Skip to comments.Aircraft carrier costs will be half what you think, US tells ministers
Posted on 03/24/2012 7:35:32 PM PDT by U-238
Converting HMS Prince of Wales so that it can be used by the Joint Strike Fighter will require significantly less than the £2 billion quoted by officials, the assistant secretary of the US Navy, Sean J Stackley, insisted.
In a letter seen by The Daily Telegraph, he told Peter Luff, the defence procurement minister, that the necessary equipment would cost £458 million before installation. Defence experts estimate the installation cost at £400 million.
The letter was sent to Mr Luff before the Prime Minister met Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, at an emergency meeting about the carrier on Monday.
The carrier project has been overshadowed by cost and technical issues. In the Strategic Defence and Security Review of 2010, which scrapped Harrier jump jets, the Coalition opted for a conventional take-off and landing model of the new, American-built fighter instead of a jump-jet variant.
But ministers were on the point of changing their minds after MoD officials forecast that the cost of adapting a carrier to use the conventional planes would rise from £500 million to £1.8 billion.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
And if you believe that, I have some swampland in Florida to sell you.
Which means it will cost at least three times estimate.
There’s a Brit already training on the Navy’s F-35C test squadron at Pax River. Don’t know if he’ll get EMALS.
My how far England has fallen.
Why not lend lease an old carrier to the UK—The USS Kitty Hawk?
Click on pic for past Navair pings. Post or FReepmail me if you wish to be enlisted in or discharged from the Navair Pinglist. The only requirement for inclusion in the Navair Pinglist is an interest in Naval Aviation. This is a medium to low volume pinglist.
Good idea, I think. They would never go for it.The amount of money required to operate the carrier would break the welfare system that is now england.
The problem, as I understand it, is not capital construction, but rather manpower. What drove the Brits back to F-35B was the manpower costs associated with the crew necessary to man the catapults and arresting gear. One needs those folks for F-35C, but not for F-35B.
What I find amusing is that DoD seems to presume they know better than the Brits themselves.
Sounds like a bargain....
Whoops, Maybe i should have read the article first.
I wonder who got the payoff in convincing Britain to go with the F-35C instead of the B?
This decision probably pisses Lockheed off royally.