UK Carriers’ Shipbuilder Denounces Project as “Loony Tunes DIsaster”

#1
The deputy chairman of Babcock, builders of the RN's two aircraft carriers, says Britain is paying twice as much as it should for the F35 aircraft, to get half the capability. He says this is because of BAE Systems being the prime contractor on the carrier project whilst also being Lockheed's partner in making the F35 aircraft. Lord Hesketh says this is a disaster that will make Britain a laughing stock.

More...
 
#2
The reason why Sea Typhooon is a non starter has been gone over numerous times on here, mostly by Magic Mushroom who knows a lot about these things.

If we'd have any sense back in the 1980s then us and the French would be zipping round in carrier capable Typhoons now, sadly though we didn't and we never will. If we don't buy the F35 for whatever reason, it will be replaced with another aircraft but the Tyhpoon won't be the replacement.
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#3
#4
The deputy chairman of Babcock, builders of the RN's two aircraft carriers, says Britain is paying twice as much as it should for the F35 aircraft, to get half the capability. He says this is because of BAE Systems being the prime contractor on the carrier project whilst also being Lockheed's partner in making the F35 aircraft. Lord Hesketh says this is a disaster that will make Britain a laughing stock.

More...
The deputy chairman of Babcock has now resigned.
BBC News 8 Nov 2010 said:
The deputy chairman of Babcock, Lord Hesketh, has resigned after he called the Royal Navy's aircraft carrier programme a "disaster". His resignation from the engineering group follows a report in the Daily Telegraph newspaper in which he was reported as saying the project would make the country a "laughing stock"...
I wonder who's next?
 
#5
Making Typhoon carrier capable, now, would cost even more than F35.

I do wonder if F35 is not the largest problem with the QE class Aircraft Carriers. Super Hornet would certainly be less expensive to buy -and even cheaper to lease- and less expensive to operate than F35 and would give the QE's a more useful sized air group.
 
#6
I'm sorry to have repeated remarks already debated by experts here, but would have thought - being an non-flying sort of person, that buying F18 OTS with suitable avionics, would provide a pretty serious load for a carrier, that would last for quite a while... But, again hiding behind my 'non-flying' caveat, what's wrong with keeping Harrier going until this OTS buy is worked up and ready to fly on?
 
#7

Bouillabaisse

LE
Book Reviewer
#8
I'm sorry to have repeated remarks already debated by experts here, but would have thought - being an non-flying sort of person, that buying F18 OTS with suitable avionics, would provide a pretty serious load for a carrier, that would last for quite a while... But, again hiding behind my 'non-flying' caveat, what's wrong with keeping Harrier going until this OTS buy is worked up and ready to fly on?
There's a couple of epically long threads about this in the Royal Navy, SDSR and Current Affairs threads, but you'll have to search yourself. If you want to get into it and can winnow out the dross they're worth reading. A few of the contributors are directly involved with the carrier programme in one form or other so have some interesting insights. As mentioned, magic_mushroom did a good analysis.
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
#9
Talking tripe about navalising Typhoons demonstrated that Babcock's deputy chairman was not fit for purpose, which I take it his board has now recognised.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
whitecity Current Affairs, News and Analysis 67

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top