Key Facts – Aircraft Carrier Alliance
Other than the Nimitz class they are the largest on the planet...
Are you suggesting defence procurement has flaws? Surely not.
Naval v Commercial Shipbuilding Rules - Think Defence
"Not a Boffin
October 15, 2012 at 10:58 am
There seems to be an awful lot of confusion here on what constitutes “Naval” and “Commercial” standards. This is also being mixed up with poor requirementeering, for which as SI rightly points out, the most important thing is to ” Know what it is you are asking for!!”.
When Ocean was contracted for (1993 – remember it well), there was basically a choice between Naval Standards (SSCP23 for constructive design, NES 154/155 for build and inspection, various other NES for machinery, outfit, magazines etc etc) and “commercial” Rules (eg Lloyds Register Rules & Regulations for Commercial Ships). For a variety of reasons, VSEL/Kvaerner went with LR for the design of the hull structure and probably the main machinery. Other items of equipment were specified against what was believed to be the “appropriate” standard. The problem being that there was very little input from MoD/the user to confirm this was the case, the classic case in point being the LCVP davits. The davits were perfectly normal davits such as you would find with lifeboats dangling off them on commercial ships. Perfectly fit for that purpose, which basically involves a proof test for MCA once a year where you demonstrate that the davit can lower the boat. Not so good for the sort of intensive use you get with Royal, where the davits are operated several times a day – in other words the duty cycle assumed for the requirement was totally inappropriate. Hence off Sierra Leone, three of the four LCVP points were unusable within hours of the op commencing."
But that's the point!If GB had written a contract where one or both could have been cancelled, then DC would have cancelled to save money (austerity, don't you know)
But GB was a genius, with foresight that should now be respected as breath-taking, because we now actually need both carriers and without his unbreakable contracts we wouldn't have them.
(As for the over-spend, that's defence procurement for you)
No, tonight I think the whole country (even Scotland) should raise a glass and thank Gordon Brown.
Sometimes people just cope.
Unless you could have done better.

Oh you are awful...
... But I like you!
The contracts being unbreakable was not what I was referring to in particular.
I'm much more unhappy that we paid a premium to have a design where catapults could be retrofitted, and then found that the cost of amending the ships to retrofit the catapults was around the same cost as buying a new carrier.
I strongly suspect John is not being entirely serious...
Can we introduce sarcasm tags as I'm lost, although amused, I think.
A 'tongue in cheek' smiley would be good.
Can such a smiley be added to the list IG?

No comment. 
Wasn't the last one a refitted old Russian one?
All well and good making these new carriers but with Russian anti shipping missiles being able to get past the US Aegis systems and a generation of hypersonic ones not far behind you have to wonder how much more use Carriers will be. Also aren't the Chinese developing a ballistic anti carrier missile?