Theres been a couple of interesting bits in Flight this week.

First the USAF are admiting that the restructure by Gates will have a knock on effect to the in-service date for the F-35A and the question is now how much is spent to upgrade F-16s as an interim measure.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/01/13/351805/slip-for-f-35a-entry-into-service-implied-in-latest.html

Only question with this is with the F-35B being put to the back of the queue the F-35A steps upto the front as 53 of the B production in the next 5 years have been assigned to A’s. Therefore won’t that mean the the F-35A will actually find its flight testing and operational development accelerated and the greater numbers available earlier should improve it introduction into service ?.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/01/12/351768/new-design-changes-raises-pressure-on-future-of-f-35b.html

And another on the F-35B woes, LM saying the change in material is not the cause but rather the stresses by this being the undercarriage attachment point.

There is another on the engine issues as P&W say the parts met LMs specs it provided but flight testing found the conditions exceeded expected tolerance parameters and the parts would need to accomodate this !

Despite the LM spin its not a good sign that they managed to get these aspects wrong, when they first came to light LM was publically blamming the suppliers but it looks as if they didn’t provide suitable specifications along with accurate tolerences.

One good sign is that they appear to have got BF-02 in the STOVL flight testing, i did wonder at the wisdom of using BF-01 for the role as it was the first actual F-35 produced as the first aircraft was made to the original heavier design.

They probably would seeing as how they (apparently) havent even considered any other possibility.

I suspect they may well start thinking about it a little more seriously now, even if not ‘Officially’

Gates has little say in the matter…………..Regardless, like I have said over and over the F-35B will not be cancelled or at very least the odds are way against it.

No he has already said it that give the next guy the option, thats the crucial point plus an ultimatum !.

If the factor was just cost then the USMC could probably swing things in their favour by sacrificing manpower to keep this capability, however its very much harder to secure support if the Aircraft fails to deliver whats required, no matter how strong the USMC want it the government is not going to continue backing a looser especially an expensive looser.

Don’t forget Gates also mentioned that there are serious unreported problems with the F-35B that may require redesign to the airframe and engine. the issues such as doors and the bulkhead have been reported so there is more bad news that we don’t know about !

G

Back on Topic, Sharky may not be far off the mark, as Gates has just indicated another 41 Super Hornets for the USN as an interim for the F-35C delays. Give it a couple of years and the UK govt may do something similar if the F-35C see’s any further slippage in deliveries.

The RN in the mid to late 60s had for the most part only one of the Audatious class Eagle and Ark Royal available and Hermes and Victorious. Having one of the carriers on Yankee station nearly 24/7 365 would have put a major strain on the RN, Centaur had been used as an accomodation ship for too long I would have thought to have been used as a strike carrier.
The Beira Patrol would I dont think have been possible with a carrier if one was on Yankee Station.
All this is said before we consider what aircraft would be used, most probably only Bucaneers, the UK Phantoms were delivered in the late 60’s and only Ark Royal after her refit that finished in 70 could launch them.
This is without thinking of fleet train issues, that there were with the British Pacific Fleet at the end of WW2.
Remember that in the Korean war only Colossus Class carriers and HMS Unicorn went, none of the fleet carriers were deployed.
Overall I dont think that the RN could have supported a carrier on Yankee Station.

Centaur sevred until 1966 and then acted as an accomodation ship whilst Ark Royal was refurbished, upto that point she still had an airgroup of Sea Vixens and Gannets (but no Buccaneers).

Eagle was the trials carrier for F-4K Phantom and only required the JBD’s to be fiited with the spray devices to enable full Phantom operations along with modifications to the stores for Phantom parts. Her Phantoms were actually on order and were due to be the 2nd frontline FAA squadron before the aircraft were re-assigned to the RAF with the culling of the carrier force.

Your forgetting the Pacific fleet was supported from Ceylon & Australia in WW2, for Vietnam the Royal Navy had its fleet base in Singapore and the RFA would have been able to support them.

Should the UK have been actively involved in Vietnam then the like of Phantom would have been brought into service sooner, and the use of Carrier groups would have probably secured the case to continue with CVA-01, in which case Ark Royal would probably have only had a normal refit.

With the likes of Hermes, Victorious and Ark Royal all unsuitable for Phantom operations at the time it is possible the Crusader would be seen as a more suitable interceptor for dealing with Migs. We might have also seen the Skyhawk as a smaller lighter alternative to Buccaneer and more suitable for our light fleet carriers.

Other operations such as the Beira Patrol would have been likely allocted to the smaller carriers such as Centaur and Hermes or other warships.

I rather doubt there could be a continous operation but rather a RN fleet carrier would rotate with the USN Essex class to provide air support. Of course there are many other factors about suppling carrier support, no doubt there would have been pressure for land forces too, along with airlift from the RAF.

To be honest with our other commitments i rather doubt the UK would have got directly involved, but i suspect the US would have like us to cover some of their interests whilst they focused on Vietnam rather than pulling back East of Suez

The real cancellation, until now, has already happened, with the UK suddenly dropping the B to move to the C version.

I’m still wondering if, perhaps, the UK’s MoD officials got off the records some confidential hint from either LM or the USA’s DoD, prompting them to make the shift.

I have a feeling they asked for cast iron gurantees on the F-35B for the US administration and found some element of doubt, enough to warrant a change in format.

Going with the C at least offers alternative should that element of the program hit trouble, and i would guess that part of the reason for the switch as the B was a one horse race and if it stumbled at a jump that would be the end of carrier strike program.

Back on topic, would the soviets look at revamping the Vak-141 into its Yak-43 format and possibly work with an overseas company to develop an alternative Harrier replacement should the F-35B fall under the axe ?.

Dear lord he makes immense amounts of assumptions on a very uncertain topic.

Well you have seen who the author is ……:eek: