As how the vid in question pertains to F-35, vis-a-vis maintaining current balance of power over the mid-term (as I think that vid is merely arguing that balance of power in terms of raw capabilities in emerging technologies alone (not via actually hostile intent) is in fact shifting)… sure, it’s arguably little more than speculation as we’re also speculating on an assumed number of F-35s with assumed reliability/performance, etc, being procured, to replace a rapidly aging and retiring tacair force posture. Hence the very valid and relevant, ongoing F-35 recap strat debate. :p imho

Hey, why fly anything when you can just fly… sims!

The Air National Guard… lacks… required equipment… Dennis McCarthy, assistant secretary of defense for reserve affairs… acknowledged that the Defense Department was going to have to think creatively to tackle the problem. Perhaps use of simulators might become more prevalent, he said.

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Pages/default.aspx

Few things..

Obligatory –

I’d agree there’s likely some fancy marketing included in the 800mile EODAS BM launch tracking story.. but true, it’s a different analysis when compared to an incoming A2A missile vs various MAWS/DAS systems and a missile which might be on a glide approach (or multi-pulse, etc).

Defcon4 – thanks for that EMALS + F-18E update… very interesting.

Spud – maybe you’re right on that last point, but we truly can’t assume anything these days, I’m sorry… until it’s actually in print and made public for detailed analysis/verification.

I have to concur with the picture you draw, Stryker, vis-a-vis selling RN’s soul for CVF. Not that not acquiring CVF would magically triple RN’s soul power, but your point is made and it is ironic imho how some capabilities and flexibilities in projection and ‘mundane’ presence, contributions to rapid reaction ops, etc will be in part restricted by 2 CVF.

Just one more to kick around… but instead of the CVF #2… has a conventional submarine concept ever been debated within MoD or govt? This came to mind: license-produce 4x Kockums A26 subs (Liger’s Island defence, sea-control, force multiplier) for delivery starting in 2018 & an additional Type45. All in all, a 5-ship alternative production to CVF2!

That would be some relatively potent, flexible force multiplication as alternative to the 2nd CVF hull. (in lieu of 2nd CVF’s aircraft, buy a few ASW Merlins and the rest F-35A, specialized for maritime patrol/strike)? Thumbs up, thumbs down?

Good post, nocutstoRAF and that is where my gut would be sensing at this point – the probability of a one Carrier + something else (to fulfill the industrial work project). My thinking would be that ‘something else’ should be an extra SSN or two (would fit in with Distiller’s sandbox order of battle to increase fleet) to actually project power and sea control, while reinforcing escort capability for actual Carrier deployments. But perhaps taking into consideration retirement of your older Amphib hulls, then a replacement hull could be valid on that point. I’d also concur with Distill on the increasing joint-Euro op center of gravity. UK simply can’t do it alone, I’m sorry… so the sooner the thinking corresponds strategically in that paradigm the more sound your future defence planning can be made given reduced buying power ahead. imho..

So what about, a preliminary lease for one Carrier worth of ‘experimental’ test F-35B (block III), perhaps 24 jets… just to have an operational Carrier on schedule and keep with the JSF bandwagon. The lease would free up front-end budget too while reducing risk on the early birds. To further keep with the JSF industrial bandwagon opportunities and sunk investments, etc, UK could continue with F-35A buys, which would be more affordable and more plausible therefore.. imho. F-35A would provide more decent maritime patrol capacity and better weight-carry, in Euro waters at least for the long term, than F-35B. If these STOVLs actually do prove to be the NG fighter’s Meow, then flip again and mix the follow-on tranche buys with block IV/V F-35A/F-35B. Cover the bases to mitigate risk and costs and diversify the capabilities. imho

LoL, Liger you’re cracking me up m8.. good points though and fair enough.

Well spoken.

Yeah, actually, the latest intel re: USN carriers concerned actually is feeling out a number of 8 being the ‘good to go with’ number soon enough. Moreover, it’s looking like USN simply won’t have the sufficient a/c for more than 8. So the 13 was an argumentative point like any of us could make, in exaggeration even the best of us.

Personally, I just haven’t seen evidence or a working outline for long-term feasibility/sustainment of 2 new RN decks. It’s a public works motivated, industrial program first, no?? I’m sorry, but that’s my hard impression. UK for one thing though won’t have the spare escort and SSN support for deployments, unless it will take away from an existing deployment or role. Moreover, the increased operational and maintenance costs/demands in this current fiscal environment will cannibalize RN budgets. Am I wrong? Instead, UK could/should have a couple more SSNs and maybe 2 destroyers – just my views. But if you’re going forward with one deck, perhaps it could be justified as a strategic reserve deterrence, something to keep in the silo. I’d just hold at one in such case and try to pick up at least 1 SSN perhaps.

It would be MORE affordable as well, to transition now to a F-35A doctrine rather than F-35B long-term. Again, that would be a savings, not additional expense which you simply can’t afford, etc, etc (I’ve heard that arugment).

Maybe a 10 yr, 24 STOVL unit Lease for the first carrier to mitigate your risks to an unproven design and over-costs? Supplement the rest of your JSF order with CTOL however. More hitting power anyway, the CTOL, and something on par to actually Quarter back your Typhoons with in joint ops.

If in 10 yrs… your must have golden STOVLs turn out to be the meow of Europe upon closing the 10yrs, for heavens sake load up on even better block V STOVLs for good measure and more power to you. How could the Army **** on this fair plan?

BTW, I’m sorry to have missed previous threads on this point, but whatever became of the proposed Naval Typhoon development. Was it a thumbs down, thumbs up resolution among the UK crowd?

I was touting the leased Rafale camp_of_thought the other day and would defend it as still viable. But given the RN won’t be operating IOC off CVF for another 7-8 yrs anyhow, how long would it take to develop a tranche 3b EF-N, e.g.? Have any Pros and cons been updated since debates on this proposal were hashed say, 5 yrs ago?

I guess this proposal would entail: a reduced order of F-35A (stick with the Program for sake of glory and honor, et al). F-35A would be far cheaper to procure, cheaper in lifecycle cost, less risky, but with more performance and punch. The savings of buying the first tranche in CTOL instead of STOVL (and LCC savings), could go into the EF-N development… and the savings from Procuring EF-N for RN, instead of buying remaining share of said expected STOVLs, could thus be allocated toward configuring your CATOBAR redesign. (note: there might even be excess savings which could apply towards an earlier integrated internal Meteor!). Thoughts? No more Typhoons please??