I think this debate about the carriers and what jet type should fly from them is simply indicative of a wider problem, Britain wants to have its cake and eat it. What I mean is that we like being a major player in the world, its almost a drug that six or seven decades on from the end of the Empire we still have a craving for, but we’re not prepared to pay for it. Instead we continually squeaze the defence budget in favour of tax cuts or spending on other Government departments.

Whilst the USA and France have predominantly indigenous kit that is wholly owned by them, we do not. Typhoon is a fourway collaboration with Germany, Italy and Spain and the Lightning II regardless of which version(s) we end up with is American. France’s SSBNs have French missiles in their tubes whilst we have US Tridents, and apparently they’re not even bought outright from Uncle Sam as Polaris was but part of some jointly maintained pool of missiles. The missiles in whichever Vanguard class sub is currently on patrol, this time last year as I understand it were loaded on a US Ohio class boat. And all the time the politicians pat themselves on the back and say this is good value for money.

I would argue that if we’re truly a player in the world we should have our own kit, if France can do it, then why shouldn’t we? But then that comes back to the whole willingness to spend. At the rate we’re going divesting ourselves of military kit and the commitments that they were intended to maintain in order to balance the books and pay for Trident and its proposed like-for-like replacement it won’t even be worth us maintaining a nuclear deterrent in the first place.

I know what I suggest next will never happen, if only because its too emotive for many politicians but thanks to this current economic crisis, my country, which I care about greatly, has reached a fork in the road vis a vis its status in the world. It was going to happen one day, but the deficit problems have simply accelerated things. We need to have a two stage review, in fact the mother of all reviews to be undertaken, Stage One by the FCO and Stage Two by the MoD with the choice being between (1) accepting a reduced role in the world including giving up such status simbols as our Security Council seat, our nuclear weapons and reducing our conventional forces including scrapping our flat tops (2) rolling up our sleaves and saying if we wish to continue as a major player on the world stage we need to increase greatly our defence spending in real terms, as part of GDP and funding such expensive things as a pair of new aircraft carriers for the Navy, with catapults and arrestor wires which can be used as either strike or fleet carriers. In essence becoming a minature US.

But I am certain that the current course, a sort of third way of make do and mend which we’ve practiced arguably since the end of World war II is unsustainable and indeed undignified in the eyes of the world. And it also leads to damaging and petty interservice rivalries as well as unnecessarily endanging the lives of our brave men and women in uniform by trying to do things on the cheap violating the much vaunted ‘Military Covenant’.

Apologies to all of you for my rant, I just had to get it off my chest. Please feel free to return to bickering about which sucks the least, the F-35B or the F-35C.

People can say a lot of things about the French, some of it somewhat justifiably less than pleasant, but they never lost pride in being French and they never lost ambition. Both were unfortunately social engineered out of the British public in the anti-colonial push.

Plus how do you get a F-35B STOVL aircraft down if it cant engage one of its many doors, activate the drive shaft or rotate the main nozzel !!!. You don’t, the pilot bangs out and you kiss the $100m+ of aircraft goodbye

That’s why despite the landing profile being “safer” you get more mishaps with the Harrier than all other seaborne fixed-wing aircraft combined. The Harrier is mechanically simple compared to everything that has to work right with the F-35B.

For the F-35B to be full useful, pilots would have to get used to SRVLs which are a lot like a trap using the aircraft using its STOVL system instead of arresting gear. For Safety, you’d want to install a barricade system for SRVL mishaps anyway, so there is a possibility of recovering that way.

I agree with you. Imagine if the designers of the Harrier, instead of starting with a blank sheet of paper, had had to shoehorn STOVL capability into a Hunter airframe. It is hard enough to design a aeroplane which can serve both as a naval and land based fighter, adding STOVL into the mix is surely a step too far.

Trust me that had been tried before with a VTOL versions of the French mirage III and F-104 Starfighter. Ended up with a very negative result on range and payload.

STOVL during the CVF design process was absolutely the right decisions F35B met the necessary requirement for the programme. At the time it was the cheapest option and the one with the least risk, back then we had no idea if EMALS would work. It was ok for the USN because they have steam plants to fall back on we didn’t and nuclear was never a viable option.

The QE class had the same options for C-13 cats and a donkey boiler. The big question was always the STOVL aircraft which is why they went forward with Thales’ CATOBAR hull rather than BAE’s STOVL design.

No backup plan? Yes there is, it is the same backup plan there always has been which is to switch to CATOBAR if the F35B becomes unviable i.e. is cancelled or doesn’t meet to requirements of the carrier strike programme.

Which would push the program back about a decade. You’d lose your production slots for EMALS/AAG, training on USN and MN would cease in the interim, and you’d spend more money because PoW would be in the same position QE currently is where it requires a refit.

Going all in on a jet with an experimental propulsion system got the UK into this mess. Going back would be making the same mistake twice.

Niether the Falklands or Libya could have been done with a single carrier that’s in drydock for long term maintenance. Two ships = one operational.

Actually the C has always been on the cards the JCA requirement was actually left pretty open until the first production order was due in 2013. The MOD selected the F-35B as the preferred variant that best met the initial criteria way back in 2003, in terms of availabilty, cost and concurrency with the existing Harrier Carrier operations.

However since that time the F-35B cost has increased, its delivery date for production aircraft delayed and overall performance deminished to such an extent that it does not meet the JCA requirement, mainly driven by the design **** up in 2004. Due to other commitments the MOD has never bothered to do a proper review and trusted the US DoD to get the program back on line.

Back in the summer of 2010 the Chief of the RAF publically stated that the F-35B would not meet our JCA requirement on grounds of cost & performance and neither of those factors have changed fro the better since then.

The F-35B is actually somewhat worse now as with the F-35C selection they rolled in the Tornado replacement funding into the program. Clearly the F-35B cannot meet that requirement either so they either need an additional airframe solution or opt for Typhoon 3b with a greater stand off Strike capability along with the potential UCAV development.

To be perfectly honest the Governement should really do a review of the JCA requirement and verify if the JSF still meets that criteria or should it be seen as a seperate niche type to replace Tornado in the next decade whilst a more suitable carrier based aircraft solution is selected.

Its not the actual carrier conversion costs thats the real issue now its the delayed F-35C where it just wont be ready by 2020, and won’t be available in suitable numbers untill the middle of the next decade, its the added costs of extending the capability gap for that period coupled with maintaining the skill base till those aircraft are available. They need to divorce CVF from JSF if they genuinely want to reduce the cost/risk levels.

Plus as SDSR was happening, the F-35B was a breathe away from being cancelled. The Marine Corps had to fight tooth and nail to get it on probation.

Turboprops from the 50s???:confused:

Most of which are still around. Materials may be different and the computers are radically different, but design of transport aircraft peaked in the 60s.

Actually, they did float the idea of a COD version.