1) No.
2) Yes.

If the UK didn’t buy a single F-35 of any kind, the lift fan & other VL components (there’s more to it that just the fan) would still be made by Rolls-Royce. There is no other supplier.

BTW, people here really ought to listen to the Radio 4 Today programme, yesterday morning. It’s on BBC iPlayer. Between the end of the news bulletin at 08:09 & the end of the programme at 09:00. Quentin Davies was completely straightforward. No prevarication, no ifs & buts – and remember, this is a politician! The story is rubbish. Nothing has changed. Policy is exactly the same.

The carriers are – as was always planned – being built for STOVL, with the option of changing to CTOL.
No final decision has been taken whether to buy F-35B, F-35C, or, indeed, anything else. But F-35B is the preferred option, & planning is being done on the basis of buying it – as has always been the case.

The reason I asked was because I heard someone mention that the lift fan was actually being built under license from Honeywell, which confused me somewhat.

I will give the radio program a listen at some point, but it is odd the way certain comments quoted online have put a new emphasis in the C variant at this late stage. The govt had never really mentioned it as an alternative. When they used to talk about alternatives it was in case the F35 program collapsed and the Typhoon needed to be adapted or some outlandish idea like that. Any reason for this?

The RR lift fan is going in every F-35B that will be built for anyone (currently USMC, Spain, Italy, & RAF/RN).

So it won’t really matter to RR if the RN doesn’t buy them, they’ll still have quite a big order.

Uh, no, the F136 keeps getting funded by congress, it’s hapening again this year, and the article has nothing to do with the choice between F135 and F136 it’s all about the RR lift fan that goes in every “B” model regardless of engine choice.

“B” or “C” for the royal navy has always depended on 3 things, which plane is better, how well EMALS was coming along and cost.

The big question is where would this leave the RAF?

Is there an alternative to the RR lift fan easily available, or will the US still purchase them? And the F136 cancellation attempts have been stepped up this year, especially with the new administration trying to cancel them.

I had thought about the RAF question too, I assume that they’d still get half the aircraft, that or the RN would get all of them (but a lot less than the 150 originally planned) and the RAF would get none, or be promised more of whatever they plan on replacing the GR4 with. I have a feeling this will turn into another RAF/RN turf war if the govt. indicates they may only buy enough for the RN, which seems more likely if the CV is being purchased. RAF can’t justify needing a normal aircraft that is altered for carrier use. I guess there’s no chance of it being split between A and C versions. They are more similar to each other than the B version.

Up to about 1989, after which followed a collapse in Military capabilities compounded by massive underinvestment for what little was left.

Actually part of the problem was that it wasn’t a little left, it was less, but what they did have left they didn’t want to let go of, so tried to stretch a tiny budget, that at best could have covered a small force, to cover a massive force.

But hey, the point, is insignificant.

On another note, CBG’s aren’t always entirely impossible to find, aside from dumb luck, they still have to be within reaosnable range of all necessary targets in a country, and the surrounding ocean could play a part. Just as an example, CBG’s operating against Iraq during the 2003 or 1991 wars wouldn’t exactly be hard to find based on where they usually parked up. Nor were they that hard to find when they turned up in the Taiwan straits when wasn’t absurd possibility there some time ago. But again, another irrelevant point. Any conventional strike by the US would hit threats to the CBG’s in the region first, either when the CBG first arrived or before using long range bombing/Tomahawk strikes.

There are two problems with that mate:

1. BAE are loosing out to the megacorp of Europe “EADS”, even now they admit that EADS is basically driving the aerospace business today.

2. Britain doesn’t want to be like the US, they want the capabilities but retain a different function as opposed to that of the US. Personally I feel that Britain should just stop being silly and join the EU that way they are assured of economic survival! BAE and Westland won’t die under the EADS umbrella, Casa hasn’t nor has any of the other major european aerospace firms.

Swerve answered you pretty well for the most part. I’ll just pick up on that one bold part.

Britain IS part of the EU, despite the fact the majority of the population are against it. There are plenty of legitimate reasons for us to stay clear of them. In recent years those reasons have only been increasing. I’m trying not to go on too much of a rant here, but it isn’t at all silly. And certainly won’t ensure economic survival.

Lastly, it is important to note that several areas of EADS have been struggling significantly recently and require propping up. It is also frequently interfered with by certain governments, notably France who own part of the company. So it is not necessarily the all powerful defence company that we want.

Chinook? :diablo:

The airframes aren’t 40 years old on ours though are they? I’ll adjust the sentiment, no point in spending millions on a helicopter that happens to have an appalling safety record and doesn’t fill a niche like Chinook.

Wish it was as simple as that. Germans found aerodynamic feature not upto, after their study of R-73 Missile. They had two choice, continue with substandard airframe or start from groundup with the new knowledge. But British EGO did not allow that, so they are held on to ASRAAM, Germans and others who value knowledge above ego started developing new “perfectly fine Missile.

Thats right, except for the crown colony:rolleyes:

The other here have pretty much answered you on most of that, including the fact that Britain effectively went back to the drawing board after the German withdrawal AND the fact that the German’s left BEFORE studying the R73 because they weren’t the big boss country.

Let’s stop talking about British ego, I can list more recent procurements that point to German ego if you’d like though.

Finally, you clearly have little knowledge of Anglo-Aussie relations. First off, they aren’t a colony anymore, they’re part of the commonwealth, that rarely plays a part in defence issues these days. Note also that almost all Aussie equipment is now American sourced, making the skew more towards the AIM-9 rather than ASRAAM.

Thats is irrelevent though as the pilots, trash fire or not are still at far greater risk than any GMLRS crews. An F-15E went down recently killing both crewmen for example. And if pilots survive a mishap or shootdown then they risk capture and the propaganda disaster that entails, GMLRS crews do not face such pressure.
Flying will always be risky business, riskier than sat in a FOB or some other such base manning a GMLRS. GMLRS will nearly always be quicker to respond if fighting not to far from he FOB’s.
Airpower has its uses but the fact we can only seem to commit just one fast jet squadron at a time speaks for itself in terms of costs and headaches in the logistical areas and ultimately how having hundreds of fighters is utterly useless if you cannot and will not deploy them.

Actually you still haven’t proven to me that the danger is less for a GMLRS crew based on my earlier arguments unless you know that they do just sit in FOB’s. And if they are then they are still utterly useless outside of the 60km range. If they move outside the FOB they are placed in much more danger than any aircrew. Also the fact that a mortar or rocket hasn’t landed on a GMLRS or it’s crew is just plain luck.

And as for the numbers we have deployed, there are plenty of other reasons that could be the case, for one, politics. Brown doesn’t want to commit more. On top of that the Americans have masses of aircraft at their disposal in the same area where we operate, there isn’t need to replicate that capability if what is in theatre is sufficient. I’m certain that if the will and need was there, we could get more fast jet squadrons deployed. I read somewhere the figures for the number of GR4’s ready for deployment but I can’t remember them off the top of my head. I know it was significantly more than those in theatre now.

And lets not forget that we have fighters deployed all over the world, just not on the Afghanistan mission. That doesn’t make them useless. The QRA may not be seeing too much action at the moment but they are this countries only remaining line of defence for any purpose really.

Finally, you are still yet to address the fact that on plenty of occasions, in areas where GMLRS are deployed and in range, air power is still called in to provide the bigger punch, or a display of force that no GMLRS can ever provide when cowering in a FOB. In fact that only ground vehicle that would suffice would be an MBT.