I think thats a solid appraisal. It does underscore the relative stability of the programmes currently though….as opposed to the remarkable media frenzy that is trying to suggest otherwise.

I think that the consequences of a STOVL cancellation would be a lot more politically significant than many on here are realising. Certainly, without STOVL, the Italians may want to answers as to what the billion dollar investment on Cavour was all about, the Spanish may have to answer a few questions as to what they plan to do with the JC1 and how they propose to replace PdA and the USMC may have to answer a few questions on why they spent so much on the America-class ships. In each case those questions will track back to LockMarts’ door. With that looming I cant see Gates cancelling the thing over a few poorly-specced door actuators and a bit of scorched concrete!

CVF has been done to death, but, isnt going to be cancelled on the slips. The recent enquiries as to what the consequences of the cancellation would be are just that…enquiries to inform the debate. Simply put there is too much wrapped up in the ships for cancellation to be worthwhile.

My view is that, should F-35B go, the USN will look to draft us for a spot of risk sharing with EMALS and F-35C and will offer a partnership on training and joint development of a distributed/afloat logistics infrastructure to support both. QE will complete as STOVL as the build will be too advanced to stop while the EMALS backfit is detailed and will run on Harrier for a few years. Lots of Americans will be involved in PoW’s build and she will complete as CATOBAR somewhere around 2019ish. Shortly thereafter QE will come in for her major refit and the Harriers will retire.

Why is CATOBAR going to be so expensive that it kills CVF? How come the Ark Royal could launch Buccaneers and Phantoms with steam cats and CVF cannot? :confused:

Actually with the Phantom that was more US marketing over playing the Phantoms actual ability. In the early 60’s it was pushed as the super interceptor to put all other carrier based interceptors in the shade which is when the FAA took a shine to it as a mach2 fighter armed with 4 sparrow and 4 winders was far beyond the current Sea Vixen or planned P1154 capabilities.

However McDD was telling porkies about how good it was, as its low speed handling limited it to Super Carriers, it wasn’t safe to use off the USN modernised Essex class and not even the largest UK carriers. Thats where the Speys came in and even then the carriers cycle was only just in safe margins (try and spot an armed FAA toom aboard ship, withs its full load of AAMs ?). McDD actually used the Spey powered version as a basis for their F-4HL (High Lift) version which was intended to replace the FAA FG1s and allow the type to operate safely off Essex class and replace the Crusaders. This had a larger and reshaped wing to allow for slower landing speeds on shorter decks along withn better lift on take off.

Anyway back to the F-35B, its pointless trying to estimate the costs of STOVL operations until this type has done its operational evaluation and sea trials. We don’t know yet what it can and cannot do or what sort of costs are involved in keeping the aircraft flying at sea. You can’t really trust LM’s predictions as they haven’t been all that great with them so far. CATOBAR operations with F-18E are known however, although not with the EMALS and new arrestor gear, although that may actually reduce wear & tear costs.

Thanks for the info bloke I didn’t know a lot of that before you said it. However budget considerations and a few RAF porkies saw for the big RN carriers and in the long run the effort simply wasn’t really worth it. 😡

Bager I see your argument. You are saying that the cost of developing and fitting the catapult system will wipe out the savings made by purchasing the Super Hornet or the F35C. I am not convinced because I haven’t seen any relative numbers, the cost of one option relative to the other but it might not be the point. I think the point is that the government might not see it that way and once they have made their mind up it doesn’t matter what industry or the armed forces think or even need.

How much did the governmnet throw at the banks to stop them folding? How many of us thought it could be far better utilised? How many of us wondered why they could find this cash for the banks but not for the ‘lads’ on the ground as one poster so dismissively called them.

It was politics that did for the last of the big old carriers, it was politics that did for the British lead in jet engine, radar and computer technology, it was politics that all but did for the British aviation industry and it is politics that will decide what will happen with SDSR. Worst of all they freely admit this time that it IS driven by the need to save money and to hell with operational requirements.

I am not saying I want them to buy Hornets, I wish they would make a decision and stick to it but politics prevents that. Their ‘studies’ are usually done over a pint down the pub, drafted on the back of a fag packet and finalised in their spare time. If the first pass indicates that the Super Hornet buy is the cheapest option that is the one they will go for. It doesn’t matter wether it is right or not, they won’t figure in every implication, they can’t be bothered. They will always take the easy route, the one where the least work is reqyuired. They won’t listen to the experts, they won’t listen to you and they won’t listen to me. They will bulldoze it through so they can get on with what they regard as more interesting pass-times.

All I am saying is that if they do choose the Super Hornet I will count the Royal Navy very lucky. It could be a whole lot worse.

I agree that is a likely scenario except I do not see anywhere near as many Typhoons or Super Hornet’s being purchased or as many squadrons being stood up, I reckon 12 front-line FJ squadrons in total between RAF and FAA would be the best to be hoped for. Just to mention my analysis is based on the fact that, unless I have misread the RAF year book and the RAF web-site, we have what 14 frontline squadrons now between RAF and FAA and this is seen is some quarters as to many squadrons of fast jets.

Yes I have read similar but don’t forget the Typhoon is still being delivered and is nowhere near it’s full in service compliment. Also the RAF yearbook has not taken into account the drastic measures being discussed by the Con/Dem government today.

If you think about it how much will it cost us to cancel the T3 Typhoon batch? And how much will we save by a) Axing the whole Tornado fleet and b) Focusing on a single type?

You could be right though. Maybe 10 RAF and 4 FAA squadrons is the most realistic outcome.

What I can envisage is something like this:

The RAF looses all of it’s Tornados and hands it’s Harriers over to the FAA. The F/A-18 Super Hornet is procured for the FAA to replace the Harriers shortly before the new carriers come in to service.

I can imagine the RAF getting all of the 232 Typhoons originally specified and do not underestimate the A2G potential of the type, everybody does but they are wrong, potentially it is as good as the Super Hornet. Maybe they will retain 12 or 13 front line squadrons plus an OCU of the type but only one type and I can see the FAA maintaining 4 or 5 squadrons of Super Hornets even if all are not embarked.

It looks drastic I know but draconian measures are being mooted. It makes sense to maintain a well equipped air force and naval air arm when you are an island nation. Discount all of the trade that goes through the chunnel and you are still left with as near as damn it 100% trade going by air and mostly by sea. But the RAF cannot hang on to the myth that they can provide all of the air power that the British Armed Forces require via thier land bases, it isn’t practical and it is never going to work. So a well equipped FAA is essential and I think that the RAFs Tornados are going to pay for it.

I don’t like it. Don’t think this is what I want to happen but realistically something is going to give and I can see airpower being divided more evenly between the RAF and the FAA because it is practical and logical.

While I am no advocate of cooperation with France I think the signs are all there that it is going to happen though likely not as close as the papers have it. I am think it is likely we will see France buying hours on our tankers, that they will either pool transport aircraft with us or Germany, and when the Charles de Gaulle is retrofitting they will operate of a British carrier instead of a US carrier (like the do now) so that the pilots will not loose their qualification to fly CATOBAR.

It may be possible that the UK is eying up all of France’s expanding amphibious lift and is seeing further options to cooperate.

Even before the election Liam Fox was talking about cooperating with the French.

In any case there will need to be a cast iron agreement how to cooperate so that neither side baulks at what it is being asked to do.

If the carriers go CATOBAR I see no reason to buy Rafale’s – they offer no industrial benefits to UK, other CATOBAR designs will be operated in larger numbers (F/A-18 and Dave-C), Dave-C will guarantee our industrial benefits (less the lift-fan sales) and even F/A-18 will likely lead to some industrial benefits.

But they (the government) are not talking about long term industrial offsets here they are talking about short term cash savings leading (I hope) to long term capability retention. The F35C is still going to be more expensive than the F/A-18 Super Hornet.

It was recently pointed out that the UK Defence Industrial Policy meant that the Armed Forces were left supporting (nee propping up) UK industry when it should be the other way around. Lives in the front line are a priority over jobs in civvy street.

If we cannot get industrial offsets to sustain our own indusrty, even with off the shelf items then we really are in the mire and we won’t be getting out of it unless somebody in high government can grow a spine. If UK industry can supply what is required, when it is required and within budget well and fine. The government also have to keep their noses out and stop changing the specs half way through the development stage which is a major factor in cost overruns and delays. If this cannot be acheived we have to shop elsewhere. Simples.

I might be talking out of my backside but this is how I understand things and for that reason I think that a Super Hornet buy is a realistic proposal and I don’t think it is a bad one either.

Who said that then or are you just baiting?