Comments by roderickvlouis

THE UK SHOULD SELL BOTH OF THEIR 2 UNDERGOING-CONSTRUCTION 'BIG DECK' AIRCRAFT CARRIERS AND COMMISSION THE DESIGN OF BIGGER, BETTER, MORE IMPRESSIVE ONES->>> AIMING FOR THE EXPORT MARKET!!

As a result of the current 'big deck' aircraft carrier project, the UK has re-developed 'big ship' military vessel construction capabilities.

To avoid these capabilities being eviscerated once the 2 currently undergoing construction carriers are completed, the UK ought to take steps to immediately sell these 2 vessels- fitted with weapons, communications and defensive systems- at a loss if required...

As part of strategies to further develop & enhance the UK's defence & high-technology industries- & their capacities for exports- the UK govt/MoD ought to commission UK firms to design new models of economical-to-operate big deck aircraft carriers that are both nuclear powered & catapult-equipped + both bigger AND smaller in displacements than the currently underway carrier project's 65,000 tonne vessels....

In future reporting on this subject, the Economist and other main stream news media should try to primarily utilize facts- instead of relying so much on speculation and unverified govt spokespersons' drivel...
The Economist and other main stream news media ought to:
- provide a written comparison of the projected number of man-hours required during 2018- 2030 for maintenance, servicing and repairs of BOTH the F-35C and F-35B for each hour of flight time of EACH variant of the F-35 fighter/bomber;
- stipulate in easy-to-understand terms what are the design requirements & technical hurdles that would have to be surmounted in order to fit the UK's 2 undergoing construction aircraft carriers with aircraft launch catapults and landing equipment;
- inform the public whether the UK's planned carriers have the energy generation capabilities required to operate electromagnetic aircraft launch catapults- particularly in combat situations- while the ship's engines are still providing power for the ship's propulsion;
- inform the public whether the fitting of electromagnetic aircraft launch catapults and landing equipment to the UK's planned carriers would have so adversely affected these vessels' centre of gravity and at-sea-stability that their sea worthiness would have been reduced to an unworkable level...
- inform the public what the differences in operating costs per flight hour are between F-35B, F-35C and F-18 E/F fighter/bombers...
- inform the public how many man-hours of maintenance, servicing and repairs are required CURRENTLY for each flight hour of the F-35B, F-35C and F-18 E/F fighter/bombers...
- inform the public how many man-hours of maintenance, servicing and repairs are PROJECTED TO BE REQUIRED DURING 2018- 2030 for each flight hour of the F-35B, F-35C and F-18 E/F fighter/bombers...
- inform the public what the differences in capabilities are between the F-35B, F-35C and F-18 E/F fighter/bombers....
- inform the public what the differences in purchase prices are between the F-35B, F-35C and F-18 E/F fighter/bombers....
----------------------------
On April 26-2012 the UK House of Commons' Public Accounts committee spent over an hour questioning Ms Ursula Brennan, Permanent Secretary UK Ministry of Defence, about the aircraft carrier project...
During over 60 minutes of quite appalling, astonishingly unprofessional discourse, Ms Brennan refused to provide answers to what were very reasonable and in-the-public-interest questions from committee members...
Of most relevance was the repeated-for-over-an-hour requests to Ms. Brennan to advise the committee how much money had been spent to date by the MoD on studies and preliminary design & construction work related to fitting the UK's 2 carriers with aircraft launch catapults and landing equipment...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_9715000/9...
Considering the high-public-interest, couldn't the Economist obtain and publish this information from sources other than Ms Brennan and MoD officials??...
Why couldn't reporters from the Economist travel to the U.S. and speak directly to/take evidence from the manufacturer of the electromagnetic aircraft launch catapults and landing equipment- General Atomics; F-35 main contractor- Lockheed; US Department of Defense officials; etc???
-------------
Why couldn't several of the UK's Public Accounts Committee's members and several US's elected officials form a joint UK/US F-35 project oversight committee- made up of UK MPs and US Senators- charged with evaluating and regularly reporting on the F-35 project??

France has plans to build 'big deck' aircraft carrier(s)- that are fitted with aircraft launch catapults (cats & traps)- in the immediate future*...

If, compared to the UK's newly built aircraft carriers, France's new cat & trap equipped aircraft carrier(s) are seen by overseas observers & potential buyers as:

- substantially more proficient at crisis intervention, naval airpower sea patrol & general power projection duties;

- higher-technology;

- more responsibly armoured;

- capable of deploying a much broader variety of and more highly capable fixed-wing aircraft & weapons; &

... are fitted with significantly more capable sensors, weapons, communications & ship self-defence systems...

... then which countries'- the UK's or France's aircraft carrier model (& other naval vessel types) will be most attractive to potential overseas purchasers???
---------------------

* http://www.rpfrance-otan.org/IMG/pdf/Dossier_de_presse_Livre_Blanc.pdf - (pages 116-118):

"After analysis, the decision on the construction of a second aircraft carrier (PA2) is postponed (to 2012)....

"... - Economic conditions have changed since the 2003 election... (the costs) of conventional propulsion for (France's) new aircraft carriers (has risen) and further studies are now needed to assess the balance of conventional and nuclear propulsion options ..."

http://www.dcnsgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Dossier-de-presse-Eu... (pages 20- 22)
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/pa2-1.htm
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/france-steaming-ahead-on-pa2cvf-carr...

Economist Newspaper: do your readership- and the UK + allies- all a favour and publish several articles that primarily utilize facts- instead of relying so much on speculation and unverified govt spokespersons' drivel- regarding thie UK's aircraft carrier project...

As part of this, provide a comparison of the projected number of man-hours required for maintenance & servicing of BOTH the F-35C and F-35B for each hour of flight time of EACH variant of fighter/bomber....

As well, let your readership know- in layman's terms: what are the design requirements & technical hurdles that would have to be surmounted in order to fit the UK's 2 undergoing construction aircraft carriers with aircraft launch catapults and landing equipment...

Do the UK's planned carriers even have the energy generation capabilities required to operate electromagnetic aircraft launch catapults- particularly in combat situations- while the ship's engines are still providing power for the ship's propulsion??

Would the fitting of electromagnetic aircraft launch catapults and landing equipment to the UK's planned carriers have so adversely affected these vessels' centre of gravity and at-sea-stability that their sea worthiness would have been reduced to an unworkable level??
----------------------------

On April 26-2012 the UK House of Commons' Public Accounts Committee spent over an hour questioning Ms Ursula Brennan, Permanent Secretary UK Ministry of Defence, about the aircraft carrier project...

During over 60 minutes of quite appalling, astonishingly unprofessional discourse, Ms Brennan refused to provide answers to what were very reasonable and in-the-public-interest questions from committee members...

Of most relevance was the repeated-for-over-an-hour requests to Ms. Brennan to advise the committee how much money had been spent to date by the MoD on studies and preliminary design & construction work related to fitting the UK's 2 carriers with aircraft launch catapults and landing equipment...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_9715000/9...

Considering the high-public-interest, couldn't the Economist obtain and publish this information???

SHORT SIGHTED GOVT POLICIES DAMAGING ROYAL NAVY's LONG TERM PLANNING- & UK's FUTURE GLOBAL ROLES!!:

... if the under-development, deeply problemmed F-35B fighter/bomber ends up not going into production--- which has regularly been mooted by the US's Department of Defence and White House officials and by Congressional committees during 2008-2012*--- the UK will have built two 65,000 tonne super carriers without fixed-wing aircraft to deploy from them....

.... Sure to instill confidence and interest overseas in the UK's defence and high-technology industries' products and capabilities....

As part of strategies to further develop & enhance the UK's defence & high-technology industries- & their capacities for exports- the UK govt/MoD ought to commission UK firms to design new models of economical-to-operate big deck aircraft carriers that are both nuclear powered & catapult-equipped + both bigger AND smaller in displacements than the currently underway carrier project's 65,000 tonne vessels....
---------------------

10-16 MORE 'UPGRADED' LEGITIMATELY MULTI-ROLE TYPE-45 DESTROYERS NEEDED!!

For its current & future operations the Royal Navy requires responsibly-capable surface escorts... multi-role vessels capable of dealing with well known and widely proliferated types of threats**** in all 3 main naval warfare spheres...

**** as well as widely anticipated future types...

As currently 'planned', the UK's undergoing-design Type-26 Frigates will be far-too-small to generate sufficient power to run the modern, high-capability radars, communications, weapons & ship self-defence systems required to deal with today's- & expected-in-the-near-term-future- threat environments...

... consequently hugely damaging their potential to function as escorts for Royal Navy aircraft carriers/task-group squadrons & grievously reducing Type-26s' marketability to any countries- with blue water naval ambitions- other than the UK....

Rather than designing the Type-26 Frigate from a "as cheap & as operationally limited as possible" set of functional priorities, the Type-26 programme should be taking lessons from the US's experiences & practises developing new, 21st-century-cable classes (& upgraded classes) of surface combatants- whose roles are to escort aircraft carriers & to form integral parts of 'blue water' naval task groups...

Instead of designing the Type-26 Frigate to be (comparatively**) functionally deaf, dumb & blind** due to Type-26s' having sets of sensors, communications & weapons systems that will not be up to the task of dealing with known, anticipated & rapidly proliferating-world-wide types of naval warfare threats, would it not make more sense for the UK/UK firms to upgrade the already in-production type-45 Destroyer design and as part of doing this join the US's "Dual Band Radar"***, “Air & Missile Defense Radar”*** (AMDR) & "Ship Self Defense Systems"*** (SSDS) programmes??!!!!

Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada

* - US Government Accountability Office (GAO) F-35 Fighter/Bomber project report, March 20-2012:
http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/589454.pdf
- US Congressional Research Service F-35 Fighter/Bomber project report, February 16-2012:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL30563.pdf
- US Congressional Research Service F136 Engine project report, January-2012:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R41131.pdf
- US Government Accountability Office (GAO) F136 Engine project report, September 14-2011:
http://www.gao.gov/assets/100/97736.pdf or
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11903r.pdf (Page #2 in acrobat Reader... )
- http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2011/pdf/dod/2011f35jsf.pdf
----------------

** compared to the U.S. Navy's upcoming, much-enhanced-capability "Flight III" variant of the Burke class (DDG-51) Destroyer:

- http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/11/16/report-cost-spike-for-navys-next-ddgs/
- http://www.informationdissemination.net/2012/04/ill-take-ddg-for-1000-al...
- US Congressional Research Service DDG-51 & DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs report, 03_02-2012:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32109.pdf
- US Govt Accountability Office DDG-51 Destroyer program report, January-2012:
http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/587883.pdf
- "US Navy DDG-51 & DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background & Issues for Congress", 14_03-2011:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32109.pdf
--------------------

***
- http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/cec-coooperative-enagagement-for-fle...
- http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/AMDR-Competition-The-USAs-Next-Dual-...
- http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/The-US-Navys-Dual-Band-Radars-05393/
- http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ssds-quicker-naval-response-to-cruis...

REFUND TO THE UK FROM AIRCRAFT CARRIERS' DESIGNER WARRANTED!!

France has plans to build 'big deck' aircraft carrier(s)- that are fitted with aircraft launch catapults & landing equipment(cats & traps)- in the immediate future*...

If, compared to the UK's newly built aircraft carriers, France's new cat & trap equipped aircraft carrier(s) are seen by overseas observers & potential buyers as:

- substantially more proficient at crisis intervention, naval airpower sea patrol & general power projection duties;

- higher-technology;

- more responsibly armoured;

- capable of deploying a much broader variety of and more highly capable fixed-wing aircraft & weapons; &

... are fitted with significantly more capable sensors, weapons, communications & ship self-defence systems...

... then which countries'- the UK's or France's aircraft carrier model (& other naval vessel types) will be most attractive to potential overseas purchasers???
---------------------

* http://www.rpfrance-otan.org/IMG/pdf/Dossier_de_presse_Livre_Blanc.pdf (pages 116-118):

"After analysis, the decision on the construction of a second aircraft carrier (PA2) is postponed (to 2012)...."

http://www.dcnsgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Dossier-de-presse-Eu... (pages 20- 22)
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/pa2-1.htm
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/france-steaming-ahead-on-pa2cvf-carr...
---------------------

The UK's currently undergoing construction- highly problemmed, 5 years behind schedule & massively over-budget- big deck aircraft carriers were designed by 1/3-France-govt-owned Thales:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2706727.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2709133.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3063621.stm

... & the UK's big deck aircraft carriers are in large part products of the 2001-2008- mainly UK financed- UK/France aircraft carrier project that France destructively pulled out of in 2008:

"UK & France sign carrier deal", 06_03-2006:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4780630.stm

"PA2 deferment scuppers CVF savings", 08_07-2008:
http://www.janes.com/news/defence/naval/jdw/jdw080708_1_n.shtml or
http://www.janes.com/products/janes/defence-security-report.aspx?ID=1065...
------

Considering that the initial price** for construction and fitting out of the UK's 2 'big deck' aircraft carriers- WITHOUT cats and traps- was £2.9bn in 2003;
(**by the design competition's winning bidder, Thales UK)

and

Considering that Thales UK apparently included as part of its bid, a 'guarantee' that the UK's 2 new aircraft carriers- if built using Thales' designs- would (after launch) be 'easily' fittable with cats and traps :

- if it is true that fitting both of the undergoing construction carriers with cats and traps would cost at least £3.6bn (2 X £1.8bn): 25% more than Thales UK's 2003 £2.9bn apparently agreed costs for construction of both carriers- this implies that Thales UK's proffered designs and cost projections for these 2 urgently needed vessels were disingenuous, faulty and/or negligently put together!!!

Projected costs for the UK's 2 new aircraft carriers have risen from less than £3bn in 2003, to £7bn- or possibly as high as £12bn in 2012***

Is it possible that aircraft launch catapults (cats & traps) are- due to the UK's undergoing construction aircraft carriers' having faulty/inadequate designs- not fittable to the 2 carriers, & Thales UK + other members of the aircraft carrier alliance now knowing this/having 'discovered' this, are inflating their estimated costs for fitting cats & traps to the carriers so as to dissuade the UK's MoD & UK govt from continuing with plans to fit these 2 vessels with cats & traps??

Is a refund from Thales UK in order- or at the least is the UK govt &/or its proxies 'owed' a substantial amount of shares in Thales as compensation for the accelerating, hugely expensive disaster that the carrier project has become??

_______________
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada

** http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2706727.stm

*** "UK aircraft carrier plans in confusion as ministers revisit square one", 01_03-2012:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/01/uk-aircraft-carrier-us-strike-f... -

"... The two carriers... are now estimated to cost £6.2bn. According to the Commons public accounts committee, the cost is likely to increase to as much as £12bn...."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15928953 -

"... the committee's Labour chairman Margaret Hodge said the final cost (of the undergoing construction aircraft carriers) could end up being £12bn over budget... "

END OF THE GROSS INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY THAT PERVADES UK DEFENCE-POLICIES & SPENDING DECISIONS URGENTLY NEEDED!!

The UK coalition govt either want the country to remain part of the global big boys club- and, in future, capable of competently 'filling in'/compensating for a sure-to-be-shrinking-soon US Navy around the world... or the UK govt want to set an irreversible course for national subsumation into an EU superstate... & the United Kingdom's disappearance from the world stage...
---------------

AIRCRAFT CARRIER PROJECT:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/10/f35_u_turn_idiocy/

Although the previous labour govt handed the current govt an incredibly badly botched 'big deck' aircraft carrier project when they took office, the short & long term costs as well as the broad & diverse negative ramifications to the country should the current govt fail at- at least substantially- rectifying the projects' immense, egregiously dangerous design & planning errors- are incalculable...

About the only possible constructive solution to this disaster is the US Department of Defense/govt stepping in and 'making the UK govt an offer it can't refuse':

->>> the US paying for- or providing loans for- the expedited installation of cats and traps to BOTH of the UK's undergoing construction 'big deck' aircraft carriers...

AND

->>> the US lend-leasing to the UK sufficient numbers of new-build F-18 E/F naval fighter/bombers (with AESA radars*) to FULLY equip BOTH of the UK's planned carriers... with additional F-18s provided to the UK for training, redundancies, etc...
--------------------

The United Kingdom's 'big deck' aircraft carrier project is (at least in terms of public perceptions) the biggest, highest profile tax-payer funded project in the UK &, arguably, is the project with the most profound potential effect on how the country views itself & how the UK's allies, adversaries/potential adversaries, business partners & potential business partners view the UK......

Similarly, the UK's aircraft carrier project is by far the most watched & intensely scrutinized UK defence project by the international community- particularly by both the UK's allies & the country's adversaries/potential adversaries....

If the U.K.wants to retain its long held positions of substantial global influence and leadership at 'the big boys table' of international decision making bodies, then the parts of the U.K's military that most project UK presence and power- such as the Royal Navy- must continue to be legitimately viable- and capable- across the spectrum of potential 'blue water' duties that are to-be expected during the coming 40-50 years....

... something that is not possible without legitimate, fixed-wing aircraft aircraft carriers & without more than 6, 21st century-capable escorts (IE:more than the 6 grievously under-armed, partially-equipped Type-45 Destroyers that are currently funded for construction/commissioning into the RN)...

As currently 'planned', the UK's undergoing-design Type-26 Frigates will be too small to generate sufficient power to run the radars, weapons and ship self-defence systems required by today's- and expected-in-the-near-term-future- threat environments... consequently hugely damaging their potential to function as escorts for Royal Navy aircraft carriers/squadrons and grievously reducing Type-26s' marketability to any countries- with blue water naval ambitions- other than the UK....

* http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/new-apg79-aesa-radars-for-super-horn...
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f-18-super-hornets-to-get-irst-03429/
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Super-Hornet-Fighter-Family-MYP-III-...
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ea18g-program-the-usas-electronic-gr...
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/ultra-hornet-212600/

Mr. Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada

Links for previously posted comment:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/new-apg79-aesa-radars-for-super-horn...
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f-18-super-hornets-to-get-irst-03429/
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Super-Hornet-Fighter-Family-MYP-III-...
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ea18g-program-the-usas-electronic-gr...
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/ultra-hornet-212600/

Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada

About the only possible constructive solution to this disaster is the US DoD/govt stepping in and 'making the UK govt an offer it can't refuse':

->>> the US paying for- or providing loans for- the expedited installation of cats and traps to BOTH of the UK's undergoing construction 'big deck' aircraft carriers...

AND

->>> the US lend-leasing to the UK sufficient numbers of new-build F-18 E/F naval fighter/bombers (with AESA radars) to FULLY equip BOTH of the UK's planned carriers... with additional F-18s provided to the UK for training, redundancies, etc...
---------------

The UK coalition govt either want the country to remain part of the global big boys club- and, in future, capable of competently 'filling in'/compensating for a sure-to-be-shrinking-soon US Navy... or the UK govt wants to set an irreversible course for national subsumation into an EU superstate... and the United Kingdom's disappearance from the world stage...

Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada

How many people in this room want to live in a North Korea-like, Iraq-like, Iran-like state and/or a Taliban-governed state?? Hands up please!!!

What is "...the side reason for all this metal?"

Keeping world order, IE: making sure that country to country trade as well as the economic, financial, legal, human rights, scientific, research, military and related international bodies that underpin world trade; economic, human rights & social progress + that support and facilitate international relations generally* can continue functioning...

* Especially those structures that are required for the peaceful resolution of personal, corporate and nation-to-nation conflicts-

In the globalized, vastly interconnected world that we live in, the use of as-even-handed-as-reasonably-possible force is going to be necessary occasionally...

Imagine a world that was without countries capable of, occasionally and for morally justifiable causes- utilizing capable military force to settle egregious disputes between countries- and among peoples of differing beliefs, ethnicities and religions within individual countries...

Mass chaos, frequent genocides, famines and a breakdown of civilization as we, in the privileged developed world know it- would be the result.....

Roderick V. Louis
Vancouver, BC, Canada

Current predominant attitudes among policy-makers may be "... it's naive to think the UK is ever going to be a warship exporter again..."

But this does not have to be fact- with sufficiently funded and articulated UK govt industry policy- similar to France, Germany (and even Italy's) govts' decades of successful practices- why couldn't the UK do better than France, Germany and Italy exporting warships and their component sub-systems???

Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada

Advanced, democratic nations' aircraft carriers and their escorting surface ships can and, and for over 60-years, very often do far more than just fight/intervene in conflicts...
Humanitarian intervention, IE: disaster relief, crisis intervention, emergency evacuations and the like- are only some of the many broad and diverse- and frequently needed- types of missions that advanced-economy nations' aircraft carriers + their escort squadrons are very often successfully- and ireplaceably- tasked with...
Increasingly during the past decade BRIC and other developing countries use their aircraft carriers- and/or indicate policy-objectives to use their current AND PLANNED aircraft carriers- for these types of missions...
-----------
Countries with capable naval presence world-wide- and that "do good"- as well as intervene in/initiate conflicts- using their aircraft carrier naval forces have- as a result- obtained (& maintained) substantial international negotiating influence, IE: participating in/as members of the world's most powerful and relevant multi-national decision-making bodies such as the UN, IMF, World Bank, G8, G20, NATO and the like....
If the United Kingdom wants to remain a global leader and capable of continuing to significantly effect global decision-making and events- it still needs to possess- and regularly internationally-deploy a blue water capable navy with full spectrum capabilities....
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada

It appears that the 'big deck' carrier project's planned maximum budget (during planning, RFP and main gate phases-, 2002-2008 (about 2.9 billion pounds)) was entirely unrealistically low-balled by previous Labour govt....

Result- MoD ambitions and requests for sensible carrier designs- that would have automatically included both nuclear-power propulsion (with scope for expected future directed energy weapons operations); aircraft launch catapults/naval landing gear; armoured bulkheads, advanced, capable ship self-defence systems, radars & communications systems- went by the wayside.... and today's 'make-work-project dead end is the result...
----------

"export of carriers(new build) is a very rare thing..."

does not have to be....

... the UK's 'aircraft carrier PROJECT'- if operated by forward-thinking individuals- could be for purposes similar to France's (part-state-owned DCNS's) aircraft carrier project: FOR EXPORTS AND TO POSITIVELY PROMOTE THE NATION's INDUSTRIAL & ENGINEERING EXPERTISE AND CAPACITIES!!!

http://en.dcnsgroup.com/naval/products/aircraft-carriers-family/
http://www.dcnsgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Dossier-de-presse-Eu... - (pages 20- 22)

Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada

For its current & future operations the Royal Navy requires responsibly-capable surface escorts...

As currently 'planned', the UK's undergoing-design Type-26 Frigates will be far-too small to generate sufficient power to run the modern, high-capability radars, communications, weapons & ship self-defence systems required by today's- & expected-in-the-near-term-future- threat environments...

... consequently hugely damaging their potential to function as escorts for Royal Navy aircraft carriers/task-group squadrons & grievously reducing Type-26s' marketability to any countries- with blue water naval ambitions- other than the UK....

Rather than designing the Type-26 Frigate from a "as cheap & as operationally limited as possible" set of functional priorities, the Type-26 programme should be taking lessons from the US's experiences & practises developing new, 21st-century-cable classes (& upgraded classes) of surface combatants- whose roles are to escort aircraft carriers & to form integral parts of 'blue water' naval task groups...

Instead of designing the Type-26 Frigate to be (comparatively**) functionally deaf, dumb & blind** due to Type-26s' having sets of sensors, communications & weapons systems that will not be up to the task of dealing with known, anticipated & rapidly proliferating-world-wide types of naval warfare threats, would it not make more sense for the UK/UK firms to join the US's "Dual Band Radar"*, “Air & Missile Defense Radar”* (AMDR) & "Ship Self Defense Systems"* (SSDS) programmes??!!!!
----------------

Whether obtained via the UK's current 'big deck' aircraft carrier project or from other sources, once commissioned into service, RN carriers have to be protected & able- to a proficient degree- to defend themselves from airborne, sub-surface & other types of to-be-expected threats...

Naval Airborne Early Warning & Control (AWACS) platforms, such as the US's E-2D*** (& its earlier variants) have been essential assets to every US Navy operation & blue water deployment since the early 1970's...

E-2Ds require aircraft launch catapults & naval-landing equipment (cats & traps) in order to be operated from aircraft carriers...

Without cats & traps, Royal Navy aircraft carriers automatically sacrifice the capability of deploying hugely versatile, 'force-multiplier' aircraft such as the E-2D...

Considering the dismal- & disastrous- performance of the UK's naval & land forces- that were without naval Airborne Early Warning & Control (AWACS) assets during the 1982 Falklands conflict**** what responsible commander would want his ships/forces & service personnel sent into harm’s way without ship-deployable 21st-century-capable AWACS platforms such as the E-2D***??

As part of strategies to further develop & enhance the UK's defence & high-technology industries- & their capacities for exports- the UK govt/MoD ought to commission UK firms to design new models of economical-to-operate big deck aircraft carriers that are both nuclear powered & catapult-equipped + both bigger AND smaller in displacement than the currently underway carrier project's 65,000 tonne vessels....

Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada

*
- http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/cec-coooperative-enagagement-for-fle...
- http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/AMDR-Competition-The-USAs-Next-Dual-...

- http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/The-US-Navys-Dual-Band-Radars-05393/
- http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ssds-quicker-naval-response-to-cruis...

**
compared to the U.S. Navy's upcoming, much-enhanced-capability "Flight III" variant of the Burke class (DDG-51) Destroyer:

- http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/11/16/report-cost-spike-for-navys-next-ddgs/
- http://www.informationdissemination.net/2012/04/ill-take-ddg-for-1000-al...
- US Congressional Research Service DDG-51 & DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs report, 03_02-2012:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32109.pdf
- US Govt Accountability Office DDG-51 Destroyer program report, January-2012:
http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/587883.pdf
- "US Navy DDG-51 & DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background & Issues for Congress", 14_03-2011:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32109.pdf

***
- http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/e-2d-hawkeye-the-navys-new-awacs-03443/
- http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/products/e2dhawkeye/index.html

****
- http://www.janes.com/news/defence/systems/jni/jni091020_1_n.shtml
- http://www.janes.com/news/defence/idr/idr080611_1_n.shtml :

"... In 1982 the Falklands conflict provided a stark reminder of the vulnerability of surface forces operating in a hostile air environment without (AWACS) AEW support... The absence of such a capability in the face of sustained air attack gave the UK Royal Navy (RN) insufficient warning to counter threats at long range, & directly contributed to the loss of several ships...."

REFUND TO THE UK FROM AIRCRAFT CARRIERS' DESIGNER WARRANTED!!

France has plans to build 'big deck' aircraft carrier(s)- that are fitted with aircraft launch catapults (cats & traps)- in the immediate future*...

If, compared to the UK's newly built aircraft carriers, France's new cat & trap equipped aircraft carrier(s) are seen by overseas observers & potential buyers as:

- substantially more proficient at crisis intervention, naval airpower sea patrol & general power projection duties;

- higher-technology;

- more responsibly armoured;

- capable of deploying a much broader variety of and more highly capable fixed-wing aircraft & weapons; &

... are fitted with significantly more capable senors, weapons, communications & ship self-defence systems...

... then which countries'- the UK's or France's aircraft carrier model (& other naval vessel types) will be most attractive to potential overseas purchasers???
---------------------

* http://www.rpfrance-otan.org/IMG/pdf/Dossier_de_presse_Livre_Blanc.pdf (pages 116-118):

"After analysis, the decision on the construction of a second aircraft carrier (PA2) is postponed (to 2012)...."

http://www.dcnsgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Dossier-de-presse-Eu... (pages 20- 22)
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/pa2-1.htm
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/france-steaming-ahead-on-pa2cvf-carr...
---------------------

The UK's currently undergoing construction- highly problemmed, 5 years behind schedule & massively over-budget- big deck aircraft carriers were designed by 1/3-France-govt-owned Thales:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2706727.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2709133.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3063621.stm

... & the UK's big deck aircraft carriers are in large part products of the 2001-2008- mainly UK financed- UK/France aircraft carrier project that France destructively pulled out of in 2008:

"UK & France sign carrier deal", 06_03-2006:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4780630.stm

"PA2 deferment scuppers CVF savings", 08_07-2008:
http://www.janes.com/news/defence/naval/jdw/jdw080708_1_n.shtml or
http://www.janes.com/products/janes/defence-security-report.aspx?ID=1065...
------

Considering that the initial price* for construction and fitting out of the UK's 2 'big deck' aircraft carriers- WITHOUT cats and traps- was £2.9bn in 2003;
(*by the design competition's winning bidder, Thales UK)

and

Considering that Thales UK apparently included as part of its bid, a 'guarantee' that the UK's 2 new aircraft carriers- if built using Thales' designs- would (after launch) be 'easily' fittable with cats and traps :

- if it turns out that fitting both of the undergoing construction carriers with cats and traps would cost at least £3.6bn (2 X £1.8bn): 25% more than Thales UK's 2003 £2.9bn agreed costs for construction of both carriers- this implies that Thales UK's proffered designs and cost projections for these 2 urgently needed vessels were disingenuous, faulty and/or negligently put together!!!

Projected costs for the UK's 2 new aircraft carriers have risen from less than £3bn in 2003, to £7bn- or possibly as high as £12bn in 2012**

Is it possible that aircraft launch catapults (cats & traps) are- due to the UK's undergoing construction aircraft carriers' having faulty/inadequate designs- not fittable to the 2 carriers, & Thales UK + other members of the aircraft carrier alliance now knowing this/having 'discovered' this, are inflating their estimated costs for fitting cats & traps to the carriers so as to dissuade the UK's MoD & UK govt from continuing with plans to fit these 2 vessels with cats & traps??

Is a refund from Thales UK in order- or at the least is the UK govt &/or its proxies 'owed' a substantial amount of shares in Thales as compensation for the accelerating, hugely expensive disaster that the carrier project has become??

_______________
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada

** http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2706727.stm

"UK aircraft carrier plans in confusion as ministers revisit square one", 01_03-2012:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/01/uk-aircraft-carrier-us-strike-f... -

"... The two carriers... are now estimated to cost £6.2bn. According to the Commons public accounts committee, the cost is likely to increase to as much as £12bn...."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15928953 -

"... the committee's Labour chairman Margaret Hodge said the final cost (of the undergoing construction aircraft carriers) could end up being £12bn over budget... "

... And if the under-development, deeply problemmed F-35B ends up not going into production--- which has regularly been mooted by the US's Department of Defence and White House officials and by Congressional committees during 2008-2012*--- the UK will have built two 65,000 tonne super carriers without fixed-wing aircraft to deploy from them....

.... Sure to instill confidence and interest overseas in the UK's defence and high-technology industries' products and capabilities....

* - US Government Accountability Office (GAO) F-35 Fighter/Bomber project report, March 20-2012:
http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/589454.pdf

- US Congressional Research Service F-35 Fighter/Bomber project report, February 16-2012:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL30563.pdf

- US Congressional Research Service F136 Engine project report, January-2012:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R41131.pdf

- US Government Accountability Office (GAO) F136 Engine project report, September 14-2011:
http://www.gao.gov/assets/100/97736.pdf or
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11903r.pdf (Page #2 in acrobat Reader... )

- http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2011/pdf/dod/2011f35jsf.pdf
---------------------------

Although the previous labour govt handed the current govt an incredibly badly botched 'big deck' aircraft carrier project when they took office, the short & long term costs as well as the broad & diverse negative ramifications to the country should the current govt fail at- at least substantially- rectifying the projects' immense, egregiously dangerous design & planning errors- are incalculable...

The United Kingdom's 'big deck' aircraft carrier project is (at least in terms of public perceptions) the biggest, highest profile tax-payer funded project in the UK &, arguably, is the project with the most profound potential effect on how the country views itself & how the UK's allies, adversaries/potential adversaries, business partners & potential business partners view the UK......

Similarly, the UK's aircraft carrier project is by far the most watched & intensely scrutinized UK defence project by the international community- particularly by both the UK's allies & the country's adversaries/potential adversaries....

If the U.K.wants to retain its long held positions of substantial global influence and leadership at 'the big boys table' of international decision making bodies, then the parts of the U.K's military that most project UK presence and power- such as the Royal Navy- must continue to be legitimately viable- and capable- across the spectrum of potential 'blue water' duties that are to-be expected during the coming 40-50 years....

... something that is not possible without legitimate, fixed-wing aircraft aircraft carriers & without more than 6, 21st century-capable escorts (IE:more than the 6 'fully equipped' Type-45 Destroyers that are currently funded for construction/commissioning into the RN)

As a result of the current 'big deck' aircraft carrier project, the UK has developed 'big ship' military vessel construction capabilities.

To avoid these capabilities being eviscerated once the 2 currently undergoing re-design and construction carriers are completed, the UK ought to take steps to immediately sell these 2 vessels- fitted with catapults, weapons, communications and defensive systems- at a loss if required...

Once a policy decision has been made to do the above, the UK govt/MoD ought to commission UK firms to design new models of economical-to-operate big deck aircraft carriers that are both nuclear powered and catapult-equipped....

THE UK SHOULD SELL BOTH OF THEIR 2 UNDERGOING-CONSTRUCTION 'BIG DECK' AIRCRAFT CARRIERS AND COMMISSION THE DESIGN OF BIGGER, BETTER, MORE IMPRESSIVE ONES->>> AIMING FOR THE EXPORT MARKET!!
---------------

- "United Kingdom 'CVF'":
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/design-preparations-continue-for-bri...
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/

- "France 'Porte-Avions 2 (PA2)' Future Aircraft Carrier":
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/france-steaming-ahead-on-pa2cvf-carr...
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/porte-avoins2/
----------------

How to pay for the above and rectify the RN's current funding and capabilities' inadequacies??: £60bn in "Navy Bonds" (amortized over 40-50 years) + a legitimate, long-term (30 year) functional plan* for the Royal Navy...

* defined by capabilities required for the RN's expected duties and roles during 2012-2042

Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada

F-35 FIGHTER/BOMBER PROJECT- F136 ENGINE PROGRAMME FUNDING ISSUES NOT ADDRESSED IN 2012- 2013 BUDGET!!

PART 2:

Previous, still in service & still undergoing production U.S. Fighters & Fighter aircraft programmes such as the F-14, F-15 & F-16 ALL have more than model of engine (produced by different companies) available for fitting to these aircraft....

Reasons?:

- competition between different aircraft engine manufacturers in a specific Fighter programme ensures better quality, higher reliability & lower prices both for the new engines & for engine/aircraft maintenance through the life of the aircraft...

- in the event of a catastrophic flaw or major problem with one company's model of engine that requires the grounding of aircraft fitted with this engine, aircraft fitted with the 'competing model' of engine would not require grounding...

- Having 'competing' engines for a particular model of fighter has previously reaped many benefits for purchasers, IE: improved reliability, cheaper, lower incidence of flaws, easier maintenance & substantial life-cycle cost savings over having only 1 model of engine available:

- "The (US) Air Force & the Great Engine War" By Robert W. Drewes:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=NCj7xNf0ya8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22t...

As late as last September-2011 the US's GAO was questioning the US's DoD's unwillingness to consider basic, well known existing facts about the advantages of having an alternative engine programme for the F-35 Fighter- before rejecting & refusing to support continued funding of the F136 engine for the F-35:

September 14-2011- http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11903r.pdf - Page #2

The US's GAO, Congressional Research Service & many hundreds of elected Representatives & Senators ALL recommended that the F136 engine programme continue & that the F136 engine (when developed) be on par with the F-35 Fighters' other engine, the F135, to purchasers of this aircraft when deciding how their F-35s were to be equipped....

The UK's current coalition govt has been appallingly silent about the F136 engine programme cancellation & meanwhile Italy gets an F-35 Fighter-Bomber assembly plant while the UK, apparently, gets its F-35's without British engines & from a Texas, U.S.A. assembly plant:
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20120212/DEFREG01/302120012/Italy-F-3...

Why aren't the Rolls-Royce/GE F136 engine programme's funding issues- & the programme's recent cancellation- addressed in the 2012- 2013 budget??

F-35 FIGHTER/BOMBER PROJECT- F136 ENGINE PROGRAMME FUNDING ISSUES NOT ADDRESSED IN 2012- 2013 BUDGET!!

The United Kingdom's 2012- 2013 budget was appallingly silent about the US/UK F-35 Fighter-Bomber project's Rolls-Royce/GE "F136" engine programme's recent cancellation*..

Why aren't the Rolls-Royce/GE F136 engine programme's funding issues- & the programme's recent cancellation- addressed in the 2012- 2013 budget??

* http://www.rolls-royce.com/defence/products/combat_jets/f136.jsp
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-f136-engine-more-lives-than-disc...
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/GERR-F136-Jet-Engine-Passes-Critical...

The F-35 Fighter-Bomber is designed as a single-engine aircraft, but was originally intended to have 2 interchangeable engines:

- the F135 made by Pratt and Whitney; &

- the F136 made by a Rolls-Royce/GE consortium.

While in the final stages of development, the F136 was cancelled last April-2011 by a defence budget vote in the US Congress- against loud objections by many Senators & Representatives & despite the US's Government Accountability Office (GAO) & other financial-oversight bodies recommending against this...

Despite the loss of govt funding, Rolls-Royce & GE 'self-funded' the F136 engine programme until last December-2011, when both companies pulled the plug... possibly due to delays in the F-35 project & uncertainties whether they would receive timely returns on their F136 investments

In 2006 when attempts were first made by the US's Department of Defense (DoD) & Congress to cancel the F136 engine programme, the UK's previous Labour govt had apparently threatened to pull out of the F-35 Fighter-Bomber project altogether if the F136 engine programme was cancelled:

- 2006: http://www.govexec.com/defense/2006/03/british-demand-better-access-to-f...

- 2006: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA454434 (page #8)

- 2009: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33390.pdf (pages 11- 13)

Similar to the U.S. govt, the U.K.'s coalition govt states that it wants to cultivate U.K. jobs & innovation- aimed at the export market...

->>> If the US's Congress & White House are not prepared to approve continued funding to complete development of the Rolls-Royce/GE F136 engine programme, why couldn't (the US's Department of Defense & govt authorize) the UK to front the comparatively paltry sums (roughly £1.5B over 4-years) required for completion of the F136 engine????

If this was done it would enable purchasers of F-35s to be able to chose between 2 'competing' engines for their aircraft: driving down F-35s' engines' costs while improving quality & reliability...