I hate to side with Lewis Page, but 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.

Sorry, but as I have posted before this is complete ********.
1) BAES are just as involved with the F35-C as the B – it is Rolls who have a bigger involvement with the B than C
2) Would BAES willingly turn down hundreds of millions of pounds of work?
3) The estimates for the ship costs were produced as a series of deltas by a dedicated team. If you were to visit the ACA offices (as I have) you would see that serving RN officers are sat alongside the ACA staff, working on the same IT and able to see and review each document as much as they see fit. The conpsiracy theory would thus involve a large number of people, some of which are RN, and some of which were keen to go for the conversion as their jobs depended upon it (being non BAES contractors etc).

It is the vertical orientation of the 2 screens that reminded me of the 1990s in particular. That was a fairly short term approach which was rapidly discarded when it became apparent that cognition was much less effective from that upper display. So although there are many such examples left, it seems dated to me. I may be wrong on the exact date though.

As for Senit? No one specific thing, several little things where I think (for example) Tacticos or the BAES CMS (whatever it is called this week) are better, but I can’t think of any things at which the Senit family is better. Senit is OK, but I certainly wouldn’t choose it as my “must have” CMS

The stupendously expensive CATOBAR conversion cost quoted did not include anything for tankers. It was for changes to the ships.

That was what was assumed. Wrongly

Integration of a buddy refuelling pod on F-35C would have been an additional cost – but one which should have been relatively small.

Apparently not

Lesorub-E. Developed by NPO Mars, an old institute that has been designing naval C2 systems for generations. Older versions of this system were installed on the Slava class cruisers and the Admiral Kuznetsov, among others.
http://www.npomars.com/en/products/sis_upr_voen/asbu.php
http://www.concern-agat.com/products/defense-products/66-npo-mars/173-lesorub-e

Looks pretty advanced, though I would still have preferred a Western system like the Charles De Gaulle’s SENIT 7.

Thanks for that. Looks quite early 1990ish system to me, in fact the console design looks almost identical to a UK design of that period. Is that picture to be taken literally and that is all the console positions? If so it doesn’t seem many for a carrier.

I have to admit I am not a fan of the Senit 7 system either

It would be PPP, and the fact is that the cost of introducing a tanker a/c (which is what made the CATOBAR conversion so expensive) prohibits a U-turn

With respect to Pongolos question, The F35-B will in my view be more than a match for anything it will have to face in the next 25 years

No Jang, Block LB04 is not due to come up to Rosyth until November. They will then fit that and LB05 (which is already up there in 2 bits). Then all the remaining centre blocks (i.e. hangar and deck sections). Then the forward island will go in first quarter 2012 and then the aft island. Then we will have a ship (albeit still with quite a lot to do!)

I think it is irrelevant to argue about the vulnerability of surface ships inshore on a hostile coast facing supersonic missiles. It is undoubtedly a difficult threat to deal with.

The real point is on Chaffers proposal to get around with this. It is unfortunate therefore that he has not answered my question to allow us to understand what he is proposing and highlight any difficulties that such a solution might present