China are developing their own design as are the Indians, although the Brazilians did put a request out for RFI for a new Carrier.

Other than a ski-jump on the front of the ship, which isn’t even wholly necessary, what are the associated costs with going back to the STOVL design for the carriers?

Good question as technically none they are being built at present to their original design. However the design doesn’t take in to account the data discovered from the F-35B trials or its intended use (SRVL) which may add a certain cost factor.

Fully agree, lots of hot air, no real substance.

We are just the wrong side of the program calendar to get any real information, most of the stuff seen so far is to sell the concept and see if anybody else expresses and active interest. It would be nice, but there’s a way to go before main gate and the RN may revise its requirements before then or if another party want’s to join the program then we may see revisions to reflect their wishes.

At least the program is running but its a frightning gap between when the Type 23s were completed and when the Type 26 start to appear 😮

Simple, you rig the barricade and the plane lands into that. As well as the damper alteration, the hook tip itself is being redesigned. Trials are only months away…

Plus how do you get a F-35B STOVL aircraft down if it cant engage one of its many doors, activate the drive shaft or rotate the main nozzel !!!. You don’t you pilot bangs out and the you kiss $100+ of aircraft goodbye

Jonsey your obviously STOVL biased but the F-35B has along way to go yet to prove its viability and servicability and only the foolish would put all their faith in it before it has done so. Don’t forget the same guys who cocked up on the F-35C Arrestor hook location also designed the F-35B !!!!!

Jonsey the NSW of 12 aircraft minumum was based around the F-35C and aircraft with better performance and reliability. So either they increase that number or the requirement will be dropped as no doubt the RAF will say they still need two thirds of the aircraft for its need, training and reserves.

Sticking with 12 just degrades the power projection capability as those aircraft will be worked harder to cover the roles and with their greater complexity from their additional STOVL hardware & software they will have a lower servicability. Before you start on the LM spin about better self diagnostics for its systems will improve servicability like modern cars, its also like a modern car in that some of those repairs are only doable at the main
dealership due to the design and accessability.

BTW is SRVL still on the development shedule, i know we got the bill for it prior to us switching to the F-35C, but the USMC are only interested in conventional or Vertical landing at present. Until its been programmed in, tested and certified we have no idea how much bring back load we can claw back.

Having watched the series on her final tour, yes, it certainly is. But I guess all good things come to an end. And she still looks proud with her perky skijump and all 😉

You do know the Photo is of HMS Invincible on her way to be scrapped in Turkey last year ?

The B is not a pile of junk. The C was never on the cards until the SDSR so lets not rewrite history.

However I recognise that the priority for some is to rest control of the stirke mission from the RAF, and consequently the B is perceived as too lightweight.

Lets be honest.

I believe the B is as likely as the C to perform the role that is intended for it. Read into that what you will:)

Actually the C has always been on the cards the JCA requirement was actually left pretty open until the first production order was due in 2013. The MOD selected the F-35B as the preferred variant that best met the initial criteria way back in 2003, in terms of availabilty, cost and concurrency with the existing Harrier Carrier operations.

However since that time the F-35B cost has increased, its delivery date for production aircraft delayed and overall performance deminished to such an extent that it does not meet the JCA requirement, mainly driven by the design **** up in 2004. Due to other commitments the MOD has never bothered to do a proper review and trusted the US DoD to get the program back on line.

Back in the summer of 2010 the Chief of the RAF publically stated that the F-35B would not meet our JCA requirement on grounds of cost & performance and neither of those factors have changed fro the better since then.

The F-35B is actually somewhat worse now as with the F-35C selection they rolled in the Tornado replacement funding into the program. Clearly the F-35B cannot meet that requirement either so they either need an additional airframe solution or opt for Typhoon 3b with a greater stand off Strike capability along with the potential UCAV development.

To be perfectly honest the Governement should really do a review of the JCA requirement and verify if the JSF still meets that criteria or should it be seen as a seperate niche type to replace Tornado in the next decade whilst a more suitable carrier based aircraft solution is selected.

Its not the actual carrier conversion costs thats the real issue now its the delayed F-35C where it just wont be ready by 2020, and won’t be available in suitable numbers untill the middle of the next decade, its the added costs of extending the capability gap for that period coupled with maintaining the skill base till those aircraft are available. They need to divorce CVF from JSF if they genuinely want to reduce the cost/risk levels.