Download transcript of talk given by John D Coles, CB FREng
Download transcript of talk given by John D Coles, CB FREng
Download transcript of talk given by John D Coles, CB FREng
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
The Royal Academy<br />
<strong>of</strong> Engineering<br />
The Future Aircraft Carrier<br />
- the engineering and technical challenges<br />
<strong>of</strong> designing and building<br />
the largest ever warships for the Royal Navy<br />
Tuesday, 20 March 2007<br />
The Department <strong>of</strong> Trade and Industry (DTI)<br />
1 Victoria Street<br />
LONDON SW1<br />
Speaker:<br />
Chairman:<br />
<strong>John</strong> D <strong>Coles</strong>, <strong>CB</strong> <strong>FREng</strong>, Future Aircraft Carrier (CVF)<br />
Integrated Project Team Leader, Ministry <strong>of</strong> Defence<br />
Sir <strong>John</strong> Parker, <strong>FREng</strong>, Chairman, National Grid plc
THE FUTURE AIRCRAFT CARRIER<br />
The engineering and technical challenges <strong>of</strong> designing and building<br />
the largest ever warships for the Royal Navy<br />
Tuesday, 20 March 2007<br />
Speaker: <strong>John</strong> D <strong>Coles</strong>, <strong>CB</strong>, <strong>FREng</strong><br />
Sir <strong>John</strong> Parker <strong>FREng</strong> (Chairman): Distinguished guests, ladies and<br />
gentlemen, may I bid you all a warm welcome to this Royal Academy <strong>of</strong> Engineering lecture.<br />
The fact that we have some 240 participants assembled here at 4.30pm on a Tuesday shows<br />
that this lecture concerns a topic <strong>of</strong> great interest.<br />
Perhaps I am biased but, as a naval architect and mechanical engineer, I have yet to<br />
come across a major project which demands such a unique combination and range <strong>of</strong><br />
engineering disciplines, than is required for the design <strong>of</strong> a nuclear submarine or a major<br />
complex surface ship such as the proposed aircraft carriers. Retaining this specialist<br />
engineering and naval architectural skill base in the UK, plus continuing to recruit a raft <strong>of</strong><br />
new graduates, will be vital to the success <strong>of</strong> this and other current naval projects, including<br />
the Astute nuclear submarines and the new deterrent submarines over the next 25 years.<br />
The Royal Academy <strong>of</strong> Engineering, working with other engineering institutions, is increasing<br />
its outreach efforts to double the number <strong>of</strong> young people in our schools to be introduced to<br />
the excitement and challenge <strong>of</strong> an engineering career.<br />
Our speaker this afternoon, <strong>John</strong> <strong>Coles</strong>, is a true engineering pr<strong>of</strong>essional, for whom I<br />
and many others in this room have enormous respect. <strong>John</strong> <strong>Coles</strong> was awarded a Royal<br />
Corps <strong>of</strong> Naval constructors Cadetship to study at University College London. Following<br />
appointments associated with the design and acquisition <strong>of</strong> ships and submarines, he joined<br />
the staff <strong>of</strong> Flag Officer Submarines at Northwood in 1978. In February 1982, he headed the<br />
British Admiralty Office in Connecticut, United States, overseeing the design and integration<br />
<strong>of</strong> the centre section <strong>of</strong> the Vanguard class submarines.<br />
On return to the United Kingdom, he was Assistant Director for Future Naval Projects,<br />
based in London. Reassigned to Bath in 1988, he was the Design and Acquisition Project<br />
Manager for the Vanguard class submarines and, later, the Project Manager for Batch 2<br />
Trafalgar class submarines. In 1992, he was appointed as the Director <strong>of</strong> Works to manage<br />
1
the completion <strong>of</strong> the large civil works programmes at the Faslane Naval Base and near<strong>by</strong><br />
armament depot at Coulport in Scotland. He attended the RCDS in 1994 and, on<br />
completion, was appointed Superintendent <strong>of</strong> Ships at Devonport.<br />
<strong>John</strong> took over as the Chief Executive <strong>of</strong> the Ships Support Agency in September<br />
1997 and became Head <strong>of</strong> the Royal Corps <strong>of</strong> Naval Constructors in April 1998. In 2001, he<br />
became the first Chief Executive <strong>of</strong> the newly formed Warship Support Agency, now part <strong>of</strong><br />
the DLO (Defence Logistics Organisation). In 2004, he became Director General Nuclear, a<br />
role in which he is accountable to the Chief <strong>of</strong> Defence Procurement and Chief <strong>of</strong> Defence<br />
Logistics for the coherent delivery <strong>of</strong> the MOD’s nuclear programme.<br />
In December 2001, <strong>John</strong> was awarded an honorary degree <strong>of</strong> Doctor <strong>of</strong> Engineering<br />
from Bath University. In 2004 he was elected as a Fellow <strong>of</strong> the Royal Academy <strong>of</strong><br />
Engineering and was awarded the <strong>CB</strong> in January 2005.<br />
<strong>John</strong> took up the post <strong>of</strong> Future Aircraft Carrier (CVF) Integrated Project Team<br />
Leader in January 2005. The project is at the forefront <strong>of</strong> SMART Acquisition, and is using<br />
an innovative alliancing approach that is bringing together the MoD and Industry to deliver<br />
the two new carriers to time and cost. <strong>John</strong> represents the client in the Alliance and is<br />
Chairman <strong>of</strong> the Aircraft Alliance Management Board.<br />
It now gives me very great pleasure to invite <strong>John</strong> to present his lecture. [Applause]<br />
THE FUTURE AIRCRAFT CARRIER<br />
- The Engineering and Technical Challenges <strong>of</strong><br />
Designing and Building the Largest Ever Warships for the Royal Navy<br />
<strong>John</strong> D <strong>Coles</strong> <strong>CB</strong>, <strong>FREng</strong><br />
Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. Thank you, Sir <strong>John</strong>,<br />
for that introduction, and to the Academy for giving me the opportunity to <strong>talk</strong> about some <strong>of</strong><br />
the work undertaken <strong>by</strong> the Ministry <strong>of</strong> Defence and industry over the last seven years or so<br />
on this fascinating project. Conducting public procurement on such a project brings with it at<br />
times unwelcome but ultimately unavoidable interest from the public, the media and<br />
parliamentarians.<br />
2
Media attention<br />
A sample <strong>of</strong> recent headlines is shown here, and most <strong>of</strong> these occurred last week.<br />
Questions from parliamentarians, select committees, members <strong>of</strong> the public and the media –<br />
particularly following the Freedom <strong>of</strong> Information Act – add enormously to the task <strong>of</strong><br />
managing such a complex project.<br />
[Photo]<br />
Since I assumed responsibility for this project two years ago, there have been 35<br />
freedom <strong>of</strong> information requests; 87 full ministerial responses and 83 parliamentary<br />
questions, covering subjects ranging from the procurement <strong>of</strong> valves, to the date when the<br />
first ship steel will be cut. That is reflected in the public interest and attention that this project<br />
attracts. Therefore, when I was approached <strong>by</strong> Sir <strong>John</strong> to give this lecture, I decided that<br />
sharing information about the project with such a body might help to reduce the burden on<br />
myself and the team – although somehow I doubt that.<br />
Before we delve into the current project, I would like to recall briefly the first use <strong>of</strong> air<br />
power from sea in support <strong>of</strong> the UK’s armed forces, which is approaching its centenary.<br />
History <strong>of</strong> carrier design<br />
Early experiments were <strong>of</strong>ten very dangerous, as this footage shows. [Video shown]<br />
These are sea planes being lifted onto some earlier carriers, as they were called, launched<br />
<strong>of</strong>f a gun barrel, and railway lines. Very tricky – keep the nose up. At least they rescued the<br />
pilot! Note the hesitation amongst the crew – this is not quite the health and safety <strong>of</strong> the<br />
nineties. [Laughter]<br />
This is a very busy flight deck, and there are lots <strong>of</strong> planes in the sky.<br />
The first operational use <strong>of</strong> air power from sea occurred on Christmas Day, 1914, with<br />
planes attacking the Zeppelin sheds at Cuxhaven <strong>by</strong> nine sea planes flying from three ships.<br />
The ships themselves were actually converted cross-channel ferries. The results were not<br />
spectacular in military terms. It required the deployment <strong>of</strong> some 150 ships in a variety <strong>of</strong><br />
supporting roles – 150 ships for nine sea planes. Regardless <strong>of</strong> the lack <strong>of</strong> success <strong>of</strong> this<br />
mission, sea-based aviation has developed rapidly, with very ships deploying large numbers<br />
<strong>of</strong> fast jets either in support <strong>of</strong> naval operations or <strong>of</strong> a land battle. They are being deployed<br />
for long periods <strong>of</strong> time, without shore-side support.<br />
[Photo]<br />
The US navy carrier Nimitz class, shown here, is an exemplar <strong>of</strong> delivering air power<br />
from the sea.<br />
3
Requirement – policy background<br />
The requirement for the UK’s future carriers, or CVF as they are known, stems<br />
directly from the 1998 Strategic Defence Review, set in motion <strong>by</strong> the incoming<br />
administration. This policy was re-endorsed in the New Chapter work published in 2002 and<br />
then <strong>by</strong> the Defence White Paper in December 2003, and summarised in this slide in the<br />
2005 Defence Strategic Guidance.<br />
The CVF, with its embarked air group, provides the means to put up excursionary<br />
warfare in support <strong>of</strong> the land campaign from the sea, avoiding the need for concrete<br />
runways and permission for overflights. In short, the UK can intervene at a posed threat at a<br />
time <strong>of</strong> its choice.<br />
Invincible class plus Harriers<br />
This national capability for ships with embarked aircraft and support equipment is<br />
known collectively as ‘carrier strike’, and <strong>of</strong>fers a considerable increase in capability than that<br />
currently available in the Invincible class, equipped with Harrier GR 9s.<br />
CVF – tasking spectrum<br />
Of course, while the ships’ early design is for this primary task, history teaches us that<br />
they are more likely to be deployed on a much wider range <strong>of</strong> tasks, captured in this slide.<br />
The range <strong>of</strong> tasks extend from preventing conflict to full scale war fighting. The majority <strong>of</strong><br />
their time, however, is engaged on preventing conflict.<br />
The delivery <strong>of</strong> carrier strike capability requires even more than the carriers<br />
themselves. First, there are the Joint Combat Aircraft, the <strong>of</strong>fensive elements, also known as<br />
the Joint Strike Fighter, or the F35 or, in the US, Lightning 2, which is replacing the GR 9<br />
Harriers operating in Joint Force Harrier. The aircraft have been developed <strong>by</strong> Lockheed<br />
Martin in three variants: in CTOL (Conventional Take-Off and Landing); STOVL (Short Take-<br />
Off and Vertical Landing), and CV (Carrier Variant), equipped with the capability to be<br />
catapulted from and arrested on a ship.<br />
There is considerable equipment and component commonality between these<br />
variants with all aircraft are capable <strong>of</strong> operating in all weathers, day and night, flying strike<br />
missions and conducting <strong>of</strong>fensive <strong>of</strong>f-ground operations when forces are ashore. Aircraft<br />
such as the Joint Strike Fighter, equipped with precision guided weapons, are much more<br />
effective than aircraft were a few years ago. Each JSF can successfully engage several<br />
targets where, historically, several aircraft would be required to neutralise just one target.<br />
4
JCA (CTOL)<br />
A pre-production CTOL first flew in December last year. The corresponding STOVL<br />
version, the UK’s chosen variant, is scheduled to take its maiden flight in the spring <strong>of</strong> next<br />
year.<br />
Sea King Mark 7<br />
The Maritime Airborne Surveillance and Control Capability (MASC), the role currently<br />
provided <strong>by</strong> the Sea King Mark 7, is also required for the carrier strike. Studies are<br />
underway to consider updating or replacing this capability for the CVF.<br />
Afloat support will enable each carrier to remain on station for a long time, provided<br />
<strong>by</strong> new ships under the Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability programme. All <strong>of</strong> these<br />
projects are yet to enter service and in fact each <strong>of</strong> these programmes – JSF, MASC and<br />
MARS – is at a different stage <strong>of</strong> the procurement cycle, which adds enormously to the<br />
complexity <strong>of</strong> designing and building a CVF.<br />
Beyond these headline programmes, there are a many more labours that will be<br />
required to deliver carrier strike. To ensure coherence across defence Rear Admiral Guild,<br />
sitting in the front row here, acts as the Senior Responsible Owner, with specific<br />
responsibility and accountability for the coherence <strong>of</strong> carrier strike across defence.<br />
So far, I have outlined the background to the requirements in general terms, and the<br />
key elements that would make that carrier strike capability. The process to turn these<br />
concepts into military hardware is captured in the phrase ‘Smart Acquisition’, introduced into<br />
the Ministry <strong>of</strong> Defence as part <strong>of</strong> the Strategic Defence Review that proposed to the carriers.<br />
As a result, the project was one <strong>of</strong> the first to embrace this new doctrine.<br />
It would take a full lecture on this alone to do justice to it, but suffice it to say that the<br />
key ingredients are in place to enable delivery <strong>of</strong> the project. These include a clearly defined<br />
customer, setting and funding the capability – and he is here today, too; to empower the<br />
integrated project team to deliver the capability – that is me and my team; the early<br />
engagement <strong>of</strong> the supply base – and there are lots <strong>of</strong> those here today; understanding and<br />
allowing for the cost <strong>of</strong> ownership importantly, when spending considerable resources, <strong>of</strong> up<br />
to 15 per cent <strong>of</strong> the total project costs, before final commitment to manufacture.<br />
CADMID cycle – against time<br />
And then there is a structured approach to acquisition, the so-called CADMID cycle.<br />
This has six phases: concept; assessment; demonstration; manufacture; in-service, and<br />
disposal – all <strong>of</strong> different lengths, <strong>of</strong> course, with a two-stage approach to the formal<br />
approvals at the initial and remaining dates. CVF is currently in the third phase <strong>of</strong> the<br />
5
CADMID cycle, the demonstration phase, to ensure the design, build maturity, strategy,<br />
industrial capacity, costs and, importantly, the risks, are fully understood and accepted<br />
before the substantive manufacture and therefore costs are incurred.<br />
Equally important, as we move through the CADMID cycle, is to consider whether<br />
what we plan to acquire is what the customer wants – that is, the defence staff and the Royal<br />
Navy. Defining the need, with a programme such as this, begins with identifying a capability<br />
gap which, in this case, was fully explained in the Defence Review itself. The solution to fill<br />
this need begins <strong>by</strong> identifying key requirements – which mean the mission to be achieved.<br />
Key User Requirements<br />
With the CVF, there are nine key user requirements (KURs), which define the<br />
capability required. Each <strong>of</strong> these is supported in more detail <strong>by</strong> a series <strong>of</strong> so-called user<br />
requirements documents (URDs), and there are typically 10 <strong>of</strong> these per KUR. A solution is<br />
developed, which meets each <strong>of</strong> these URDs but, almost invariably, the result is too<br />
expensive or too difficult to achieve. It is the responsibility <strong>of</strong> the IPT, in conjunction with the<br />
customer and the supply chain, to examine these capability requirements and seek a solution<br />
that would measure trade-<strong>of</strong>fs, and meets the available budget. This is necessarily an<br />
iterative and, I have to say, lengthy process, requiring both analysis and synthesis <strong>of</strong> a<br />
complex set <strong>of</strong> variables.<br />
It we mentally walk around this slide, I will outline a representative number <strong>of</strong> KURs,<br />
with the security constraints <strong>of</strong> this unclassified presentation, in the time available, to look at<br />
the cost <strong>of</strong> capability trade-<strong>of</strong>fs.<br />
The first one is inter-operability. This capability is essentially the degree to which<br />
information can be generated, gathered, supplied, and distributed through a variety <strong>of</strong><br />
national and multinational systems. Such a capability may require an enhanced<br />
communication fit, radars, antennae, as well as complex distribution systems and the ability<br />
to integrate complex messages that the embarked staff can comprehend and issue the<br />
necessary commands. The capabilities for trading are very wide including, for example,<br />
intensive manpower that might be required to operate and maintain the systems.<br />
KUR3: availability. The CVF shall provide one platform at high readiness for its<br />
principal roles at all times. This one almost speaks for itself – but the trade-<strong>of</strong>f<br />
considerations include the life <strong>of</strong> the vessel, on-shore maintenance requirements, hit<br />
reliability, system redundancy and readiness. It also, <strong>of</strong> course, drove the need for two<br />
ships. The carriers have an availability which is very similar to that <strong>of</strong> cruise ships – <strong>of</strong> about<br />
300 days per year.<br />
6
KUR6: aircraft operations. The physical size <strong>of</strong> the air wing, the volume <strong>of</strong> the hangar<br />
and the sortie generation rate – that is, the total number <strong>of</strong> aircraft flights per day – are major<br />
influences on the capability. Perhaps less well understood are the demands <strong>of</strong> high sortie<br />
generation rates on weapon handling and spaces for weapon preparation, prior to their<br />
delivery to the aircraft. Considerable modelling has been undertaken to optimise the ability<br />
to handle a large number <strong>of</strong> aircraft on the flight deck and in the hangar, and deliver weapons<br />
to them. Such modelling has inputs, for example, on the number and size <strong>of</strong> the aircraft lifts;<br />
the arming and refuelling positions, as well as related matters <strong>of</strong> provision <strong>of</strong> aircraft<br />
maintenance spaces, reading rooms, mission planning and so on. The trade space is<br />
extensive.<br />
And finally, KUR8: flexibility. This capability is virtually guaranteed with a ship <strong>of</strong> this<br />
size, with its flexibility to be reconfigured to operate different aircraft and to operate, for<br />
example, a landing platform helicopter role, similar to HMS Ocean, for humanitarian support.<br />
Consideration was also <strong>given</strong> to fitting catapults and arresters, demanding space and<br />
power throughout the ship, to fit future systems, representing a huge area <strong>of</strong> potential trade<strong>of</strong>f.<br />
The synthesis <strong>of</strong> these ‘ilities’, from inter-operability to versatility, together with our<br />
expanded user requirements documents and subsequent analyses, produced a solution to<br />
the required capability that is judged affordable and therefore build-able. Adjustments were<br />
necessarily made to the URDs, although most <strong>of</strong> the major decisions were taken <strong>by</strong> 2004/5.<br />
There are a number <strong>of</strong> solutions, all <strong>of</strong> which meet the KURs with their advocates.<br />
What is needed …. A Treasury view?<br />
This is what the Treasury thought we should have. [Laughter]<br />
extremely low through-life costs.<br />
Not much use, but<br />
What is needed …. A Royal Air Force view?<br />
This is what the Royal Air Force thought we might need – expensive, and useless for<br />
military operations, but it has lower life costs.<br />
What is needed …. A Royal Navy view?<br />
And then the Royal Navy – which meets all the requirements but is hopelessly<br />
expensive and unaffordable.<br />
7
… but this is the preferred solution<br />
But the preferred solution is this one, since it meets all the KURs, all the URDs, and it<br />
is affordable. Of course, we have gradually reached this one, after a number <strong>of</strong> iterations <strong>of</strong><br />
designs.<br />
As well as meeting the capability requirement, the design was influenced <strong>by</strong> the drive<br />
to use more commercial standards for certain equipment and structures, while pulling<br />
through equipment from other naval programmes, to avoid development risks and<br />
manufacturing constraints – <strong>of</strong> which more later.<br />
The final design is known as Design Delta. In my view, it is elegant and innovative,<br />
with many features reduced to cost <strong>of</strong> production and whole life costs, as well as a carefully<br />
researched arrangement for the integral layout for competing spaces.<br />
Much <strong>of</strong> the credit for this should go to BMT, for the fundamental concept design,<br />
while under contract to Thales. Other companies, including BAE Systems at Govan and<br />
Barrow, as well as BAE Systems Insyte, Converteam, Rolls Royce, MacTagger Scott, L3,<br />
VT, Babcock and KBR, among others, have made significant contributions. The concept <strong>of</strong><br />
the design itself, the design development, procurement or manufacturing process – it is a<br />
truly, national programme.<br />
Initially, there were competing design proposals from BAE Systems and Thales UK,<br />
which sought to address many <strong>of</strong> the issues I have highlighted. The conclusion reached was<br />
that both companies <strong>of</strong>fered largely complementary skills and that, <strong>by</strong> choosing only one, we<br />
would lose some <strong>of</strong> the expertise and knowledge to deliver the programme. The Ministry <strong>of</strong><br />
Defence decided that utilising the skillsets <strong>of</strong> both teams to mature the design was the best<br />
way forward. The alliance approach which was finally adopted initially between MoD, BAE<br />
Systems and Thales was announced in January 2003.<br />
Aircraft carrier alliance<br />
The size and shape <strong>of</strong> the alliance continued to develop as the project moved through<br />
development, to incorporate other players, as shown on this slide; KBR joined, and then the<br />
shipyards – Babcock and VT.<br />
Key principles are having a single, integrated team, with collective ownership <strong>of</strong> the<br />
programme, including the risks, to deliver a project <strong>by</strong> minimising cost and therefore<br />
increasing pr<strong>of</strong>itability. There is incentivisation to achieve outstanding performance.<br />
8
Alliance charter<br />
Each <strong>of</strong> the chief executives <strong>of</strong> those companies signed up to a charter for the<br />
conduct <strong>of</strong> business and, without top cover from the CEOs, alliances would always struggle<br />
to deliver. An alliance must be based on innovation and support, as well as on a culture <strong>of</strong><br />
trust – typified, for example, <strong>by</strong> open-book accounting and the acceptance <strong>of</strong> a higher rate <strong>of</strong><br />
return and not simply chasing turnover. This reflects the experiences <strong>of</strong> successful alliances<br />
in the oil and gas industry, as well as our experience in the demonstration phase, which has<br />
had some considerable success in driving out cost.<br />
Flight deck – STOVL and CV configurations<br />
Turning to the design itself, we need to recognise that carrier design is an<br />
exceptionally complex three-dimensional puzzle. This is the first adapted design that was<br />
fitted with a ski-jump to operate the STOVL aircraft. This is a view <strong>of</strong> the flight deck. This<br />
can be altered in service, if you wish, to accommodate catapults and arrester gear to fly CV<br />
aircraft – so you would have two catapults here, one here and one there, an angled flight<br />
deck, and you can obviously take <strong>of</strong>f and have arrester wires here, to arrest the aircraft.<br />
We had to accommodate both designs right through the whole process, which means<br />
that you have a lot <strong>of</strong> space reservations as you go through the design.<br />
A supply chain with over 30 major suppliers has helped to create a solution which<br />
matches the capability required for the available budget.<br />
Principal particulars (all approx)<br />
The principal features are outlined on this slide. It is about 270m long on the<br />
waterline, which is just under 900 ft. It is 40m on the beam (130ft), and at the start <strong>of</strong> life it<br />
displaces about 65,000 tonnes, with a 10 per cent growth to grow over the life. There are<br />
nine decks below the flight deck, with a minimum deck height <strong>of</strong> three metres – about 10ft –<br />
to ease manufacturer and the running <strong>of</strong> systems.<br />
These are, therefore, very large ships, in terms <strong>of</strong> volume, width and length. Indeed,<br />
they are volume-driven, rather like cruise ships. The payload is not very dense – and that is<br />
not, <strong>of</strong> course, a reflection on the passengers.<br />
Design Delta<br />
A comparison with current carriers <strong>of</strong> other nations is shown here. This is the current<br />
Invincible Class; the Charles de Gaulle; the Nimitz class, and the CVF. So it is quite a large<br />
ship, although not as large as the largest <strong>of</strong> course – but considerably bigger than the current<br />
Invincible class.<br />
9
CVF-T45 Midship section comparison<br />
This is the carrier in section. This is a Type 45 destroyer. You can see that the<br />
sponsons on the side <strong>of</strong> the ship are equal to half a Type 45, <strong>by</strong> volume <strong>of</strong> course, so it is<br />
quite large.<br />
The other way <strong>of</strong> looking at this is <strong>by</strong> the size <strong>of</strong> the flight deck, which is four acres –<br />
or two Invincible class, plus nine tennis courts. This always gives rise to the phrase that we<br />
have widely used, which is that this is “four acres <strong>of</strong> British sovereignty”, able to be deployed<br />
worldwide. It is an enormous capability to develop.<br />
CVF size comparison<br />
There is a danger in over-concentrating on the size and volume <strong>of</strong> these ships and, in<br />
any case, size it not directly related to costs. There are, therefore, four principle size drivers.<br />
First, the sortie generation is clearly influenced <strong>by</strong> the number <strong>of</strong> aircraft and therefore the<br />
size <strong>of</strong> the hangar, emissions, and aviation support. Second, there is the provision <strong>of</strong> the<br />
four a ‘for but not with’ capability, for fitting catapults and arrester gears, and that determines<br />
the length. Third, there is the overall complement required to be put in the ship, particularly<br />
<strong>given</strong> the more generous spaces for sleeping and recreation now required for all rates and<br />
ranks. Finally, there is the tankage volume necessary for unrefuelled range at the cruising<br />
speed. There are others, but those are the most important points.<br />
CVF design standards and key technical issues<br />
Let me say something about a few <strong>of</strong> the standards and general principles before<br />
<strong>talk</strong>ing about the ships themselves.<br />
General design standards and policies<br />
We have used, as much as we can, Lloyds’ rules for structures and systems, and<br />
also for commercial equipment – very much like the cruise liner industry – and, where we<br />
need to, defence standards for military features. The transversals, across the ship, noise,<br />
environmental – these, again, are based upon commercial standards. We have tried to put a<br />
lot <strong>of</strong> the work from the cruise liner industry into these ships as well, where we have specific<br />
standards, for magazines, ability to withstand shock and noise signatures. Although it<br />
sounds like a commercial ship, it is still a warship, because it has all these features in it and,<br />
where we need military features, it has those too. In any case, it is also painted grey!<br />
10
CVF principal features (1)<br />
Let me <strong>talk</strong> about a few <strong>of</strong> the features. It is not very clear here, but there are two<br />
islands as you can see, on many <strong>of</strong> these things. This is rather a novel feature, since most<br />
carriers have a single island – at least, if they are conventionally powered – and they usually<br />
have a long, thin island for taking the uptakes and downtakes. However, with integrated<br />
electropropulsion and a long ship, you can actually move the engines, wider separated, and<br />
have the exhaust going just up these two, because the gas turbines are sited high up in the<br />
sponsons. The islands themselves are either for ship control or for flying operations, and<br />
also they are the only places where you could really put antennas and that sort <strong>of</strong> thing.<br />
I have <strong>talk</strong>ed about the 3m deck-to-deck height. This has a bulbous bow, probably a<br />
French one, and you will hear more about that in a moment. It has trim flaps, which are<br />
small things on the back <strong>of</strong> the ship to produce its good fuel efficiency. There is set use <strong>of</strong><br />
sponsons for all sorts <strong>of</strong> things around the side <strong>of</strong> the ship here, and you will see that later<br />
on.<br />
We have also built this in three zones because, since it is so big, commissioning will<br />
be difficult. If you actually build it such that you can commission those zones separately, you<br />
can reduce your construction time considerably.<br />
The complement is only 1,500, which is with the air crew embarked. That compares<br />
with probably about 4,000 for an American carrier. The size <strong>of</strong> these crews is very similar to<br />
that <strong>of</strong> the Invincible class. Cabins are a mixture <strong>of</strong> one, two and six-berth, all with the same<br />
features, or the same shape – and more <strong>of</strong> that later – and we have an integrated galley<br />
complex, with provisions rooms below.<br />
CVF principal features (2)<br />
Some <strong>of</strong> the other principle features include - I have mentioned already, the business<br />
about weapon preparation and handling. We have a fully automated weapon handling<br />
system, which is probably the most innovative part <strong>of</strong> the design – and I will <strong>talk</strong> about that<br />
later. It has a fully integrated electropropulsion system, which means that you can generate<br />
either for speed, or just for the ships system – and it is fully integrated in the way that it is put<br />
together.<br />
Propulsion is two shafts, and the motors are very similar to the Type 45 motors<br />
currently that they put on the Type 45 up at Govan.<br />
The power generation is two MT30 gas turbines, sited high up on the sponsons, and<br />
four diesels, in pairs, in two main chimney spaces. This is the gas turbine – and it is actually<br />
11
already in use in the American programme. This is part <strong>of</strong> the induction motor, which is very<br />
similar for the Type 45.<br />
General arrangement<br />
I will <strong>talk</strong> through this slowly, to give you some idea <strong>of</strong> the overall general<br />
arrangement. We have the two islands and <strong>of</strong> course, here are the zones for building these.<br />
Most <strong>of</strong> the aerials are up here, and I will come to that in a moment.<br />
The first space is the hangar and the workshop for the aircraft, which is 7.5 metres in<br />
height, to work on the aircraft in the workshops and the hangar. These two spaces are for<br />
the lifts, and there are sponsons for the gas turbines.<br />
The ops complex is sited, as you might imagine, underneath the main island carrying<br />
some <strong>of</strong> the more critical antenna.<br />
The main auxiliary machinery spaces – each <strong>of</strong> the main machineries is actually sited<br />
under an island for the exhaust, and the gas turbines are sited on the sponsons, high up,<br />
considerably reducing the complexity or trunking, which traditionally in carriers went across<br />
the ship and occupied huge amounts <strong>of</strong> space. In each space, there is a main and auxiliary<br />
machinery space, for the distribution <strong>of</strong> the equipment power and so on, that needs to be<br />
delivered in those spaces.<br />
Aircraft operations: the whole <strong>of</strong> the back end <strong>of</strong> the ship underneath the flight deck is<br />
devoted to what I would call briefing rooms, where the air crew keep their kit, and where they<br />
do their pre-flight training, briefing and planning. This has been carefully thought out so that,<br />
when the pilot leaves this area to go to his aeroplane, he just needs the key to put in the slot<br />
and fly <strong>of</strong>f. This has been very carefully researched.<br />
Accommodation is shown in yellow. Vast areas <strong>of</strong> the ship are devoted to<br />
accommodation, not unlike a cruise ship. That is three decks-worth <strong>of</strong> accommodation for<br />
the 1600 people who we can actually put in cabins or bunks.<br />
Propulsion machinery is back down here, because <strong>of</strong> course you do not have any<br />
long shaft-lengths. You have a fully electrically integrated drive and propulsion motors can<br />
be sited down at the back end <strong>of</strong> the ship, reducing enormously the complexity <strong>of</strong> your<br />
transmission system and shafting.<br />
We looked at pods on the outside, in the cruise line industry, but concluded, after four<br />
looks at it, that it was too risky.<br />
Aviation stores – we will pass over that.<br />
12
Galley and dining are here, as you will see shortly, above the accommodation<br />
spaces, together with the spaces here and here [on slide]<br />
Switchboards are above the main machinery spaces, both HV and LV. We have a<br />
big medical centre for 1600 people and, <strong>of</strong> course, with no interim relief, you want a good<br />
medical centre. This goes the full width <strong>of</strong> the ship, like a small cottage hospital, I would say.<br />
There are lots <strong>of</strong> ships stores to put the kits in down here, and back there. There are<br />
tanks for the Avcat to support the sorties required, and for diesel for the ship. Finally, there is<br />
the mooring equipment to make sure that we can come alongside safely. It has a bulbous<br />
bow and, although you cannot see it on this slide, it has twin flaps at the back, that are<br />
covered from the rudders, aft <strong>of</strong> the screw. This is a large ship.<br />
Mission system<br />
I did not know whether to include this here, but I have done it deliberately – it is the<br />
mission system. People <strong>talk</strong> about mission systems but what I wanted to show here is that<br />
what we have done in this ship is to pull through technology from existing programmes, to<br />
reduce both the development risk and to reduce the overall risk <strong>of</strong> integration.<br />
Air traffic control is from the current naval air stations. The command system is from<br />
a Type 45, adapted for those pieces. Long-range radar, Type 45. Shorter-range radar for<br />
aircraft control are from the Type 23. The optical systems are from the Type 45 and Type 23<br />
class frigates.<br />
The precision approach radar is from the current CVSs. Phones are COTS<br />
(Commercial Off The Shelf). There is a fibre optic network running around the ship, which<br />
takes all the information systems in a single system, though there is a cross mix for<br />
duplication.<br />
All the communications systems – Skynet, VHF, conventional HF and VHF, are all<br />
from existing platforms or from the CVS. The equipment is taken out <strong>of</strong> the CVS, that is<br />
Invincible staff. It is refurbished, re-fitted, or re-cycled. It is to reduce the development risk<br />
and put the money where we actually wish to spend it.<br />
Flight deck ops<br />
Finally, some <strong>of</strong> the engineering challenges. I have <strong>talk</strong>ed about sortie generation<br />
rate a good deal. We have a model which looks a bit Mickey Mouse, but you could run<br />
enormous numbers <strong>of</strong> serials <strong>of</strong> aircraft lining up and taking <strong>of</strong>f. This is about 10-times<br />
speed, and all the little things running across the deck are either pallets or weapons or carts,<br />
to make sure that we get the modelling right, and that we have the right combination and<br />
13
space to do all these evolutions. Even on four acres, with a large number <strong>of</strong> aircraft, this<br />
becomes pretty congested if you do not get your layout right.<br />
This is what we use – it is called ‘SAILOR’. You can play with it endlessly, to achieve<br />
the optimised layout <strong>of</strong> the flight deck and the spaces below. Sortie generation rate has a<br />
huge impact upon the whole <strong>of</strong> the design.<br />
Highly mechanised weapons handling system<br />
The second one I wanted to <strong>talk</strong> about is the weapon handling system. There are a<br />
couple <strong>of</strong> large magazines in the ship, with lifts to bring the weapons up into weapon preps<br />
areas, and they can be joined together. It is the preparation <strong>of</strong> the weapons which is <strong>of</strong>ten<br />
the long pole <strong>of</strong> the tent, for sortie generation rate. We have gone for a highly mechanised<br />
weapons handling system – that is code for a system in which there are no people actually<br />
involved in the movement <strong>of</strong> weapons, until they get up onto this area here. Even there, they<br />
are moved around on pallets.<br />
HMWHS – compartment arrangement<br />
There is a series <strong>of</strong> rails and the weapons sit on these pallets, which are moved<br />
across automatically into the lifts, up through the flight deck and then prepared. You have to<br />
bring the pins or the fuses or whatever it may be, together in the same piece.<br />
Pallet, mole and …<br />
This is what one looks like. It was developed <strong>by</strong> Alstec and it is a very clever system.<br />
It has been fully trialled, as I hope the next slide will show you.<br />
Demonstration – Boscombe Down<br />
We took this down to Boscombe Down. [Video clip not working] We will try to show<br />
you that at the end <strong>of</strong> the presentation. It is a full-scale mock up <strong>of</strong> it, moving around on a<br />
platform to show that it actually works at sea, to de-risk it before manufacture.<br />
Cabin module system<br />
Finally, let me turn to accommodation. We decided on another innovation, which is<br />
also very similar to what has been done with the Type 45. The cabins come in flat-packs,<br />
manufactured and selected. They are assembled ashore and dropped in, with everything<br />
inside the cabin that you would want – whether it is six-berth or two-berth or on-berth. We<br />
have about 500 units, which means that you can outfit the whole <strong>of</strong> the accommodation very<br />
quickly, and they just hook up with air conditioning or extra power for the whole ship. It is a<br />
very clever system, used widely in the cruise-line industry, and employed on the Type 45 as<br />
well. There is extensive use here, and the manufacturer has clearly been selected already.<br />
14
Junior rates’ accommodation<br />
Here is the final cabin – it looks like that and it is dropped into the ship. We have<br />
mock-ups already, fully outfitted with everything in them from lockers to bunks and so on.<br />
We hope that this will save a huge amount <strong>of</strong> money in outfitting, with joiners and fitters.<br />
UK industrial base<br />
If designing it was quite difficult, we still have to build it. There is certainly no single<br />
facility in the UK that has the resources, capacity or capability to undertake its construction.<br />
We have to match the demands <strong>of</strong> the CVF programme to the capabilities and facilities<br />
available when considering the most cost-effective solution.<br />
Block allocation<br />
It is for these reasons that we have selected the programme today. If you go back to<br />
that block diagram, which block here – lower block 4 – will be assembled at BAE Systems<br />
facility at Govan. Lower block 3 is currently scheduled to go to Barrow, and the final one will<br />
be at VT. Babcock in Rosyth are responsible for the Bow section. They will all be shipped<br />
round and outfitted and taken to Rosyth for final assembly, while the upper blocks and the<br />
islands will be subject to competition.<br />
CVF assembly<br />
When the blocks arrive, where this Invincible class is, they will come through here,<br />
across the basin and into this dock at Rosyth.<br />
Rosyth – looking North<br />
They will finally be assembled in this dock here. It is quite a big logistics problem to<br />
build in three or four places, finally transport it all and do the final testing and commissioning<br />
in Rosyth for two ships.<br />
Support. Much <strong>of</strong> my recent experience is drawn from my time, as Sir <strong>John</strong><br />
mentioned, in equipment and ship support during the last 10 years. With this in mind, and<br />
with the imminent launch <strong>of</strong> the new Defence Equipment and Support organisation, in which<br />
CVF will sit, it would be remiss <strong>of</strong> me not to <strong>talk</strong> about the long-term issues <strong>of</strong> support. This<br />
is particularly important, <strong>given</strong> that the through-life costs are nearly three times the cost <strong>of</strong><br />
the actual initial purchase for a ship such as this.<br />
At the outset, we need to make a major technical change to substantially reduce the<br />
cost <strong>of</strong> ownership. Given that these ships are not intrinsically different, from an engineering<br />
dimension, overall costs are unlikely to be significantly different from existing classes.<br />
15
However, attention to detail and the introduction <strong>of</strong> the infrastructure, can and will make the<br />
cost <strong>of</strong> ownership measurably lower.<br />
A number <strong>of</strong> specific measures have been introduced to reduce the cost <strong>of</strong><br />
ownership. I have already highlighted the emphasis on keeping the crew down – it has been<br />
huge.<br />
We <strong>talk</strong>ed about fuel consumption, with trim tabs and the bulbous bow, to reduce the<br />
cost <strong>of</strong> the cruising at that speed. At equipment level, considerable emphasis has been<br />
placed on a selection to maximise equipment in use elsewhere. That has been a tenet <strong>of</strong> the<br />
design process. As outlined already, virtually all the combat set equipment are in service or<br />
will shortly be, reducing not only the development costs but crucially the support costs <strong>of</strong><br />
spares, manuals and, importantly, training as well as the repair loops themselves. Where<br />
that has not been possible, we have used derivatives <strong>of</strong> equipment in service – for example,<br />
the propulsion motors for diesel engines.<br />
We have <strong>of</strong> course also looked at all the usual things that one would expect to look at<br />
– removal routes, manuals, need for spares, cap <strong>of</strong> spares, use <strong>of</strong> condition monitoring, <strong>of</strong><br />
which underwater engineering is a feature. It is all much in line with initiatives over the last<br />
few years.<br />
Finally, adding to the complexity <strong>of</strong> this project and enriching it and strengthening it in<br />
other ways, there is our relationship with France. To meet its own requirements for a second<br />
carrier, France has joined the UK in a fully collaborative programme, adopting UK design as<br />
the basis for its national programme. In return, we have incorporated a number <strong>of</strong> features<br />
into our design which are important and necessary for the French navy.<br />
Porte–Avians 2 (PA2)<br />
The resulting French ship is shown here, it is as near identical as possible, within the<br />
constraints <strong>of</strong> nationally differing operational doctrines. It has different combat aircraft – they<br />
do not fly the Joint Strike Fighter – and <strong>of</strong> course national combat systems. The main visible<br />
difference is that the French ship is fitted to allow aircraft operating conventional take-<strong>of</strong>f and<br />
landing, i.e, aircraft will be catapulted and arrested.<br />
The commonality <strong>of</strong> design <strong>of</strong>fers the potential for a huge amount <strong>of</strong> saving and the<br />
procurement <strong>of</strong> equipment, engineering and other non-recurring costs. Beyond manufacture<br />
support cost savings can be huge.<br />
The detailed arrangements were captured in a joint MOU signed <strong>by</strong> the respective<br />
Secretaries <strong>of</strong> State earlier last year. At a political level, the creation and the ownership <strong>of</strong><br />
16
such vessels gives a new opportunity for the conduct <strong>of</strong> military and diplomatic initiatives<br />
within a European setting.<br />
I started my working career as assistant constructor in a three-deck cruiser section,<br />
known as the Invincible class. My task then – apart from undertaking the mundane, classical<br />
design calculations for structures and dynamics – was to be the understudy for the<br />
constructor dealing with aviation requirements. At that time, the Sea Harrier was hardly<br />
capable <strong>of</strong> being airborne for more than a few minutes with any significant payload. Little did<br />
I know that I would play some part in its successor programme some 30 years later.<br />
Last Friday, I handed over responsibility for the project, to my relief, Rear Admiral<br />
Bob Love, who needs to think, ‘I’ve started, so I will finish.’<br />
The carrier strike capability is at the heart <strong>of</strong> the UK’s defence policy and represents a<br />
quantum step in military capability for the UK’s armed forces. In my judgment, the project is<br />
very nearly ready to enter the manufacturing phase – and that is my opinion, <strong>by</strong> the way.<br />
When these two great ships, HMS Queen Elizabeth and The Prince <strong>of</strong> Wales, enter<br />
service with the Joint Strike Fighter embarked, operated <strong>by</strong> the Royal Air Force, the<br />
capability will provide a remarkable uplift for the armed forces. The ship is quite an<br />
extraordinary product.<br />
Thank you. [Applause]<br />
[Video shown – had failed to function during presentation]<br />
This is the platform built for the Harrier testing: a rig was put on it, fully operating, so<br />
that we could show it operating in a sea way. If you look at it for too long, it makes you feel<br />
seasick. That was one <strong>of</strong> the pieces <strong>of</strong> equipment that is not in use, for which we undertook<br />
quite a comprehensive development programme, and we have done that with one or two<br />
other smaller pieces.<br />
Question & Answer Session<br />
Sir <strong>John</strong> Parker: Thank you very much indeed, <strong>John</strong>. I should underline that<br />
<strong>John</strong> has agreed to take questions but under Chatham House rules – as, indeed, the whole<br />
lecture should be, even though it is <strong>John</strong>’s last day in the role. We must safeguard him until<br />
the end.<br />
17
Dr Mike Steeden (Defence Science & Technology Lab): <strong>John</strong>, you began<br />
<strong>by</strong> remarking on press and political attention. First, perhaps I could comment on that. When<br />
inspirational engineering programmes <strong>of</strong> this type attract more invitations from the likes <strong>of</strong><br />
Desert Island Discs than they do parliamentary questions querying cost and programme<br />
management, I suspect then that engineering in the UK will be making real progress.<br />
As far as my question is concerned, the Chair began <strong>by</strong> highlighting the issue <strong>of</strong><br />
engineering skills. How would you characterise the specialist technical skills needed within<br />
your IPT, as opposed to those available in industry? What challenges have you faced in<br />
finding those with the requisite skills to staff the IPT?<br />
<strong>John</strong> <strong>Coles</strong>: That is a very interesting question, which is not easily<br />
answered. Fundamentally, the IPT has to be sufficiently knowledgeable – sufficiently<br />
knowledgeable – to be able to exercise some form <strong>of</strong> control over the project. It therefore<br />
needs very good commercial skills and very good financial skills, but it also needs a degree<br />
<strong>of</strong> technical awareness <strong>of</strong> the project and also <strong>of</strong> the components that make it up. The<br />
Ministry <strong>of</strong> Defence simply does not have enough <strong>of</strong> those people to do it on its own and it is<br />
partly for that reason that we have formed an alliance in which we have brought the skillsets<br />
in industry to work alongside the Ministry <strong>of</strong> Defence, so that they are complementary.<br />
This is the only way in which we can run a major project like this and, although I did<br />
not have time to <strong>talk</strong> about it today, the alliance programme is delivered on a day-to-day<br />
basis <strong>by</strong> Peter McIntosh, who was the former managing director <strong>of</strong> VT Shipbuilding. He was<br />
seconded into the Ministry <strong>of</strong> Defence to bring that team together, and the requisite skills –<br />
both from industry and from the Ministry <strong>of</strong> Defence. However, it is essential that we have<br />
sufficient skill knowledge for all those domains inside the Ministry <strong>of</strong> Defence.<br />
If you ask me – and this is a personal opinion, although it is shared <strong>by</strong> many others in<br />
the Ministry <strong>of</strong> Defence – we are getting quite close to not having sufficient <strong>of</strong> those skills<br />
inside the Ministry <strong>of</strong> Defence, at least at the more junior levels to grow them for the future.<br />
We probably have enough to do that today, but only just – but we are running out <strong>of</strong> those<br />
skilled resources. That is well understood in the MoD, and some steps are being taken to<br />
correct that.<br />
<strong>John</strong> Wilson (Grenville Wilson & Partners): What steps have you taken to<br />
ensure the survivability <strong>of</strong> these vessels against outside attack?<br />
<strong>John</strong> <strong>Coles</strong>: I think I have to say, sufficient. [Laughter]<br />
18
Peter Hearne (Formerly <strong>of</strong> Marconi): I have three very brief questions. In<br />
this country, we are not very good at large programmes, and this is the largest one that we<br />
have tried for some time so it seems that there will be a fair amount <strong>of</strong> risk in it. Three <strong>of</strong> the<br />
areas <strong>of</strong> risk are, first, that we are told that it will last for 40 years – but I find it difficult to<br />
believe, in these days <strong>of</strong> asymmetric warfare that we can actually choose today the main<br />
weapon <strong>of</strong> our country for that period.<br />
The second <strong>of</strong> risk is that it seems to be critically dependent on the US defence<br />
budget funding <strong>of</strong> the J35 aircraft, which we know is not entirely stable. The last question<br />
relates to the issue <strong>of</strong> reliability and availability. Reliability engineering is a developing<br />
science and it is one which we have not been as good at as the Americans. Are we really<br />
happy that we can provide one carrier availability at any time – even when, as the previous<br />
suggested, one <strong>of</strong> them may have been damaged <strong>by</strong> enemy action?<br />
<strong>John</strong> <strong>Coles</strong>: On the question <strong>of</strong> the Joint Strike Fighter, I do not propose to<br />
answer that. There are others who are responsible for that, so I will leave that to one side. I<br />
have no doubt that it will go ahead myself, but that is for others to decide.<br />
On your questions about projects over-running and so on, yes there has been a<br />
history, but I would suggest that part <strong>of</strong> the reason is that you do not commit to your whole<br />
manufacturing cost until you really understand the risks. Part <strong>of</strong> the time taken between<br />
initial concept or assessment demonstration has been to de-risk it – to take out those risks <strong>by</strong><br />
selective decisions, some <strong>of</strong> which have been referred to. Until those risks are actually<br />
bounded and accepted <strong>by</strong> the client, who is the Ministry <strong>of</strong> Defence, and the industry, and<br />
they jointly own the risk register and then to the final cost, you would not proceed.<br />
We obviously have a contingency for risks, and it is not insignificant for a ship <strong>of</strong> this<br />
size, for building this long.<br />
Your last question was about reliability. In my experience, certainly over the last 10<br />
years, the reliability <strong>of</strong> equipment is very much greater than you might think. We have<br />
recently contracted, in my experience, for ships not as large as this, which have availabilities<br />
in excess <strong>of</strong> 300 days a year – more like 320 days a year – where contractors are willing to<br />
take the risk <strong>of</strong> paying for ships that are not available. Modern equipment, carefully selected,<br />
can give you an enormous availability. As to the layout <strong>of</strong> the ship - remember the weapons<br />
system in this ship is the aircraft, and those can be changed. That is why the ship is flexible.<br />
Commander Arthur Burnett (Offshore and Marine International Services):<br />
You have not mentioned whether the flight deck is bomb-pro<strong>of</strong>. That is my first question.<br />
19
Secondly, you have not said anything about damage control arrangements. Some <strong>of</strong><br />
these may be confidential, while some may be significant for this audience.<br />
Thirdly, the ships are vulnerable, as we said, to damage, and you have not said<br />
where they can be dry-docked around the world. Are they available to go through the<br />
Panama Canal – how do they get from the Atlantic to the Pacific, other than the long way<br />
round?<br />
<strong>John</strong> <strong>Coles</strong>: I will avoid the question about survivability and damage control,<br />
because I would be straying into areas that are not in the public domain. I said ‘sufficient’<br />
and ‘necessary’, and I will leave it at that.<br />
There are sufficient dry docks around the world. There are in fact three in this<br />
country that could actually take it, and <strong>of</strong> course we could also use France too. Large ships<br />
will necessarily have restricted docking facilities and we just have to make the ones we have<br />
in the UK available when we need them.<br />
Commander Burnett: In the <strong>of</strong>fshore industry, in which I have had long<br />
experience now since leaving the navy, there has been considerable advancement in the use<br />
<strong>of</strong> composites, to great advantage for weight, corrosion and usage. Does your design<br />
incorporate the latest – latest – techniques in composite engineering? This is very important<br />
where you want to save weight and to decrease maintenance and corrosion.<br />
<strong>John</strong> <strong>Coles</strong>: There are two points here. I said this was a volume-driven ship,<br />
so saving weight is not actually a primary driver <strong>of</strong> this particular vessel. It is not a primary<br />
driver.<br />
As to the use <strong>of</strong> composites, we use them in some places, but not an extensive<br />
amount.<br />
Commander Burnett: The <strong>of</strong>fshore industry has shown that there are vast<br />
areas <strong>of</strong> usage which are very un-thought-<strong>of</strong> at the present time, but which are very reliable<br />
for various purposes. Weight is one, <strong>of</strong> course, but there is also corrosion maintenance,<br />
which is a very important item too.<br />
<strong>John</strong> <strong>Coles</strong>: The answer is that I know we have it in some areas, but if you<br />
have extensive knowledge that we are avoiding or not taking advantage <strong>of</strong>, then certainly let<br />
me know and I will put it to my team, to make sure that we take note <strong>of</strong> it. When you say<br />
‘composites’, much <strong>of</strong> the pipework, for example, is made <strong>of</strong> composite materials. So, yes,<br />
we do. If you are <strong>talk</strong>ing about insulation, yes it is. A great deal <strong>of</strong> stuff is being used, but<br />
the term ‘composites’ is very wide ranging.<br />
20
Commander Burnett: There are many areas in the <strong>of</strong>fshore industry which<br />
are very new and interesting, <strong>of</strong> which I am sure the navy could take advantage.<br />
<strong>John</strong> <strong>Coles</strong>: We would be delighted to hear from you.<br />
Speaker: I have two quick questions, but I doubt whether you will be able to<br />
answer the second. On turnaround time, on converting the carriers from through-deck to<br />
angle-deck – how long would that take? Secondly, has Phase IV been decided yet?<br />
<strong>John</strong> <strong>Coles</strong>: On your first question, it would depend when you decided to do<br />
the conversion. The lead time for the equipment is very long – several years – because<br />
there is <strong>of</strong> course only one supplier, and they build ships fairly infrequently. The lead time for<br />
procuring the equipment would take some time.<br />
Even when you have procured it, the fitting time would probably take longer than a<br />
year, to do the conversion. It would depend on how you chose to do it. You have to fit the<br />
cats and traps, the boilers, the additional accommodation and everything that goes with it. It<br />
is an extensive period <strong>of</strong> outage to do it, but <strong>of</strong> course you could do one while the other ship<br />
was still running around. This is an expensive operation.<br />
Speaker: The procurement – is it JSF? Is it just STOVL, or is it CV as well?<br />
<strong>John</strong> <strong>Coles</strong>: As I mentioned in the lecture, the STOVL version has been<br />
selected for the UK.<br />
Speaker: And the Phase IV question?<br />
the time.<br />
<strong>John</strong> <strong>Coles</strong>: It has been decided, but all decisions are actually reversible at<br />
Dr Peter Broughton (Peter Fraenkel & Partners): I have spent my time in<br />
the oil business.<br />
You are to be congratulated on this project because it is the sort <strong>of</strong> stuff which we, as<br />
young boys, used to read about in the Eagle weekly newspaper. It was the centrefold, and it<br />
would all be pulled out and explain how it would work<br />
My question really concerns the process, and controlling the schedule and costs.<br />
You put a little chart up there which is quite familiar to people in the oil business, and<br />
probably other sectors <strong>of</strong> industry, where you have different gates and stages <strong>of</strong> approval.<br />
My understanding was that you are approaching this main gate, where this is the final<br />
estimate before you go for the full execution <strong>of</strong> the project. Am I right or wrong to say that<br />
21
the cost at that stage is £3.6 billion per ship, plus a contingency <strong>of</strong> 15 per cent? Are these<br />
figures correct, or is there something else?<br />
<strong>John</strong> <strong>Coles</strong>: They are hopelessly misplaced, but this is the wrong forum,<br />
wrong speaker, wrong time. It would be remiss <strong>of</strong> me, for all sorts <strong>of</strong> reasons – not least <strong>of</strong><br />
which being that you do not declare your hand until you have actually seen the contract.<br />
Peter Broughton: Fair enough, but will they be published at some point soon<br />
after these contracts are awarded?<br />
<strong>John</strong> <strong>Coles</strong>: I am sure that our ministers will make the necessary<br />
announcements, and they will put all the information in the public domain that they need to.<br />
If they do not, the House <strong>of</strong> Commons Defence Committee will.<br />
Imran Akram (General Atlantic): I have a question on a related point there.<br />
You have mentioned a number <strong>of</strong> different bodies that you have involved here – obviously,<br />
the Air Force, the Navy and the governments <strong>of</strong> two different countries. At the design stage<br />
it is clearly easier to get everyone to agree, because it is all still up in the air and not yet<br />
finalised. As you come to this point exactly, where you have to say, ‘Here is what we are<br />
doing and here is the thing that is going to be built’, what steps have you taken to make sure<br />
that you have properly aired this idea across all those different bodies and made sure that<br />
they have agreement, so that you do not need to use up that contingency, and you do not<br />
need to make costly changes after this date?<br />
<strong>John</strong> <strong>Coles</strong>: Probably not explained in the lecture is the fact that we have<br />
produced for industry what I would call ‘a solution to build to’. It will be a solution-based<br />
contract and that is captured in a fully comprehensive specification which defines the ship.<br />
That is signed up to a client, the defence staff, the industry alliance partners and –<br />
importantly – the Royal Navy. If you want to change the specification, you go to my<br />
colleague in the defence staff and ask him to provide some more money to do it. That is the<br />
only discipline that we can apply and that is what we have done for this programme.<br />
It is a solution-based spec, which you change only <strong>by</strong> asking for more resources from<br />
the customer. If he has it, you might make the change. That is how it is done. The alliance<br />
approach means that the risks <strong>of</strong> not delivering it are within the alliance and so you cannot<br />
escape inside the alliance <strong>by</strong> saying it is someone else’s problem. It is the alliance’s to<br />
solve, within the budget. That is why the risk provision is there, and it is jointly shared.<br />
22
Sir Kenneth Warren: I rose to the surface immediately you referred to the<br />
problems posed to you <strong>by</strong> parliamentarians and select committee chairman, <strong>of</strong> which I have<br />
been one and both. The problem you face, Sir, is one <strong>of</strong> confidence. Parliamentarians and<br />
select committee chairmen want to know what you are about and, too <strong>of</strong>ten, the MoD hides<br />
behind the veil <strong>of</strong> secrecy when it really ought to be telling everybody what is being done with<br />
its money. I have in mind in fact, if you go back to the Polaris programme, that Admiral<br />
Rickover led that programme <strong>by</strong> new management technology. I noticed your statement this<br />
afternoon is about the engineering and technical challenges but have you risen to the need<br />
for extra qualities <strong>of</strong> management technology? If you can then describe those, in public, I<br />
see no need for secrecy.<br />
<strong>John</strong> <strong>Coles</strong>: Thank you for the reprimand – I did not mean to say that we<br />
would not welcome it, but it is just an added burden.<br />
I have not gone through the project management challenge because this lecture was<br />
not about that. A great deal has been done about the project management <strong>of</strong> this particular<br />
programme, which is a rainbow team with three levels <strong>of</strong> reporting – firstly into the<br />
stakeholders, which includes the five principle companies plus the MoD, and finally into the<br />
chief executives <strong>of</strong> those companies themselves. Much <strong>of</strong> this stuff – and I am very familiar<br />
with the Rickover and the Polaris programme, and the Trident programme – is built into this.<br />
In fact, if you saw the degree <strong>of</strong> planning that has gone on, you would probably be surprised<br />
that we have a schedule that shows such detail. Like all plans, it has to stand the first whiff<br />
<strong>of</strong> combat. I can assure you that a great deal <strong>of</strong> effort has gone into that – you are absolutely<br />
right.<br />
Pr<strong>of</strong>essor Rudi Klein (Specialist Engineering Contractors Group): My<br />
question relates to your reference to 30 major suppliers. In your alliance – as I counted on<br />
your slide – you have five partners. How did the 30 major suppliers buy into the risk and cost<br />
decisions? Or have they still to do that?<br />
<strong>John</strong> <strong>Coles</strong>: Only the five alliance partners and the Ministry <strong>of</strong> Defence buy<br />
into the risk pot. The other suppliers, <strong>of</strong> which there are many, have been selected mainly<br />
for their equipment lead, or their specialist knowledge, and most <strong>of</strong> those are already<br />
selected <strong>by</strong> competitive process. It is also possible that some <strong>of</strong> those will be formed into<br />
sub-alliances, subject to final agreement, such that some <strong>of</strong> those risks can be cascaded<br />
down the supply chain.<br />
The essence <strong>of</strong> being a supplier to this programme is that you buy into the totality <strong>of</strong><br />
it, right from day one – and that includes overseas suppliers as well. Most suppliers actually<br />
23
know about the programme, and most will be involved in the design process – in some cases<br />
for several years. Most <strong>of</strong> their equipments are actually already specified. Perhaps that is<br />
another thing I should say here – the maturity <strong>of</strong> this particular product, as you might have<br />
seen from some <strong>of</strong> the slides that I have shown you today, is very high indeed, for prior to<br />
actually placing a contract, with the involvement <strong>of</strong> many suppliers.<br />
Simon Wallis (Collins Stewart): I am representing myself today, but I<br />
started my career as a systems engineer with Lockheed Martin. I am now a more significant<br />
tax payer as a stockbroker.<br />
First, let me congratulate you generally about the programme because there is much<br />
to be very enthusiastic about – and in particular, some <strong>of</strong> the labour productivity savings you<br />
have made for the crew and the automation.<br />
I have three related questions regarding mission capability. First <strong>of</strong> all, could you<br />
contrast the payload <strong>of</strong> the French Rafale compared with the short take-<strong>of</strong>f and landing Joint<br />
Strike Fighter?<br />
<strong>John</strong> <strong>Coles</strong>: The answer to that is no.<br />
Simon Wallis: Secondly, but related – and these are obviously drawing the<br />
same conclusion – can you tell me what the French catapult solution is?<br />
<strong>John</strong> <strong>Coles</strong>: No, ask the French.<br />
Simon Wallis: Thirdly, could you tell me what the Royal Navy catapult<br />
capability will be and if there is an upgrade, perhaps relying on electromagnetic or what are<br />
the options there, please?<br />
<strong>John</strong> <strong>Coles</strong>: The ship has been designed to have a long catapult – and I will<br />
not give you the length <strong>of</strong> it – based on US technology <strong>of</strong> both and steam and for<br />
electromagnetic. When we take the decision to fit the catapults, we will choose the variety at<br />
that time.<br />
Simon Wallis: How do you generate the steam?<br />
<strong>John</strong> <strong>Coles</strong>: We use a boiler. How do you do it? [Laughter]<br />
Simon Wallis: Fair play! Thank you.<br />
Sir <strong>John</strong> Parker: You should not have gone into stockbroking!<br />
24
Pr<strong>of</strong>essor <strong>John</strong> McDermid (University <strong>of</strong> York): In your <strong>talk</strong>, you did not<br />
say much about the safety process and safety engineering, which is really quite complex for<br />
a product like this. There are two particular factors, one being the flexibility and configuration<br />
– in fact, you have a range <strong>of</strong> aircraft that fly from it, flotillas <strong>of</strong> support ships, and also the<br />
flexibility that you <strong>talk</strong>ed about, such as changing to fit the catapult. Can you give me an idea<br />
<strong>of</strong> how you would deal with some <strong>of</strong> those challenges in such a programme?<br />
<strong>John</strong> <strong>Coles</strong>: Again, in a lecture like this, it is not possible to cover everything.<br />
We have quite an extensive acceptance and safety regime built into the specification. So, for<br />
example, we have to meet standards laid down <strong>by</strong> an external regulator, who is not involved<br />
in the project, to meet – for example – stability, fire-fighting, and all the usual things, including<br />
the evacuation <strong>of</strong> the crew. There is quite a complex process <strong>of</strong> external assessors, to make<br />
sure that all <strong>of</strong> those issues have been addressed progressively through the design, and<br />
certainly through the manufacturing phase, as part <strong>of</strong> the acquisition process.<br />
It is no different from any other RN ship at all, and this is quite a well-trodden path.<br />
Here, however, we have tried to lay it down from day one, so that people do not try to<br />
increase the standards halfway through the build process, because that is when you run into<br />
difficulties. So it is captured in the specification that I referred to – both the acceptance and<br />
safety regime required, and the documentation that will be necessary to demonstrate to<br />
external authorities. And there are trials as well, <strong>of</strong> course.<br />
Tim MacDonald (UCL): This is another payload question, I am afraid. The<br />
US navy is currently investing lots <strong>of</strong> money and research into unmanned aerial vehicles <strong>of</strong><br />
various sorts, and I was wondering how you see UAVs fitting in with the carrier, for its long<br />
life?<br />
<strong>John</strong> <strong>Coles</strong>: I could give you my opinion about that, and <strong>of</strong> course UAVs do<br />
form a part <strong>of</strong> the wider naval programme. At the moment, however, I am just concentrating<br />
on building the CVF.<br />
Basil Butler: I am formerly <strong>of</strong> BP, and Devonport Royal Dockyard at a later<br />
stage. I am very interested in your alliance contract system. I would be interested to know<br />
what arrangements there are for incentives for the partners in this alliance, having had a<br />
good deal <strong>of</strong> experience in North Sea operations, where the partners benefited greatly if a<br />
project came in under budget. Is there any system like that for the benefit <strong>of</strong> the partners in<br />
this project?<br />
25
<strong>John</strong> <strong>Coles</strong>: Absolutely – both in the demonstration phase, which has proved<br />
to be extremely successful both for the suppliers and for the Ministry <strong>of</strong> Defence, and <strong>of</strong><br />
course the risk and reward mechanism that we have in place. Obviously, I cannot go into<br />
detail about it, but it incentivises very heavily the reduction in cost. Then there is <strong>of</strong> course<br />
the risk provision which is partly there to be not used <strong>by</strong> the alliance as they go through.<br />
It is in capturing innovation and the cost reductions in manufacture and design<br />
development, where the risk and reward can be substantial. That is what we have tried to<br />
incentivise, building very much on some <strong>of</strong> the North Sea oil work and indeed on some <strong>of</strong> the<br />
principles adopted in the Terminal 5 work <strong>by</strong> BAA. Much effort has gone into that. Of<br />
course, we can <strong>talk</strong> about great alliances and how wonderful they are, but I always tell<br />
people that we have not yet actually got an out-turn. But yes, it is all there – all <strong>of</strong> it – and it<br />
is quite well researched. There is huge debate about who gets which share <strong>of</strong> the pot.<br />
Peter Blair (Smallpeice Trust): I am a director <strong>of</strong> the Smallpeice Trust which<br />
encourages young people to become the cadre <strong>of</strong> the future engineering staff who will build<br />
the successors, and refit and so on.<br />
This is rather a detailed question. I was amazed to see TACAN listed on the<br />
equipments that you had there because I am pretty sure that the US has closed down all its<br />
TACAN and I cannot believe that JSF will carry it. GPS does the job. Is there a specific<br />
reason, or is this another thing that you cannot tell us about?<br />
<strong>John</strong> <strong>Coles</strong>: I can tell you the answer, which is that <strong>of</strong> course not all systems<br />
are for the Joint Strike Fighter. Our current Harriers use the system that they would want to<br />
employ on the ship, so yes, we do use it – it is a piece <strong>of</strong> kit taken to the CVFs when the<br />
Harriers are engaged. I have to say that that is from my memory.<br />
Peter Blair: So the ship will take Harriers as well?<br />
<strong>John</strong> <strong>Coles</strong>: In the KURs, I <strong>talk</strong>ed about flexibility. A whole range <strong>of</strong> aircraft<br />
are being considered for operation from this vessel, both in the short-term and in the longterm,<br />
and helicopters as well. It covers a whole range <strong>of</strong> things.<br />
Peter Blair: Thank you. I understand.<br />
Captain Stuart Ellins (Young Engineers): I am fascinated about the<br />
technical challenge about designing and the fact that you have <strong>talk</strong>ed very little about the<br />
26
human element <strong>of</strong> actually delivering capability. Can you explain how you optimise the<br />
manpower element against the equipment element, to achieve the best balance?<br />
<strong>John</strong> <strong>Coles</strong>: It is quite difficult to do that in a lecture. You would have to go<br />
through it equipment <strong>by</strong> equipment, and from operational space to operational space to do<br />
that. All I can say is that if you take something like the weapon handling as a good example,<br />
if we went to a conventional way <strong>of</strong> doing it, we would have to have 90 additional crew on the<br />
ship. That is a good example.<br />
If you look at the integrated electropropulsion system, and how many manned spaces<br />
you have, that would also tell you things. What I probably did not and could not say is that a<br />
great many <strong>of</strong> the spaces are unmanned, using optical systems for giving the state <strong>of</strong> those<br />
spaces. A great deal <strong>of</strong> attention has been <strong>given</strong> to that interface between a man and a<br />
machine – as indeed in many other areas in the Royal Navy – because it is <strong>of</strong> course the<br />
manpower costs. In fact, I think I am right in saying that about half the through-life costs will<br />
be in manpower and so taking people out <strong>of</strong> the loop, sensibly, is part <strong>of</strong> the game <strong>of</strong><br />
reducing costs.<br />
Captain Stuart Ellins: The question is really, how do you get the balance<br />
right between hardware and s<strong>of</strong>tware?<br />
<strong>John</strong> <strong>Coles</strong>: As ever, that will only come through when you have actually put<br />
the piece <strong>of</strong> kit in service. However, a good deal <strong>of</strong> effort has been put in to get that trade-<strong>of</strong>f<br />
right, upfront. That is all I can say, without going through every single piece <strong>of</strong> equipment.<br />
Much <strong>of</strong> it was done, and it is done for most projects.<br />
Tom Watt (PA Consulting Group): The CVF in itself has quite a complex<br />
capability and it is supported <strong>by</strong> a vast range <strong>of</strong> subsystems. On day one in service, some <strong>of</strong><br />
those are legacy and some are brand new and innovative. Can you say anything about the<br />
ongoing relationship between industry, the IPT and the MoD, on when and how decisions are<br />
made to replace some <strong>of</strong> those systems with their own CADMID cycles to support capability?<br />
<strong>John</strong> <strong>Coles</strong>: There is a process in place for equipment obsolescence, and<br />
upgrading or changing capability. My friends in the Defence staff, the capability managers if<br />
you like, or the owners, are responsible for deciding when that is. Our job is to find<br />
equipment to maintain current capability and, when they have the resources, then we will<br />
change it or, if it is obsolete, we would decide to change it because <strong>of</strong> obsolescence. That is<br />
the normal process and it is no different from any other ship. When my friend over the road<br />
says that he wants a greater capability, we put the kit in when he brings the money. It is<br />
27
normal process, and no different for this ship than any other one, except that this ship is<br />
rather large, and you can do it more easily, I would say.<br />
Lieutenant Ron Goodenough (UCL): With how much detail did we<br />
investigate nuclear power in the early stages? Do you regret that we cannot afford it, if that<br />
is why we did not go down that route?<br />
<strong>John</strong> <strong>Coles</strong>: I was not around when that decision was made, so I do not<br />
really know. I would imagine that the cost <strong>of</strong> developing propulsion plants <strong>of</strong> the scale and<br />
size to power this ship would be outwith the national budget <strong>of</strong> the UK armed forces.<br />
Dr Hywel Davies: You made one or two references to French elements – for<br />
the catapult and other things. This could lead us to think that there is very little connection<br />
between the French activities, except for some common outlines <strong>of</strong> the ship. Could you tell<br />
us more about how French interests, French management and French industry are<br />
connected to integrate with your activity?<br />
<strong>John</strong> <strong>Coles</strong>: I will try. If you are going to have a collaborative programme,<br />
and you want to have the maximum amount <strong>of</strong> resource, then you have to have as much in<br />
common as possible. The agreement with France at a technical level is that, if both nations<br />
want to save resource, then we need to have as much in common as possible, and that is<br />
what has been achieved, except where they have different aircraft, different weapons<br />
systems - mission systems really – for their different national systems, and where they have<br />
different operational doctrines.<br />
If you actually look below the flight deck and the hangar deck, the design is very<br />
common – in fact, it is identical, except where there are very specific French changes, which<br />
we may not fit because <strong>of</strong> our own national requirements. It is very surprisingly, in my view<br />
and quite a coup for both nations to have that degree <strong>of</strong> co-operation without the same<br />
requirements.<br />
There are the through-life savings, if you actually save on the things that you jointly<br />
do together – such as spares - it would be quite enormous. They would dwarf the acquisition<br />
costs, in my view.<br />
<strong>John</strong> Thornhill (Wartsila Propulsion): I have a propulsion question. You<br />
said earlier that you made the decision fairly early on to go for conventional propulsion as<br />
28
proposed to podded propulsion, and you said it would reduce risk. Could you expand on<br />
that, and on your decision making process to decide to go that way?<br />
<strong>John</strong> <strong>Coles</strong>: Like all these things, going into the detail is always difficult<br />
because I cannot always recall it all. We have looked at fitting pods, because that gets rid <strong>of</strong><br />
the rudders and all the shafting, four times, to see whether that would give us a reliable<br />
solution, and an enduring one. We are looking at what has happened, and at the power<br />
required as well. We are looking at what has happened in the cruise-liner industry. We<br />
concluded each time that the risk <strong>of</strong> that being unsuccessful was too great for us, and we<br />
therefore decided not to proceed. We would have loved to in many ways, because it would<br />
have saved a great deal <strong>of</strong> resource in terms <strong>of</strong> the rudders, shaft lines and how to<br />
manufacture. However, as I have tried to say in this lecture, we have gone for a pragmatic<br />
solution for this particular vessel, with lots <strong>of</strong> pull through from existing technology wherever<br />
we can. We only take risks where that is really necessary.<br />
<strong>John</strong> Thornhill: So you did not consider that there was any difference in the<br />
vulnerability from a combat point <strong>of</strong> view?<br />
<strong>John</strong> <strong>Coles</strong>: I do not really think so. You could argue that, actually, four<br />
pods – depending on where they were sited – might be rather better, but you could argue<br />
that either way. Common load take was the other consideration.<br />
Pr<strong>of</strong>essor David Andrews (UCL): I am now at University College, London,<br />
but at one time I was at the MoD.<br />
I just wanted to congratulate <strong>John</strong> and the team, because back in the early 1990s I<br />
was responsible for the early work on the concept. It is really heartening to see that it has<br />
come to this level <strong>of</strong> fruition already and – fingers crossed – I hope we will actually see the<br />
ships.<br />
One <strong>of</strong> the messages from your presentation is that one <strong>of</strong> the fears in only designing<br />
a carrier – or any other major ship like this – almost every other generation, is that there is an<br />
old design adage (I think <strong>by</strong> a famous naval constructor) which says that one should not<br />
include more than 25 per cent novelty in a new design, otherwise the risk would turn round<br />
and hit you in the end. From what I have seen, you are to be congratulated on the degree to<br />
which you have actually tried to avoid novelty.<br />
Perhaps the last question on the podded propulsors is an example <strong>of</strong> where you<br />
perhaps might have been tempted, although it would actually have been highly risky. Do you<br />
think you actually have the 25 per cent?<br />
29
<strong>John</strong> <strong>Coles</strong>: I suspect it is rather higher in novelty in some sense, although<br />
we have used a great deal <strong>of</strong> pull-through to reduce the risk. It is very difficult to make that<br />
judgment call, and we still have an integration risk which <strong>of</strong> course, even though they are the<br />
same equipments. I would say it is a little higher, but it is much less than it used to be. That<br />
is all I can say.<br />
Dr Peter Hughes (Scottish Engineering): We represent the manufacturing<br />
engineering sector in Scotland. I have more <strong>of</strong> a comment rather than a question.<br />
First, I would like to congratulate <strong>John</strong> on an excellent lecture – it was first class, and<br />
really explained the situation very well. It also gives us an opportunity to tackle some<br />
sections <strong>of</strong> the media, who seem to delight in suggesting that manufacturing and engineering<br />
in the United Kingdom is either dead or dying. I see this carrier as an opportunity to show<br />
not only that we are proud to be British, but that we are proud to be engineers. We can use<br />
this – if you excuse the pun – as the real flagship for engineering, going forward. More<br />
power to your elbow.<br />
<strong>John</strong> <strong>Coles</strong>: Of course, I agree with you. [Laughter]<br />
Mark Oliver (Laing O’Rourke): Laing O’Rourke is a company that is<br />
involved in design and construction <strong>of</strong> buildings but, in comment with your project, <strong>John</strong>,<br />
each time we put a building together, it is a prototype and we do not have a chance, as in<br />
other industries, to create and perfect it.<br />
In our industry recently – and I suspect that we are not leading edge here – we have<br />
begun digitally modelling and creating a virtual model <strong>of</strong> the building, so that we have built it<br />
once in virtual reality, before we build it on the ground. That involves collaborative efforts<br />
between different disciplines <strong>of</strong> engineers and alliance partners.<br />
My interest is, to what extent, or how far have you gone, in terms <strong>of</strong> creating a single<br />
object model on which all <strong>of</strong> your alliance members are working together? Does it go down<br />
to the last rivet and therefore can you then model the implications <strong>of</strong> a change and the<br />
impact <strong>of</strong> the cost, because all <strong>of</strong> this information is in a single database?<br />
<strong>John</strong> <strong>Coles</strong>: You can <strong>of</strong> course model, if you put sufficient resources in, for<br />
huge areas <strong>of</strong> the ship, and we have done that on some recent programmes. If you look at<br />
the cruise-liner industry, they do not model anything like to the same extent because<br />
controlling that model and making changes to it institutionalises a huge support role.<br />
30
Actually, it does not save you as much as you think, unless you are getting large numbers <strong>of</strong><br />
production runs.<br />
We have therefore selected a degree <strong>of</strong> modelling that is appropriate to the size and<br />
scale <strong>of</strong> the ship. We model extensively, for example, machinery spaces which are tight, but<br />
those where we have accommodation, we can leave an awful lot – I will not say to the<br />
imagination, but the detailing does not have to be extensive. Some <strong>of</strong> our programmes have<br />
perhaps suffered because we have over-modelled and caused a huge product development<br />
bill and even more to maintain it. Changing it becomes almost a fear. We have to get the<br />
balance right and I like to think that what we propose to do across the alliance, with common<br />
systems where appropriate, is to maintain that balance. It means that the Ministry also has<br />
to change as well, and might want to model everything before we build. And then there is the<br />
cultural change, which is quite difficult to achieve – and cultural changes are quite important.<br />
Captain David Smith (Corporation <strong>of</strong> Trinity House): I am a retired naval<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficer and a carrier man. May I ask why, from a purely practical point <strong>of</strong> view, we do not<br />
incorporate arrester gear and catapults from the beginning? It would surely be cheaper in<br />
the long-run and provide intra-operability with the French.<br />
<strong>John</strong> <strong>Coles</strong>: Well, <strong>of</strong> course, it would – but we would have to buy them for<br />
aircraft we do not operate and so, from a cost-effective point <strong>of</strong> view, the JSF and the STOVL<br />
version is sufficient for our national needs, so why invest in equipments you do not need<br />
today?<br />
Captain Smith: The fact is that, if you have arrest gear and catapults, you<br />
can get a better range or weapon load in your aeroplane. In the longer-term, surely we see<br />
such an aircraft coming into being.<br />
<strong>John</strong> <strong>Coles</strong>: This goes back to the Key User Requirements: what do you<br />
want to do with this capability and, if the aircraft you have chosen can actually conduct a<br />
mission successfully, then why invest in a larger amount <strong>of</strong> material and the aircraft when<br />
you do not need it today? We should bear in mind that there are other parts <strong>of</strong> the defence<br />
budget which actually might need kit, which are more pressing and fitting, for but not with, in<br />
this case, with [sic]. It is a question <strong>of</strong> economics.<br />
We would all like to have full, capable kit but, in the end, you have to pay for it. We<br />
have a limited resource budget.<br />
31
Roger Dobson: I am really asking this question on behalf <strong>of</strong> my daughter,<br />
who is serving in the Fleet Air Arm. She has a very keen interest in knowing the sort <strong>of</strong><br />
accommodation that might be provided. [Laughter] It was interesting to hear that you are<br />
using so much <strong>of</strong> the cruise ship technology. In the <strong>of</strong>fshore industry in which I used to work,<br />
we also built living accommodation in modules. Are these modules interchangeable, or will<br />
you be able to accommodate the different standards that seem to be required <strong>by</strong> the different<br />
forces?<br />
<strong>John</strong> <strong>Coles</strong>: I am sure you can tell your daughter that the modules are<br />
standard size. They are reconfigurable but whether they are one-berth, two-berth or sixberth<br />
– and, as for the French navy, eight-berth – you can have any number <strong>of</strong> people inside<br />
them. Once you have actually built them, <strong>of</strong> course, it is more difficult because they go in as<br />
a single piece and it is not easy to take them out. So, hopefully, you have one, two and six in<br />
the right sort <strong>of</strong> ratios from the start. So, with that constraint, yes – but, as long as we are<br />
carrying 1500 people around, we will need roughly 1500 bunks, and one, two and six gives<br />
you the right combination.<br />
Stephen Payne (Carnival Corporate Shipbuilding): I am from Carnival<br />
Corporation and designer <strong>of</strong> Queen Mary 2. Can you tell me, when the ships are finally<br />
ordered, will the design be frozen, or will there be continuous updates and changes that<br />
ultimately must increase the cost <strong>of</strong> the project?<br />
<strong>John</strong> <strong>Coles</strong>: As one designer to another, you all know that, if you freeze the<br />
design and do not allow changes, you can probably have a schedule <strong>of</strong> cost. I probably<br />
indicated to someone earlier that we have produced a specification which is signed up to <strong>by</strong><br />
the customer, <strong>by</strong> the Royal Navy – that is the operators, and the industry, such that build<br />
what it says on the tin. If we want to change it, you had better bring some more money. It is<br />
absolutely crucial to controlling the design process and also the manufacturing process. If<br />
we have not learned that lesson, then we have not learned very much.<br />
I have tried to make everybody sign in blood on the specification so that they cannot<br />
change it. That does not mean to say that they will not, but they will have to bring the money<br />
for it.<br />
Sir <strong>John</strong> Parker: I will close the meeting there. We have heard a splendid<br />
lecture tonight and I am sure you would all like to express your gratitude to <strong>John</strong> for a great<br />
lecture, which has demonstrated the breadth <strong>of</strong> his tremendous experience.<br />
32
Thank you, <strong>John</strong>. Judging <strong>by</strong> the number <strong>of</strong> questions, you or your successors will<br />
be able to come back and present many papers on a number <strong>of</strong> topics that you were not able<br />
to deal with tonight.<br />
<strong>John</strong> has decided that he would like to stay out <strong>of</strong> jail, so could you please have a<br />
great deal <strong>of</strong> respect for the fact that we have conducted tonight’s proceedings under<br />
Chatham House rules. Let us show our appreciation to <strong>John</strong>. [Applause]<br />
- End <strong>of</strong> Briefing -<br />
33