I tend to agree with Swerve on this one, the RN may be right in wanting STOVL, or they may be wrong, but they do have a reason for it and it’s been well argued. Cost is always a consideration in any military program but in the case of the CVF the costs are fairly small either way and it may well work out that if the cost of the F35B is included then the STOVL CVF may well be more expensive than a Rafale-M or F18E CTOL CVF. I’m not saying I agree 100% with the choice, but equally I’m not 100% against it either, my reservation is about the AEW capability, but if the V22 is suitable for a AEW platform then it could well be an excellent alternative to the E2, maybe not as good as an E2 but then again VTOL capability is a genuine asset too. On the primary function of a F35B strike wing with a ski jump flight deck I’m pretty happy with the configuration. Ultimately, the question does return to the ships intended mission profile and operating philosophy, to argue about the flight deck configuration and aircraft choice without linking it to what the RN actually want from these ships is to ignore the principle factor in the whole decision process IMO.

Their mission profile has significant differences to a USN CVN and is much more based around high rotation strikes to support land ops and has nothing like the more balanced, strategic profile of a CVN, in many ways the RN conception of the CVF is much closer to an Invincible on steroids than a CVN. They did look at a much smaller ship but in the end even the MoD accepted that the extra costs of going large weren’t that much when offset against the greater flexibility and growth potential given the types planned very long life. This is really the crux of the STOVL argument, STOVL makes an awful lot of sense if you see the CVF as a logical growth of the Invincible class and current RN carrier doctrine which does allow them the potential to fit catapults and arrestor gear later should they wish to. I think it is a huge mistake to look on these ships as a cut price USN style CVN.

What sort of performance would a F35C in short take off mode using a ski jump have relative to a F35B? Can it operate in this way? I’m not trying to be argumentative here, I’m curious as so far it’s not an option I’ve really seen pushed for the CVF, and RN thinking is basically STOVL or CTOL, STOBAR does not seem to have been seriously considered. On the Hawkeye, apparentley Northrop Grumman have assured the RN it can operate in STOL mode using a ski jump and that’d be a great boost to CVF capability I’d love to see.

Yes, it’s amazing to reflect on the size of navies in the 50’s and 60’s, not just the RN but the Dutch had a fleet that would be considered very large in todays world, and a few other NATO fleets that are pretty small today were fairly substantial forces at that time. I guess a combination of a much more benign security environment in Europe, military equipment inflation, improvements in equipment effectiveness and a people who just don’t want to pay taxes for large military establishments is responsible, and in all honesty on the whole it’s hard to argue against most of those factors really. A point D.K. Brown makes that I agree with is that in a hi-lo force mix (which lets face it is just as much a part of the modern naval scene as when the T19 was under discussion if not more so) the designer should strive for a very high degree of capability in one field rather than trying to build a multi-purpose affordable design, as it’s better to have quality in limited scope than heavily compromised in every area. The example he gives is the T14, a very good ASW frigate of virtually no use for any other role.

If an oil rig is so difficult to take how do malcontent Nigerians seeking easy $$$$’s routinely end up hi-jacking the things? Are you suggesting aircraft carriers are a sensible use of resources to combat a few amateur pirates? Have you any idea just how many high pressure flammable gas and fluid lines run around oil rigs? Doesn’t need much to blow the things into the next world. Also, do you know the stability problems of semi-subs? Very easy to capsize and sink with minimal damage. Jack-ups only need to have damage to one leg and they’re history.
Do you know the water depths much of the Venezvuelan oil/gas fields are in? Operating a sub in those waters amongst a maze of structures and fouling hazards would be difficult to say the least.
Yes, the RN does have a duty to protect UK offshore energy assets, a duty it meets with OPV’s armed with nothing more than a 30mm gun, and the occasional bit of flag flying by a frigate. The carriers and SSN’s have no planned role anywhere near the oil and gas rigs. And do you seriously believe the UK or France are going to try and steal Russian oil rigs? forgive me if I’m cynical, but if the UK was going to steal other countries oil rigs we’ve had 30 years to take the Norwegian ones which are a lot closer and from a country far less heavily armed than Russia so quite why we’d pick a fight with Russia on this issue I’ve no idea:rolleyes:

No offence, but you’re trying to deflect from Russia deciding they want a global reach military capability and trying to put a benign spin on it. Now I have no problem with it as it’s hyypocritical to criticise Russia for wanting to have the capability to fight wars away from home when the UK and France have built up or are doing so that capability and the USN has a massive offensive capability, but I think it crazy to try and cloak it in some excuses of just being a defensive measure when clearly it is all about action outside Russia.

I’d be amazed if the Invincible lasted long enough to be considered for a future Russian/Indian STOVL fighter, it’ll be doubtful if she’ll last long enough to operate the f35B. She’s had quite a hard life and is already 30 years or so old.

You know, when that guy kicked this piece of sh*t in the nuts so hard he injured his foot it made me deeply proud of my Scottish roots:D I’m proud to be linked to a country where the men still have what it takes to kick a burning terrorist in the balls, bravo!!:diablo: :dev2:
Just a shame we couldn’t have kept this prick alive and given him 30 or 40 years in a dank cell with a mirror to be reminded of his life choice every day.

True, but that isn’t protecting off shore energy fields, that’s about building up a maritime offensive capability for waging aggressive war. If Russia said it was going to invest $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$’s to give it a maritime offensive capability I’d not argue, my only comment was about the emptyness of claiming a navy needs carriers or submarines to protect offshore enrgy fields. Building up a capability to take other peoples territorial land and water is another matter entirely.