This article is written by a chap called Lewis Page. It is nonsense. Page was a naval officer…actually a clearance diver. His views on naval issues are a regular source of amusement to those who look from a slightly wider naval experience.

The design for CVF is adaptable. Its big enough, has spaces that can be reconfigured to accept the appropriate equipment and additional power generation units to drive them.

To illustrate the difference this picture…..

…is the Italian Navy’s Cavour class aircraft carrier. It is cheaper than the CVF’s…it is smaller than the CVF’s and it is not adaptable to CATOBAR operations. One can be converted and one can not. If the F-35 jumpjet doesnt work the Italian Navy is looking at a very limited options set for getting return on their investment.

The issue thats ‘big news’ is that it would have been expensive to convert the ship to catapult ops. What Mr Page misses is that the CATOBAR ship would always have been more expensive regardless. The costs of the STOVL ship are actually relatively modest…or were until the Govt forced a programme slowdown a couple of years back which pushed the price up!.

Adding the conversion systems always would have cost. Adding the support, logistics, training overheads would have totted up even more. Further…splitting away from the joint RAF/RN airwing structure currently planned would mean the RN standing up wholly Fleet Air Arm squadrons….likely on an RN Air Station as there would be no reason for the RAF to want to pay to host Navy planes…or train Navy pilots.

Page has latched on to the wrong end of the stick with his traditional fervour and is looking at the wrong numbers. Its valueless to know the price of half the build of the 3 Gorges dam project…its pointless to know the costs of half the Channel tunnel build. Likewise…without incorporating all of the costs of delivering the shift to CATOBAR the figures Page mentions are meaningless.