Indeed CATOBAR leads to safer, easier and over the long term cheaper operations then the highly compromised F35B. Upfront costs are yes greater with CATOBAR but as far as I am concerned it is worth it vs the risks of STOVL. SRVL is a compromised concept and there are just too many risks involved for safe operations. F35B has virtually no bring back without tanker help and even then if something goes wrong the entire strike package will have to dump their very expensive munitions. As for initial operating capability with F35C in 2022…so what? That is pretty much what they are saying for F-35B as well! Full operational capability of either type isn’t going to be until at least 2030! The treasury isn’t going to authorise full procurement until the Tornado draw down. We have to be realistic, the treasury and MOD have made it VERY clear that they can’t afford to run both carriers at the same time. If that is the case we might as well go down the better and less risky CATOBAR route and hope funding for a QE conversion is available in the 2025 SSDR if not we are in the same boat as France and we have a big LPH. Even with one carrier France showed significant capability over the last decade, the CdG operations over Libya were stunning in comparison to what the UK could offer.

As for QE going into storage as a white elephant…that accusation is going to be in every newspaper regardless of what happens (is already happening now). QE either is used as a mega replacement for Ocean or gets converted mid 2020’s which is for me a good idea as it makes good use of the investment into upgrading Rosyth.

The procurement process is broken going back on SSDR now only compounds that. UK defence posture should not be decided by ill-informed writing in newspapers that often have an agenda and an axe to grind!

Wow that does take up a significant proportion of the sail space.

I would also add at Cottesmore if the runway gets fouled there are plenty of diversion airfields or even the grass by the runway push come to shove.

Indeed lots of “Bench” testing over the years but the aircraft is barely into its trials program. The real test will be down the line when the aircraft has been operated at sea and has plenty of landing cycles on the fan systems.

Actually I agree Jonesy the issue of the engine possibly shredding itself in hover mode has been rather exaggerated. On the other hand the safety case in respect of bring back and SRVL vs hover landing is problematic for me.

Short termism has to be driven out of the procurement program. When the switch was announced in 2010 it was made quite clear that the conversion would front load a billion or so pounds onto the build program. This was justified quite clearly at the time by stating that the aircraft would be cheaper and procurement of those aircraft would be pushed slightly to the right. Further from that full scale procurement wouldn’t start until after 2025 with the Tornados retirement. So what happens the treasury/MOD start to get the first proper bills for conversion at the same time as some moderately better news for the B and all of a sudden they lurch back because they might save some upfront costs! They knew that there would be increased upfront costs, they said it would be offset by going over to C. F35B doesn’t meet the minimal performance requirements for JCA or DPOC!

IT HAS TO STOP! MAKE THE DECISION THEN STICK TO IT! All that is happening is chaos down the line with put off decisions costing even more in the long term.

I got to thinking…a large part of the reason I started to read AFM so many years ago was if often contained articles about lesser known aircraft or air forces or perhaps older types that were still soldiering on.

I still enjoy the magazine for those reasons today although we do seem to get some things rehashed much more often than others. (I don’t think I can read any more J-20, F-35, Typhoon, or Rafale articles…. 🙂 )

In any case, there are a lot of rare types out there that could use a visit from the fine folks at AFM to shed some light on their current status in my opinion.

The main candidate I am thinking of at the moment is Bolivia’s last remaining T-33 squadron which I’m almost certain is the last operational T-33 unit in the world….quite a career for something that had its origins in the 1944 first flight of LuLu-Bell.

Wouldn’t it be prudent to do a feature on these jets before they are all replaced by the K-8? (They aren’t already gone are they?)

Other candidates I can think of include Russia’s remaining MiG-25’s as well as Greek A-7’s. Also on the heavy side what about An-12’s outside of China? Or perhaps Russian An-22’s?

Errr I would have to check through my back copies but AFM and Air International have had some very recent articles about remaining Russian Mig-25, Greek A-7’s and An-12/An-22.

Actually my main criticism of Key Publishing is recycling articles between Air International and AFM within a month of each other. The amount of times I have seen an article in one about a particular airforce and aircraft being repeated the next month in the sister magazine with subtle changes is innumerable. Now I understand that both magazines share resources and writers but it can be a might tad frustrating going over the same subject within a month of each other!

Of course there is the separate irritant of the next months edition coming out within days of the beginning of the previous month. I am just reading the May edition of AFM I purchased today…its the 7th of April! Then again at least Key Publishing are not as bad as some computer magazines that are released two months ahead of the month you are actually in. It can be odd reading the January edition of a computer magazine at the beginning of November (whats even worse is the articles will be written as if you were in the new year????!!!!!)… I understand that there are distribution issues to factor in but as far as I am concerned the May edition should come out at the beginning of MAY!

Indeed Argentina isn’t going to bomb the Falklands but I can see their government looking towards doing some worrying actions if they upgrade their Super Etendard to SEM and get some tanker pods for their new KC-390.

I envisage them doing a Lo-Lo-Lo profile mission with their SuE and A-4AR supported by KC-390 under Falklands Radar so they can do a pass over MPA and Stanley…maybe drop a flag or two. It would have several positive outcomes for Argentine ambitions:

1) It would embarrass the UK by showing an apparent flaw in the very expensive Falklands defences.

2) Force up spending on Falklands defence which is a sensitive subject in the UK even with the strong UK public support…expect lots of Tabloid reports over flawed White elephant Typhoons and carrier gap etc…

3) Show an apparent victory to the Argentine public.

Except for the extended time at low altitude over water it would be a fairly low risk mission for the Argentine crews. They would probably be in and out before the airfield defences knew what was going on and I have a hunch that the Rapier batteries wouldn’t engage anyhow to avoid Argentine accusations of aggression by the UK. The Typhoons are hardly going to chase down and shoot the SuE/A-4AR after the event.

Unless the UK had a destroyer or frigate permanently on radar picket just over the radar horizon or operate an Sentry 24 hours a day out of MPA it could be a problematic nuisance.