Ah, I didn’t realise this was the case I somehow had it in my head that development work had been done for a buddy system for the F-35 for the UK. Though if we went with F35-B would we need aerial refuelling? The RN, USMC the Spanish and Italian navies have all operated the Harrier for years without this capability.

They also had limited mission profiles and operated closer to shore. Everyone accepted what they harrier is, a STOVL A-4 alternative in the close air support and ASW fighter missions. With the right support, the F-35B could perform similar roles to an A/C model Hornet.

Yes, but F-35 (even B) has more internal fuel capacity, so shouldn’t need a load of external fuel to pick up incoming aircraft with low tanks – i.e. the main use of buddy tanking.

That extra fuel, it goes where the lift fan goes.

I’m no expert, but from what I’ve read, the main use of naval buddy tanking is for recovery, & Harrier doesn’t need it as much as CTOL aircraft – & neither should F-35B.

Which is a combination of mission profiles and the use of only vertical landings.

Yes, but how much would that lot cost? A very small amount in comparison to the cost of the aircraft. And how much of it could we recoup in future from anyone else who decided to use it?

Note that the supplier of the buddy store would be British.

Depends on which one of Cobham plants its built at Wimborne or Davenport…Iowa

Correct me if I am wrong but I don’t think the Osprey has a pressurised cabin. So no better than a helicopter for AEW unless the UK were to develop a bespoke UK variant, at huge cost.

Except that it would be significantly faster with a much larger combat radius and potentially be able to mount a much more powerful radar.

I think that Brazil is more likely to build (with foreign assistance) a CATOBAR carrier or two than buy a third hand STOBAR ship.

And the IAC 2/3 will be CATOBAR as well. China is held back by the lack of catapult technology in Russia.

Most efficient way of moving personnel long distances is via airliners either military owned variants or civillian charters.

And the hulls aren’t converted yet, so the reversal would be of planning rather than implementation.

Prior to the SDSR two hulls operating the B was worth doing for most people.

Post SDSR the only option worth considering was the C despite the possible loss of one of the hulls. Given the delays in the C it is no longer the wonder jet it seemed.

Realistically this aircraft is going to sell in the thousands and arming it with weapons not drawn from the US will be a good way for the UK to make some of the money back IMHO.

Plus development of a VSTOL strike UAV for sale to Italy, Spain, India etc would be a fun and exciting way to make the CVF something to look forward to.:)

Prior to SDSR they didn’t know the F-35B had a decent chance of being too heavy to work and getting heavier each time they have to design a part to fix something.

What “money already committed to modifying the two carriers to CATOBAR”?

They have production commitments to General Atomics for EMALS and AAG ahead of the JFK There would generally be some kind of cancellation penalty.

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?

For the ship, nothing.

For the plane assuming there’s not a major downgrade in capability: increased maintenance cost for working on a machine with significantly more moving parts and basically a second engine in the lift fan, higher tanking costs for the reduced range, having to dump large amounts of fuel and weapons that it can’t bring back.

Not true, some items were removed from the baseline quite quickly even though their CATOBAR equivalents were not necessarily added. They may be small beer, but they may add up.

As to the cost of training, it is generally accepted that it will be more difficult to train up for CATOBAR ops than STOVL. Thus it is reasonable for the delta in training costs to be included in the cost comparison to be used for decision making,., Indeed it would be negligent for them not to so do.

That is true, but on that big deck the F-35B will be operating more STOSL than STOVL as a vertical landing gives the aircraft basically no bring back capability. The Training requirements for SRVL at night and in bad weather on a pitching carrier deck will take training. Hell, doing a vertical landing in those conditions isn’t easy and the RAF hasn’t shown much of a will to keep up currency and with the F-35B the RAF has a lot more of a say in training. With the F-35C, they won’t make it through training unless they’re thinking and flying like a Naval Aviator. Naval Air Training Command is under no obligation to pass client SNAs.

I’d so like to know how France does it without a OCU and without a large reserve of Rafale M airframes, then. Are they supermen?

France has a single training squadron (2/92 Aquitaine) for the AlA and MN. They are so common that except for actual carrier landings and maintenance on the M’s landing gear, the B/C are sufficient for most activities

If CATOBAR forces the “Joint Force” to spend more time at sea and gives the UK back a naval aviation, it is yet another reason in my book to go for it.
If we have to fear about the RAF only caring about its flights in and out of Marham, only putting some pilots on a ship now and then to get it done with the nuissance for a while, then there is something seriously wrong, and government should remember the RAF what their place is and that JCA is being procured for putting a wing on the aircraft carriers, not in Marham.

Trust me, it it will. With STOVL, the RAF has a large measure of control over training. With CATOBAR, they’ll be going to a place where Naval aviators have total control over training and have complete authority over whether they will ever see an F-35. They may leave the UK RAF but they’ll return from the Gulf of Mexico with a mindset more like a Marine NA.