I’ve just watched George Osborne’s interview on the Andrew Marr show and other than confiming that the Carriers aren’t being cancelled I wasn’t sure of much else. I read it that the Government has a plan re fixed wing aircraft post Harrier, but I’m not sure quite what. Andrew Marr kept muddying the waters by saying aircraft, which could include helicopters as well as planes, though he did in fairness mention helos by way of clarification. Did anyone else see the interview and what was your interpretation?

So anyone have any ideas when we’ll start getting leaks about what they’ve actually decided to cut or keep? Or do you think we’ll still be speculating the middle of next week about such things as whether we’re still getting two carriers instead of one or none, or whether we’re ditching the F-35B for the F-35C and so on and so forth?

So you would rather believe the Evening Standard than the US DoD website official news release?
http://www.defense.gov/contracts/contract.aspx?contractid=4382
Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Ft. Worth, Texas, is being awarded a $13,035,539 modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-award-fee contract (N00019-02-C-3002) to incorporate the shipborne rolling vertical landing capability into the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter for the United Kingdom. Work will be performed at Fort Worth, Texas (54 percent); Warton, United Kingdom (35 percent); El Segundo, Calif. (7 percent); and Orlando, Fla. (4 percent). Work is expected to be completed in October 2013. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity.

Look i’d love F35C too ahead of the B version, but you need to look at facts when they hit you in the face er, Ironduke 😉

Isn’t it possible that we’re going to buy both versions? Maybe Bs for the RAF (when the economy improves) and Cs for the FAA, and therefore the two stories compliment rather than contradict each other? The reason by the way for this Rolling Landing Program going ahead is so that in emergencies the RAF can embark their F-35Bs on the CVFs.

We should know sooner than that the basic premise of the SDR. After this Tuesday certain decisions will have been taken by the NSC and are bound to be leaked. Fox himself has already leaked that we’ll continue with the F35, and that the UK will have ‘global projection’.

Do we know if he specified which version(s) of the F-35 he was referring? Afterall although the word ‘continuing’ is used, it could mean continuing with the F-35 project in general terms.

As a cost cutting measure could they either suspend construction for a year or so or string construction out still further to save money and thus delay the inservice dates of both QE and PofW and bring them in line with the perfection and potential instyallation of EMALS?

Commander ‘Sharky’ Ward pointed out that the Falklands would not have been won without Carriers and Harriers. He more or less said that if conventional Carriers with aircraft such as the Phantoms and Buccaneers had been sent, they would’ve have been much use due to having to take off and land during rough seas. Only the Harrier was/is capable of taking off in such conditions.

He mentioned that more than twice in his book where one of such occasions was training with the US Navy.

As others have pointed out, the mere existence of a conventional carrier with Buccaneers and Phantoms would have had a deterant effect on the Argentines. And if it hadn’t, with the greater range and endurance of the aforementioned aircraft, the carriers could have been based farther north in (comparitively) better climes. I believe there’s a thread somewhere on here with the appropriate diagrams.

Thanks Jonesy, I’ve been searching high and low for that quote for ages and couldn’t find it. I’m still not sure that Typhoon/Tonka 4 ops wouldn’t be suitable prep work for the FCA and what deck experience could be handled by cross decking using GR9s when Illustrious or Ark Royal operate with US carriers. I don’t quite know how this works but if we have a situation where one Harrier squadron, 800 for instance is shore based because one of the carriers is in refit/reserve or operating in the rotary wing only roles, whilst 801 is at sea, it could deploy in full or detachment strength to a US flat top for a time to give the pilots large deck experience, I’m thinking something like the 4 ship detatchment by 892 in 1969 to Saratoga. Or we could do what the Chinese have done and build a mock flight deck to work with.
On a side bar, if we do go CATOBAR I could easily imagine that training would be conducted by the US Navy not us and the first genertation of flight-deck hands who would operate the cats and wires would also get their CV legs on the other side of the pond.

You know it might not be a bad idea to understand where everyone is coming from here if everyone indicates what their prefered (realistic) outcome of all this is and maybe why.
For me, the best outcome would be 2 CVFs configured for CATOBAR each equipped with 18-24 F/A-18Es supported by 3-4 EF-18Gs, 3-4 E-2s and 6 Merlins. I would settle for 9 Merlins including AEW and 18-24 F-35Cs if Super Hornets and Hawkeyes are judged to be too impractical or expensive.
As for the why, I feel that STOVL is alright for the RAF which can counterbalance the F-35B’s shortcomings with the Typhoon or for the Navy if there’s no alternative as was the case back in the days of the Sea Harrier, but given that we’ve got two carriers planking right now which could potentially be capable of CTOL ops and given the limitations that many people haved raised about the F-35B, I say thats the way to go. Also I think CATOBAR provides an element of future proofing and independence from the US, just in case we do need a full fleet carrier, with CATOBAR it can still operate as a strike carrier but with F-35B I get the impression that the CVF would be able to be a strike carrier only.