BAE is a virtual monopoly in Britain building the aircraft carriers (above) and all the submarines ie. the final Astute, SSBN-Dreadnoughts and SSN-AUKUS.
---
The lucid commentary in the video above, of BAE dealing with average 18 month-serving politicians, low profile admirals and officials, is a sad tale that applied to Britain's largest carriers ever. These 2 Queen Elizabeth-class carriers have less capability, based on poor planning and 3rd rate program management.
The extravagant size of the carriers sucked in money, shipbuilding and ultimately crew resources at the expense of building enough smaller vessels for other UK RN roles, including escorts. Britain's 2 much smaller Audacious-class carriers built 75 years ago, could each actually deploy around 45 aircraft, rather than just plan on paper Elizabeth style. The 2 Audacious' aircraft averaged the same F-4 Phantom jet size as the F-35Bs the Elizabeth class are restricted to.
Britain:
- has too few crew, too little money and airwings too small to operate the 2 carriers simultaneously
- ie. usually has too few F-35Bs to serve on even one of the 2 carriers. Frequently US Marine Corps F-35Bs are required to make up the numbers on these 2 Brit carriers.
- finds the carriers break down too often
- Britain's decision to only have the ski-jump/vertical takeoff F-35Bs means the F-35Bs have low fuel/range, low weapons' load with F-35Bs being the Only fixed wing types
- finds the carriers break down too often
- Britain's decision to only have the ski-jump/vertical takeoff F-35Bs means the F-35Bs have low fuel/range, low weapons' load with F-35Bs being the Only fixed wing types
- in contrast US and French CATOBAR carriers (the French carrier being far smaller than Brit carriers) can operate more aircraft, with more fuel, range and weapons and can also operate fixed wing ASW aircraft, unlike Brit carriers (restricted to short range, short loiter ASW helicopters).
- Brits can only afford/crew 2 British destroyer or frigate escorts per carrier group
- hence must rely on 2 or 3 foreign escorts to make up the numbers in a carrier group
- frequently finds all Britain's Astute SSNs are under medium-longish term unscheduled repair
- hence a British carrier group must rely on an essential US or French navy SSN to defend the group
The list goes on of British missteps and poor decisions as documented in the video above.
Britain (BAE) had severe problems building the Astutes on time and on budget with ongoing reactor piping defects that render most, sometimes all of Britain's Astute SSN force in mid to lengthy term unscheduled docking. Britain also needs its small and problematic submarine building workforce to truly begin and complete its huge Dreadnought-class SSBN program. In the early 2000s Britain relied on US companies to resolve Britain's Astute problems. But this time those US companies have their own severe problems building US Columbia-class SSBNs and of course Virginia repair problems. See the US's own chronic availability shortfalls.
Should Australia buy (or build under British/BAE management) inevitably evolved Astutes class SSNs (called SSN-AUKUS) from a Britain that has planned and built its SSNs and carriers so poorly over the last 2 decades?
No comments:
Post a Comment