Could the Air Force do with the “C” model? If it could, then the “A” model could be canceled and much money could be saved!!!!:D

Air Force would require it be compatible with boom refueling.

Another issue with the F35B as I understood it was the maximum weight that it could return to a carrier with, that implicitly meant that if you took off with a fully laden F35B, obviously less of a loadout than an A or a C, that you had to jetison some weapons before landing back. This was going to be a problem on the Queen Elizabeth class carriers so must be a bigger problem on the LHAs and other small carriers. Or has this “problem” been sorted as well?

For the most part, yes. The SRVL sorted this out, though it would have added a lot more to the training program than was required by a vertical landing. The bigger problem though, was always the reduced fuel/range and payload including the inability to carry 2000lb class weapons on the internal and outer pylons. Not that big of a problem for the corps who are mainly concerned with supporting Marine rifleman and the Spanish and Italians who are landing them on smaller ships with no overhangs. Its a giant leap over the Harrier…assuming again it can be made to reliably work.

My guess is the USMC will give up half of its EFV’s but nothing else.

Remember, the F-35B and CV-22 are shared with the other services. To cut them will only drive up the price for everybody.

What other service is using the F-35B or you just assuming that since you like sTOVL they’ll ditch the A and the C and just buy Bs?

If only that was true. But I do feel the Marines should be a subset of the Army AND Navy, not just the latter. The Navy should provide the toys, fixed wing assets at sea, fire support from the sea, and the battle doctrine to the beach and/or during transport. The Army should provide the bodies, the helicopters, fire support from the land, and the battle doctrine once on land.

The AAAV/EFV’s are integral to the future marine landing force doctrine. Perhaps they aren’t as cool as an M-1A2, but they will be doing a job that is far different and carry many more bodies than a Stryker. Once the beach is secure they should be using a common vehicle to the Army – because they should be the Army!

Army doctrine is not designed for integrated small unit warfare. It would be like the chair force taking over naval aviation, the world view is just not compatible.

Changing the location of Australia on a map whilst underhand is not the main cause for CVA01, TSR2, F111 and the destruction of the British aircraft industry. To say so is frankly silly!

All of those things happened for a great many different political and historic reasons! CVA01 was probably overly ambitious. TSR2 was killed by a combination of politics, poor management and cost overruns. F111 was at the time it was cancelled for the RAF it was also a costly white elephant. You could write a whole book about the rundown and destruction of the British aircraft industry but lack of government support and starvation of funding as well as orders didn’t help.

To blame the RAF for the woes of British aviation shows poor research.

On the contrary, they played right into divide and conquer politics. That makes everyone including the RAF weaker.

Thats’ s a very good point, and I can’t imagine civil helicopters even taking off in the conditions that RN SeaKings did during the Penlee lifeboat disaster.
That and the recently announced shrinking of the coastguard service dosen’t bode well for all conditions rescues.

Yep, but HM treasury can’t see anything beyond monetary values. Private firms are cheaper because they will do whatever they can to ensure a healthy bottom line, in this case it means being far more conservative with deployment of assets.

what I’m getting at……..is that now that CTOL is the plan du jur, having a “surge” in wartime is pretty difficult, to put it mildly. I cant see the RAF having the aircrew of one or two squadrons being trained up to carrier qualification and then MAINTAINING that qualification for their entire flying career. That would be quite expensive. Also…..just because they are getting (for now anyways) “C” models, they may not maintain them in a way that would make them operable from the carrier without some sort of work…..

Right. I don’t see the RAF having the same kind of dedication that Navy or Marine Corps crews have. They’re not naval aviators, they’re doctrine is land first. In the end I think they only want the planes as a land based Tornado GR replacement and are using the carrier as a way to ensure the planes are ordered. In 2015 or or so keeping up carrier skills for RAF will become an issue, but just after its too late to cancel the F-35s.

Ne real surprise it was always on the card whatever, the Tories love privatising stuff!

I do agree that the UK should look at adopting the US model of reservist pilots it would offer cost savings whilst maintaining capability.

I have been surprised by how active duty heavy the UK is and how much reluctance there is to change it. The British Army could shift a lot of capability to the TA saving money and the RAF has no reserve squadrons at all while the USAF is almost half National Guard and Reserve. You guys could save a ton of money by having your pilots work for BA during the week.