Two new Royal Navy aircraft carriers may have to be smaller than planned after Britain's biggest defence contractor, BAE Systems, reportedly warned that it could not build the designs to budget, it emerged today.
The Financial Times said the Ministry of Defence had been told that the project would cost up to £4bn, rather than the £2.8bn originally forecast.
That could result in the navy having to accept smaller, less sophisticated ships, the FT reported.
BAE's warning will do little to enhance its image with the MoD, which is still smarting from the cost overruns that BAE incurred with the Nimrod patrol aircraft and Astute submarines programme following "serious difficulties".
Both BAE Systems and the MoD stressed that the project was still at its assessment phase, which is expected to last until next spring. A ministry spokesman said: "We are confident that the carriers will be able to meet the requirements of the strategic defence review."
Analysts had already predicted that it would take more than a year to decide on a final design and select the hundreds of subcontractors needed to build the ships, which the navy wants to see entering service in 2012 and 2015.
"The assessment phase, at the moment, is where various figures and various ideas are floated, and the companies come together and work out the best design they can come up with that can balance performance, time and cost," the MoD spokesman said.
The defence secretary, Geoff Hoon, announced in January that BAE had won the lead role in building the warships, with French rival Thales acting as a key supplier. The selection of two companies was criticised by many observers as a fudge.
The ships will be designed and built in the UK, with 10,000 jobs set to be created or sustained at shipbuilding sites. The two vessels, billed as the largest and most powerful surface warships ever built in the UK, are to be equipped with the world's most advanced stealth and supersonic jump-jet, the Lockheed Martin F35.
However, the FT said that each vessel may now carry as few as 20 aircraft, instead of the 48 planned.
The latest uncertainty comes after the clash between the government and BAE over Nimrod and Astute. The delays contributed to BAE's £616m loss last year.

I'm beginning to suspect that BAE stands for Bloomin' Awful Excrement!!! These guys couldn't run a bath!!!
Ah well, we'll just have to be all jealous of the Americans getting another big all singing all dancing super whizzy carrier (pity their naming it after Ronnie, I mean we haven't got a destroyer called Baroness Thatcher have we? Well not outside the House Of Lords anyways )

Ozzy

Aircraft Carriers are the most major part of US diplomacy. Basically we can have a carrier, off the coast of any country that has a shoreline, within one week at the most. The aircraft carriers are even faster than our frigates, they can power up to 35+ knots with its two nuclear reactors, the Enterprise has four. To be a major world power you need military projection. The first and last power to leave a conflict is the aircraft carrier, and forever will be. Now about the UK. You guys live on an island and they are squabbling about building a couple of super carriers YOU NEED. No disrespect to you guys in the UK, I don't mean it but compared to our Navy, your Navy is a defence force. Also you guys have got to get nuclear powered surface ships. All your ships are fossil fueled at the moment, and if you venture out of unrefueled range from the UK, you need to either bring an oiler with you to replenish, or depend on another country to do it for you. Sending the Navy down to the Falklands worked in 82', but what about now? Could the UK afford to send the fleet down to the Falklands now if Argentina decides it wants to play big boy on the block? Keeping it refueled WITHOUT U.S. help? You would have to have continuous traffic of supply ships and oilers day and night, 24 hours a day, to keep aircraft refueled, ships running, etc etc. Our aircraft can fly off the decks for two weeks before needing an refueling of jet fuel. Our ships NEVER run with less than 70% fuel load, NEVER. So that IF the oiler is hit in conflict, the ships have enough fuel to make it to a friendly port. At all times there are two oilers with every battle group, and one arms supply ship. US has foward refueling points at Deigo Garcia, to refuel our oilers. Also at Pearl Harbour, and ports on the US coast. Naples and Signoella, Italy, have refueling points for the Med. Japan also has refueling areas, along with Roosevelt NAS in Puerto Rico to cover South America. We can project and travel anywhere in the world with our battle groups, now at a total of 11. What would happen if the US said no to the RN using our refueling stations (god forbid)? The RN would be stuck to home waters or to the range of the fleet oilers.

Tragically the country that once ruled the oceans has its most recent triumph (without working with anyone else) in the successful invasion of a Spanish beach by Royal Marines!!! You should never ever let an officer be in charge of anything more sophisticated than a brick!!!
Alas Erik is right, Britain is lagging far behind in material at the moment, and thanks to Blair we are stretching what little we have far beyond its capabilities. Something is going to give soon.
I just hope the MoD gets the funding it needs to sort out the mess the politicians have got the British Armed Forces into, otherwise a re-run of '82 is possible, but the outcome more in doubt.

Ozzy

Maybe if Blair pleaded with us we would give you the USS Kitty Hawk when it's retired near the end of this decade. Even though it will be 50 years old by then its still a super carrier, or maybe the Enterprise if Blair kisses up to the president. The F-35 is due to start next year or the year after I think. You guys should ask us to build a carrier for you. Newport News Ship Building has had VAST experience in building the worlds largest and most powerful warships. They could easily make one to your specifications for sure. But the problem is that it would show that the UK is unable to build its own ships. It will make you guys look bad in the world community for not building it yourself.

But just think. If you guys got just one of our older carriers, you would be in the elite league, ONLY second to the US. Just think of it. Harriers, JSF's, OR until the JSF's come out, just think of it Navalized Eurofighters  

from some of the specs and pics these new carriers, are pretty much equal to the US ones anyway. although final plans are still not even avaliable, including the main question, will they be cat launch straight out, ski jump straight out or will they be ski jump with the option to modify to cat launch. thats gonna come into play if the costs are cut

Don't I know it Doug. Alas our esteemed leaders seem to have their esteemed heads somewhere rather unhealthy even for a yoga master.
I don't think the hand-me-down scheme would make any friends in Britain (no offence to the generous offers from our American cousins), we still believe in our superiority.
Mind you during the Cold War we were Americas largest aircraft carrier...... I've yet to see any other one that could take B-52s or SR-71s
Alas our politicians our handicapping our forces beyond belief. Maybe its time to put Maggie back in power, at least she understood the importance of the military, and look what happened to anyone silly enough to mess with it.... and her
As a former British serviceman I know we have a wonderful military, with great talents and ability, but trying to take on a sophisticated enemy with nothing more sophisticated than rocks and clubs is suicide...

Ozzy

i believe the answers are no and no they arnt, the whole requirement for the F-35 was for it to be an advanced cheap replacement for the worlds aging fleets. admittidly they arnt going to be cheap, they are also apparently rather good value for money