission to dredge a channel to a maintained depth, something that in such a facility would be done every 6-12 months maximum. You do, however, require planning permission to alter the depth of a channel as modelling of the changes must take place to judge the impact on water flow and silt deposits. The entrance to such a lockgate must be lower than the inner basin as the seal is made by the external water pressure pushing the bottom of the gate against the basin floor.
I also know someone involved in the upgrade of the crane, if the work is complete, someone should have told him as he is still there.

Thank you for updating me on the state of the crane. But I'm trying to establish the dimensions of dry dock.

The link you posted gave brief details of a request "to hydraulically dredge an additional 11,750 cubic yards of State-owned bottom material from the James River in Newport News from the area to the north of the entrance way to Dry Dock 12 to a new maximum depth of –35 feet MLW.". There is NOTHING in this to indicate how far to the north NOR the state of the river bed to the south - the direction that ships need to take to leave the river.

Why do you persist in evading the simple question as to whether DD12 has the dimensions I quoted or not?

Originally Posted by ottar

My bold. So, if "the UK does have those facilities" why would they "require a new dockyard, not just an improved one ..."?

I'm trying to understand whether the UK does or does not have the current capability to support a boat bigger than 65,000T. You now seem to be saying that it can, but earlier said it couldn't - and also reiterate that statement remains valid. The two are opposites!

Can you please just clarify which it is and clearly state that your earlier statement was false or misleading if that is the case.

You can stop trying to be clever, it's not working.
HMG and the UK are not the same thing. Just because I have a garage doesn't mean I'm going to allow HMG to park a car in it.
As well as stopping trying to be clever, you can stop lying. I made one statement regarding building and another regarding support, two completely different things.

I'm not trying to be clever. I'm trying to ascertain the exact nature of the CVF size limitations. You are offering contradictory information and seem to be deliberately avoiding clarification of the matter. Like the DD12 issue, you're full of superfluous information but avoid the issue itself.

You wrote, in response to simple question as to why a boat larger than 65,000T is not selected, "Because that would require a new dockyard, not just an improved one ...". We are going around in circles discussing whether you mean RN or HMG or UK Plc owned; dockyard or dry dock; or new-build or life-long support time-frame.

The clear implication is that an infrastructure issue predicates the maximum size of the vessel. Will you please have the decency to clarify EXACTLY what is lacking that necessitates a "new dockyard, not just an improved one ..." should a greater than 65,000T vessel have been required.

Originally Posted by ottar

I remain unconvinced that H&W has the required depth. I am happy to be corrected with evidence to the contrary - rather than speculation.

My first job after leaving school was as an apprentice marine surveyor, I don't need to speculate, it has more than the necessary depth. Nimitz class carriers have been in production since the 1960s - long before any alteration took place to DD12.

Now I'm really confused. You confirm the H&W drydock has sufficient depth because Nimitz has been built in DD12 since the 60s. ????

Originally Posted by ottar

No, it's the maximum size imposed by crew numbers.

So, absolutely NOTHING to do with "... requir[ing] a new dockyard, not just an improved one ...". Why did you bother to mention this in the first place if it is completely irrelevant?

PS. Don't you mean assumed optimum size due to recruitment difficulties and budgetary restrictions rather than "maximum"?

Originally Posted by Flot_gear

Originally Posted by parapauk

While I believe everything you say about the state of Albion, she was, unlike Ocean, certainly NOT built on the cheap!

I bow to your more accurate knowledge - it's not like I am surprised... expensive yet still shocking quality... oh, that'll be the MoD then!

Below the water line, Ocean is a copy of Invincible/Ark Royal. Ocean was however, built to “commercial standards� whatever that means. I suspect it meant built quickly - which probably has a knock-on effect on quality.

Originally Posted by SHIPS, AIRCRAFT AND MISSILES OF THE ROYAL NAVY & ROYAL MARINES. Page 34. CP38 JANUARY 2004.

HMS Ocean demonstrated that large warships could be constructed quickly and cheaply and that size alone did not equal cos. Its total cost, at about £150 million, was little more than that of a frigate.

Its hull is based on the Invincible class aircraft carrier up to the waterline. Above water, significant changes were made to include accommodation for more than 800 Royal Marines Commandos . . .

Originally Posted by jagman

As this point seems important to the discussion I checked-

http://www.naval-technology.com/proj...-21/specs.html

This gives the draught of a Ford Class CVN as 7.8m The Harland And Wolff dock is more than big enough to deal with a 100,000T aircraft carrier.

Thank you. I've been going round in circles trying to pin this down and now seem to have got somewhere. Mind you, wiki is quoting 11.3 and 12.5m - which presents quite a spread of figures.

Edited to add. Misread your link. That's a Gerald Ford Class. Same website for the Nimitz Class: 11.9m draught.

[quote="RCT(V)"]

Originally Posted by Flot_gear

Below the water line, Ocean is a copy of Invincible/Ark Royal. Ocean was however, built to “commercial standards� whatever that means. I suspect it meant built quickly - which probably has a knock-on effect on quality.

It means she has less tolorability and capability to deal with battle damage, less redundancy in certain areas, ect ect....basically cheaper indeed.

Originally Posted by whitecity

Originally Posted by jagman

As this point seems important to the discussion I checked-

http://www.naval-technology.com/proj...-21/specs.html

This gives the draught of a Ford Class CVN as 7.8m The Harland And Wolff dock is more than big enough to deal with a 100,000T aircraft carrier.

Thank you. I've been going round in circles trying to pin this down and now seem to have got somewhere. Mind you, wiki is quoting 11.3 and 12.5m - which presents quite a spread of figures.

Yes, its taken a bit of time to pin it down.
I would asume that the different draughts listed must relate to different loads and different water conditions (ref to plimsol line, salinity and water temp relating to bouyancy)
A carrier going into dry dock or in during construction is going to have a considerably shallower draught.
Nimitz for example carries 3 million gallons of aviation fuel, ammunition, 85 aircraft and 3000 crew, remove all of that plus other consumables etc then the draught is going to be considerably less.
A King George V battleship constructed in the 1940's had a draught of 9.9m, all built in UK yards
The two Nelson Class battleships had a draught of 9m standard or 9.6 with a full load of fuel and munitions.

H&W was designed to build 200,000T oil tankers which have a far large draft. Problem is... it's just a hole in the ground. All the people and skills are elsewhere. Note also that a dry dock in Rosyth has just been refurbished to take the carriers. It's is ready and waiting for the first modules.

The CVF's are a great great purchase even at £5bn for 2. Compare this to what the US is spending on the Gerald Ford. They'll have 80% of the capability at 30% of the cost. We need to get some perspective here. They'll also be around until 2066.

They'll provide valuable cover for all those amphibs we've just bought for the RMs. Without it they are lame ducks without the protection of a US CV - meaning the UK is completely reliant on the US for air cover. CVF gives us independence of action. Coupled with the T45s, sonar 2087 T23s and an Astute they'll mean that the UK will be able to go almost anywhere it wants without fear. On one deployment they'll be able to position off the cost of a dozen allies or enemies - giving a clear message of support or deterrence - something a squadron of typhoons will never manage.

[quote="DarkBlueLoggie"]

Originally Posted by Flot_gear

Originally Posted by parapauk

While I believe everything you say about the state of Albion, she was, unlike Ocean, certainly NOT built on the cheap!

Indeed - I heard similar comments from people aboard Bulwark. Hoofin C3 facilities, but the rest of the ship was gash (including a waste water system that flooded the forward part of the ship when the dock was flooded!)

Awesome SCOT connection, thats for sure, when they binned an entire deck along with the hangar(and therefore the helo) that decision may have been a little premature!

Originally Posted by vegnomeat

They will be canceled,

No way will they be canceled by this government, they will leave it to the Tories to do that

Tory Cuts!

Originally Posted by Tory_Cuts!

Originally Posted by vegnomeat

They will be canceled,

No way will they be canceled by this government, they will leave it to the Tories to do that

Tory Cuts!

Oh fcuk off.

Isn't there supposed to be a formal first cutting of steel ceremony this week ? Presumably it means that cancellation is not an option................ this month anyway

The UK's only growth industry!

Originally Posted by Recruiting_Office_reject

Isn't there supposed to be a formal first cutting of steel ceremony this week ? Presumably it means that cancellation is not an option................ this month anyway

Tomorrow, IIRC.

Originally Posted by hulahoop7

The CVF's are a great great purchase even at £5bn for 2. Compare this to what the US is spending on the Gerald Ford. They'll have 80% of the capability at 30% of the cost. We need to get some perspective here. They'll also be around until 2066.

My Bold, Could not agree more mate. The total annual Gobment spending goes to £618 billion, NHS takes 111 billion, 60 billion is pissed away to the EU... Building two capital ships for such a tiny fraction of this is quite something. I'm all for throwing as much money as possible at these carriers.

Originally Posted by muhandis89

These 'boats' are all about Bruin wanting to drive work to his own constituency.Makes the A400M fiasco look like a financial rounding error!

Absolutely!

Fcuk the Navy, just like the rest of our Forces.

Odo