I think you will find they will use SRVL most of the time and only implement VL only when needed. Why because the SRVL is less stresful on the airframe, the engine/fan and of course the flight deck. That’s what Geoff Searle said when discussing the revision back to STOVL QEC and the use of SRVL.

Hence why I said “revert” to VL for if needed because fuel was short.

Though actually thinking about it, even that isn’t needed, as SRVL is not expected to lead to bolters (which is why they are not changing to an angled deck)

Not at all, I just recognise that I do not have the right to access all facts. But where there are facts available, I seek them out and try not to make statements that are libellously in complete disregard for publically available facts, such as

I do find it very suspicious that BAE is providing both the carriers and the F35B, and given the calibre of the senior people at MoD, I would not be in the least bit surprised if they have been led down the garden path.

Despite this being pointed out to you, you have neither withdrawn or apologised for the allegation. It seems to me therefore that you are content to remain ignorant of the truth

Then I will repeat my question

Have you any reason to suggest that the costs were unfairly loaded in favour of one option by any of the parties? And that the politicians, civil servants and chiefs of staff decided to accept such a biased view?

Or is it actually far more likely that the costs included non ship costs in order to provide a balanced and fair view of the total additional cost that would be incurred by the switch?

You might be happy to live in the dark, I am not. It’s our money they are spending, and our country they are meant to be defending. As to what BAE/ACA are up to, the fact that you are friendly with some of the personnel is neither here nor there. If there was anything fishy in the figures, even if they knew about it, why would they tell you?

Next year the government is expected to spend £722billion
The Defence section of this will be £43bn
Business cases will be considered and either accepted or rejected for more again. In general when contracts are awarded you might see some idea of the overall cost. You will never see a breakdown
You will also never see a breakdown of the costs of a rejected business case – especially one that had not even been completely formulated because design changes and costs were still being collected

So what makes this one so special that you should see it?

As I have now said 3 times I am not saying that I believe the figures because I know some of the people (I have other reasons for that). What I am saying is that you have no facts on which to impugn the BAES or ACA personel and I am tired of baseless aspersions being cast around.

Have you any reason to suggest that the costs were unfairly loaded in favour of one option by any of the parties? And that the politicians, civil servants and chiefs of staff decided to accept such a biased view?

Or is it actually far more likely that the costs included non ship costs in order to provide a balanced and fair view of the total additional cost that would be incurred by the switch?

Not forgetting that as far as the Scots are concerned, the current queen is Queen Elizabeth the first

Thanks for correcting me on the naming of capital ships after monarchs. I was obviously misinformed

The fact that you know some of the officers involved in CVF planning is hardly the point. How much can they tell you, and how much do they even know about the decisions taken about the design parameters of these ships? All I am asking for is a detailed breakdown of conversion costs, to see how £800 million mushroomed to £1.8 billion. Something does not seem right about these figures, we deserve to know the truth.

Why in this particular case do you deserve to know commercially sensitive price breakdowns when such information is never released?
No, I don’t know the breakdown but I wasn’t involved in the decision, so I don’t need to. I might want to know, but I don’t need to.

I’m telling you the cost involved more than just the ship conversion. You can choose to believe me or not. If through life costs were included then they would have been included for both options. Personally I hope that they were, the MOD has made decisions on to short a term far too much.

The only other alternative which is what I object to was the suggestion that BAES/ACA had effectively falsified the figures. It is with respect to that allegation that my knowledge of some of the people is relevant. Wouldn’t you take offence at people slandering your friends or colleagues without any factual basis?

Has this been a fiasco? Yes and no

10 years ago when the CVF project was started, the RN wanted CATOBAR and F35-C for all the reasons that have been well expounded here and on a hundred forums.

However it knew that it could not afford steam cats as they are far too costly through-life. EMALS was at that time not mature enough to be sure it would work. So they compromised, they asked for a STOVL carrier that could be converted at any time to fit a system that did not exist at that time. Was that the correct decision? Was that a ridiculous decision?

Then the EMALS system matured at the same time as a new govt came in. So they decided to switch, or at least look at a switch. SO they initiated a large study of what it would take to switch, and in the meantime stopped all expenditure on STOV expenditure. Was that a ridiculous decision?

Part way through the study they discovered that the cost was much higher than expected. SO they changed back to STOVL. Was that a ridiculous decision?

Three decisions, all made on the basis of information then available and changing as the situation changed. Was that a fiasco? Unfortunately the actual decision is millions of times more complicated than the internet pundits and self-proclaimed military experts in the media realise.