UK 'is reconsidering F-35C purchase'

HAVE YOUR SAY

02 March 2012

Oh dear!! You couldn't make this up...
H Nelson - Portsmouth

02 March 2012

...What happened to balancing the book?

If that were truly the case, surely the UK with one of the largest defence budgets could plan this over the next 5 yrs!...

DC and co are a bunch of idiots!
Shaun - Ex-RNZN

02 March 2012

The sorry saga of the F35 is sounding more and more like one of the failed projects of the 1960s

As H Nelson said, you couldn't make this up
Ian Skinner - Enfield

02 March 2012

What a shambles! Are certain civil servants (or ministers who think they know better)not able to do their sums properly. Jim Murphy and the rest of his party will make the government look a laughing stock if what the Guardian says is true and Hammond announces this to the House.
So much for "balancing the budget."
Mike - Wales - Pembs.

02 March 2012

What a nightmare, you can almost predict what will happen, we'll end up with two different carriers neither able to operate the other's air group, get a grip Cameron & Co this is ludicrous!!
There seems no problem funding unwanted rail lines, foreign aid to countries better off than the UK and the Olympics, speaking of which, according to 'Boris' they're expecting to be £0.5Bn under budget on the games, add the Barclay's tax dodge scam, there's another £0.5Bn plus the rest from the other banks, so where's the problem? Get on with it!! Save money, buy F18s, we know they work and they're better than nothing which is what we'll end up with at this rate!!
Hereman - Wirral, England

02 March 2012

Let us wait and see, this is just a report from the Guardian, which is totally anti British and would happily have the UK with no clout on the world stage at all.

I'm all for the F35 myself but if this is true then lets order the Rafale or FA18 instead to pay for the cost of the conversion of the carrier(s)

At least we would have something.
Daniele Mandelli - Guildford

02 March 2012

Oh dear, then this might be good excuse to scrap the carriers altogether.
AlexHo - Singapore

02 March 2012

You have to laugh. F-35B would surely be ok unless we are planning a stealth strike on Tehran. The US marines know what they are doing. And personally I would not be unhappy to see some reality injected into DC's love affair with France. Interoperability? Didn't I read somewhere that F-35C can't land on CdG anyway (when it's afloat). And c'mon, the French were never going to buy our 'surplus' carrier unless we bought Rafale. F-35B has already landed on USS Wasp, which seems to me a closer analogue to what we are asking of QE class cvf.
Paul Nigel - Swindon

02 March 2012

I've always been doubtful about "interoperability", ever since the term was coined as as issue at the last defence "review".

Of course, this announcement today makes a mockery of the so-called "strategic" defence review but I feel that it may be a bolder decision than the "interoperability" one, not least because we won't end up with the nonsense of two huge carriers but of different designs, one of which apparently would either have been used for training purposes or being mothballed(!?!?!?!).

From a UK point of view I see VSTOL is also a plus - we invented the things in the first place, we continue to be involved in engine design, and the use of VSTOL successfully has been proven time and time again (so much so that the strategic defence review decided to get rid of them of course...).

Of course, we can now lease back some harriers from the USA to keep up our skills in VSTOL...

But talk about chaos!
Michael - Hertfordshire

02 March 2012

Why do we have to buy the EMALS? could not fitting a conventional steam catapult and adding an extra RR gas turbine & alternator to raise the steam be cheaper and lower risk.

And ditching the F35 and going for a naval Typhoon would also save money. Ski jump on the forward flight deck and steam CAT on the angled one.

It seems that the two QE carriers are being driven by the requirement to fit the latest high cost and high risk US aircraft and systems.

Be pragmatic and put UK interests first.
Martin Bayliss - Stroud

02 March 2012

Daniele Mandelli - Guildford

I agree with you, look at all of the other stories coming out of the Guardian recently regarding defence, most have proven groundless. In my opinion we should continue down the F-35C route and not go back to the F35B, greater range, greater internal payload, cheaper to purchase, cheaper to run and maintain.
Rob - Telford

02 March 2012

This is a case of beware the ides of March. The government is panicking because it does not control the cost of either version of JSF. F-35C will be a superb aircraft, fantastic range and payload, a worthy successor to Buccaneer. But make the decision on what the UK realistically needs and can afford. Interoperability with US and French carrier strike good, but it's just an ego trip if we can't afford it. The notion of cutting a 250 metre long 1m deep EMALS slot in the deck of a brand new carrier doesn't sound like a 'refit' to me and the government is now realising this. Sounds more like shooting yourself in the foot.
The French are still dangling the prospect of buying PoW in exchange for prising us away from dependence on the US as they see it - which would be great if it weren't for the fact that we would be exchanging it for dependence on France. They get the purpose designed cvf, we buy Rafale and get the cost of converting QE to EMALS. Great plan if you are French. F-35 any version is more work for UK PLC than Rafale or F-18. F35-B is even more work for Rolls Royce. We could even uild a UK version of F-35B of by installing the alternate RR engine that US Congress ditched - the design work was almost complete, why not? Interoperability is great but charity begins at home.
Paul Nigel - Swindon

02 March 2012

This is the Guardian,that should tell any right thinking person that this report is Nonsense.
The same rag that was reporting almost weekly that both these carriers had been sold to one foreign country or another.
Who's so called defence correspondent is so inept that the MOD actually offered to give him personal briefings to try and help him.
the same rag that is now calling the F35C 'cat and flaps'

Peronaly I think that any defence matters reported by the Guardian should be banned from any serious discussion board.
michael - notts

02 March 2012

Rob - Telford.

Agreed. If F35C is indeed cheaper to run, purchase and maintain surely that amounts to a greater saving over the long term than the short term saving of not spending money on converting the carriers and buying the more expensive aircraft.

Do clueless politicians think that way though?

I suspect F35C will continue and the second carrier will be shared with the French, being used when each countries other carrier is in refit, so each nation has oen carrier as part of this joint group they are planning.

Could such an idea really work?
Daniele Mandelli - Guildford

02 March 2012

Considering these ships were specifically designed to be readily changeable to cat and trap then this yet another embarrasing episode in a long line of them. We are an international laughing stock. How we got saddled with a political, military and civil service "elite" composed entirely of idiots is a mystery.
Chris - London

02 March 2012

Meanwhile,not wishing to be outshone in the stupidity stakes by it's rival the Guardian,the Telegraph comes up with this little gem:-

There have also been reports that Australia and Canada are reconsidering their investment in the carrier-variant model of the jets.
michael - notts

02 March 2012

After heavy criticism from the NAO about switching to the CV model pushing up the costs of the carrier and leaving one (QE) unable to operate fast jets the government has to be seen to be exploring all the options.

So it is possible that the original plan could be reverted to in the case of the FAA while the RAF would get the considerably cheaper CTOL F-35A to make up for the extra costs of the F-35B with the RN being able to use both carriers as built.

I supported the move to the F-35C but think it only really makes sense if we have both carriers able to operate JSF even if one remains in extended readiness and that means EMALS being fitted to both with the QE being refitted circa 2020-23.

However having a split buy between F-35B and F-35A (fitted as with Canadian F-35A to use hose and drogue refuelling) could mean a relatively small purchase of F-35B (30) but having both carriers able to operate it. The savings on EMALS and a smaller buy of STOVL jets would help buy perhaps 50 odd much cheaper F-35A for the RAF's requirements. This could allow the FAA to operate say 20+ and the RAF 30+.

Therefore while the F-35C and both carrier with EMALS is the best solution. A split buy may make more sense when seen in the overall picture. A joint force would be operated still as secondment would be normal between the services and a joint command structure would still be a good thing despite a lesser degree of interoperability.
(N.B In this case the second carrier would be in extended readiness but would be identical)
Graham - High Wycombe

02 March 2012

P.S forgot to mention that while the problem with the tailhook location is one problem that will be overcome I think a real issue for the FAA is that the decks need to be cleared to allow an F-35C to land which is not such an issue for the F-35B which means that buddy buddy refuelling is being considered to help an F-35C stay airborne in the event of the deck not being clear.

This may or may not be a big issue but it is worth note.
Graham - High Wycombe

02 March 2012

What a joke, the reporter should be sacked. But if there is any truth in this the the Government of the uk will show just how incompetant they are. They will be the laughing stock of the western world. I seem to remember Mr Cameron stating the carriers would sail with aircraft. If we cannot now afford to convert to convert the ships then money should be found.
Robert Perry - Birmingham

02 March 2012

The idea that the F35C could operate from French aircraft carriers seems to be quite an enduring myth. In practice, although it might be physically possible for the aircraft to land on the ship, be refuelled and then take off again, that is about as good as it would get because the F35's requirements in terms of servicing and ordnance provision are entirely different from those of French carrier aircraft. If they are serious about achieving genuine inter-operability with the French, it should be clear that this will be an uphill struggle and that we will have look to achieve inter-operability in future generations of ships and aircraft rather than the present generation.
The F35B version is probably no more or less inter-operable with French carriers than the F35C. It could land on a French ship, be refuelled and take off again, and this would make for a nice spot on the six o'clock news about Anglo-French co-operation. One problem with the B version has been the possibility of damage to ships' deck plating caused by the high temperature jet efflux during vertical landing. Efforts are being made to reduce this by widening the jet downblast "footprint". Another possible solution would be to make the part of the deck that the aircraft actually lands on from titanium, stainless steel or some other more temperature resistant material.
The F35B has a smaller operational radius than the C version, 450 miles as opposed to 600 miles, but this can be extended through the use of stand-off weapons, by several hundred miles if necessary. The aircraft is not stealthy enough (in any of it's versions) to operate within a modern air defence environment, so it's primary role in a major conflict would be as a launch platform for stand-off weapons.
In the defensive role of providing a Combat Air Patrol (CAP) to defend the carrier or friendly airspace, the two versions are similar in performance although for the aircraft to be optimised for the air to air role the weapons bays will have to be modified to accommodate six rather than two AMRAAM missiles, which Lockheed Martin say can be done.
Neither the B or C versions of the F35 can be considered ideal for the tactical strike/close support role. At 65,000 lbs (B) or 70,000 lbs (C), the aircraft is really too heavy and unwieldy and there is an issue with the vulnerability of the fuel system to ground fire. A mix of Harriers and F35Bs would be more effective than either on their own. A new-build or modified Harrier, equipped perhaps with terrain following radar and stand-off weapons is well worth consideration. This could be used for tactical strike missions with the F35B operating in the air superiority role to provide "top cover". Electronic Warfare and reconnaissance are other potential missions for the F35B.
The ability of the F35B to operate from a wide variety of locations using it's STOVL capability would be useful in a situation in which the aircraft might be deployed on shore, for example to defend a NATO country from attack, or in a limited war/counter-insurgency scenario, although the F35 cannot be considered as being well suited to the COIN role in any of it's versions because of it's high operating costs and the irrelevance of many of it's capabilities to the Counter-Insurgency mission. A smaller, lighter and simpler aircraft like the Harrier is better suited to the COIN role.
J. Southworth - University of Hull

02 March 2012

Looks like we are about to purchase two new helicopter assault ships!!!!

Scrap F35, design ships for cat and trap, buy Rafale or go for naval Typhoon.

What started out as the worlds biggest military project for affordable aircraft has become worlds biggest white elephant and waste of money ever. Some-one quoted $153m per aircraft couple weeks ago.
If naval Typhoon or Rafales acceptable how about big wing Harrier new build.

Whatever we do now will cost money that shouldn't have needed to be spent,
JC - UK

02 March 2012

What i dont understand is there is no mention of converting the eurofighter Typhoon into a naval typhoon as a member of UKIP mentioned which would be cheaper than the F35 and be ready for 2020. Or an even cheaper option buying the French Rafale
Damian - Staffordshire

02 March 2012

I don't quite get this 'Britain's ability to interoperate from French aircraft carriers..'

If British F35Cs have to land on the single French carrier what are the two British carriers doing.

Something must have gone seriously 'tits up' with our carriers that we are forced to land our aircraft on their carrier. And just how many planes can the CdG take?

The interoperate reason is a nonsense. The choice should be the best aircraft and the most flexible carrier.
RM - Abroad

02 March 2012

Forget interoperability with French carriers it has always been about interoperability with the USN/USMC which is not that affected by either the B or C model.

The difference with the C model is a longer range and an internal weapons bay 33% bigger than on the B model. The B model is more expensive to buy and maintain being the other factor however a reduced 30 F-35B and 50 F-35A a/c purchase is similar in cost to 70 odd F-35C without the cost of converting either or both carriers to EMALS.

However the shorter the range the nearer the carrier needs to be to any target that the a/c are launched against. Although the UK believes it will only likely go to war alongside the US in which case they would have both variants available but this must be in doubt post Libya.
Graham - High Wycombe

02 March 2012

F35 is becoming increasingly unaffordable in any reasonable numbers - the only viable option is the F18E flying from a STOBAR carrier. Not only is this plane the most advanced carrier borne strike fighter currently available, but it is cheaper to buy, maintain and operate than the F35, with a proven track record, hence a much reduced learning curve for all concerned. I also seem to remember reading some time ago that the F18 had been trialed for ramp take off with excellent results.
The money thus saved could then be used to provide airgroups for TWO operational carriers (say 60 aircraft) purchase of a reduced number of F35`s could then be delayed for several years until all the bugs have been worked out, perhaps to operate alongside F18`s in a mixed airgroup as per the USN? Further advantages lie in the fact that we already have pilots and maintenance personel experienced with the F18 working with the US Navy, hence reduceing training requirments.
Could this mean a UK strike Carrier available sometime in 2016? Makes sense to me...
Steve Rigg - London

02 March 2012

A new build Harrier is not a bad idea, such an aircraft would potentially be more useful than the F35B in many roles and would cost far less to purchase and to operate.
The F35 is expensive and, despite being called a strike fighter, is probably better suited to the air to air role. It shares with the Harrier the ability to operate in the STOVL mode and can be armed with a wide range of ordnance.
Depending on the capabilities of the digital flight control system, it might be possible to operate a standard or slightly modified Eurofighter from the CVF ships using a ski jump. The maximum take-off weight would be limited by this mode of operation, but might still be sufficient for light strike or air superiority missions.
In the medium term, neither the Eurofighter or the Rafale, or even the F35 are going to be up to the long range strike mission, they have significant limitations in terms of range and stealth. We need to develop UCAVs if we want to maintain that capability. And this is an area in which British companies already have some experience.
I think we should try to avoid imitating the US Navy out of habit or limiting our expectations according to what they can do. We have to ask ourselves which capabilities we will actually need for effective defence in the future, and go for those rather than assuming for the sake of convenience that our needs are the same as those of the US, or trying to recreate the past in terms of capabilities that we used to have in the 1950s and 1960s, when those capabilities are not necessarily the ones we need now.
J. Southworth - University of Hull

02 March 2012

The trouble started with the Joint Force Harrier. The Navy had Sea Harriers on Harrier Carriers, and should not have given them up. There will be no flexibility if conventional jets cannot be operated. My guess is the conversion will go ahead.
j.cassford - Arundel

02 March 2012

The Eurofighter would of course require the addition of an arrestor hook to operate from a carrier, that would not a problem. Modification for catapult launching might require strengthening of the nosewheel gear to take the stress and possibly quite extensive modification to the forward fuselage. But the real problem is that the Eurofighter lacks the range and stealth capabilities needed for strike missions.
J. Southworth - University of Hull

02 March 2012

Reckon EMALS will be fitted to QE and PoW carriers in time however air group will be F18 and/or Rafale on lease from US/France to start with ,then F35C to be brought into carrier air group later when have been accepted by USN/US Gov.
Checked progress of EMALS on web,have been unable to find any reports/news saying that they are having problems fitting it to the new Ford class carriers.
In fact it seems that EMALS is on budget and time for this project unlike certain MOD projects we could name!
ian L - norwich norfolk

02 March 2012

Is it the end of the world if we operate the B and the C version?
For example.
Order a dozen F-35B in 2016 to operate from Illustrious/Queen Elizabeth. QE could also load up with helicopters to be a sea control/assault ship.
Then order 20+ F-35C for Prince of Wales.
2 Carriers with different roles. Is that so bad?
If we ever afford a HMS Ocean replacement, then QE could be refitted with cats & traps, & the F-35B could transfer to the new assault carrier.
Shame Brough could not be saved with an order for a few Hawk 128/Goshawk hybrids for the FAA.
John Hartley - Woking/Surrey/UK

02 March 2012

I believe that both the carriers should be fitted with cats and traps, although this would increase the cost of construction. Even so they still would be cheap compared to an American Carrier. As for the Air Wing, an interim buy of 24 F18F fighters with 12 of these pre wired for later conversion to electronic jamming, and 12 capable of buddy refueling should be sought. Delay purchase of F35C until all the gremlins and cost are sorted.
This would ensure a 2016 in service date for the first carrier.
Robert Perry - Birmingham

03 March 2012

Naval Typhoon just isn't going to happen. If the UK cannot find the money to modify the CVF's (plural!) for cat and traps, then where would the money come from for the development of this variant...

The benefits of the STOVL variant included at the time the 30 odd years of experience the RN and RAF had with type. How many of those staff remain in those services after the short-sighted RAF led move to remove the Harriers and successor F-35B? Rebuilding such skills with remaining (and new) staff requires the UK to have aircraft and ships to practise these with. The UK is suffering from not making and decision and keeping to it and the resulting timeline. The US has already stood up its first F-35B USMC squadron for trials while the UK hasn't even ordered enough aircraft for its own trial programme. It has delayed due to a poor understanding of what its defence forces require now and in the future while creating capability gaps (i.e. the Force 2020).

I went through the analysis in a previous post and the CVF was designed for the Bravo variant, so this would maximise the number of aircraft carried versus the Charlie variant which as the article points out requires a redesign of the CVF to operate it. There are advantages to the CTOL variant, though as mentioned before the UK should maximise the CVF then to reap the benefits of the change and not then whine about the implementation costs!
Shaun - Ex-RNZN

03 March 2012

So much for gold plated cock ups this one is diamond encrusted.

Quite frankly, they need to decide on one type or another and stick to it or forget the whole thing.
Maybe we should all go out and buy white sheets, because we are going to need them come the next large scale conflict.

I agree, you couldnt make this up, and it makes me wonder whats next.
tim dainton - romsey, hampshire

03 March 2012

The term "strike mission" is rather ambiguous, it can mean a round trip of 150 miles with a light ordnance load, or it can mean several hundred miles of low level flight through enemy airspace with a massive ordnance load. Perhaps I should have said that the Eurofighter lacks the range and stealth capability for deep strike and interdiction missions. Fundamentally, the Eurofighter is an air superiority fighter. It doesn't have an internal weapons bay or the necessary fuel tankage for long range at low level. Combat radius would be better with a catapult launch than with a ski ramp take off. Either way it might be adequate for light strike missions in the context of a situation similar to that seen recently in Libya.
Much of what goes for the Eurofighter also applies to the Rafale-M. It's a nice enough little plane that does all the things that fighter aircraft are traditionally supposed to do in terms of aerobatics and so on, but it wouldn't survive for long in a modern air defence environment and it doesn't have sufficient range/payload capability by today's standards.
The F35 is really a compromise between a fighter and a strike aircraft, with the balance in favour of the former. It has a bit more range than previous fighters, but not as much as the previous A6 Intruder which could easily fly missions of over 1100 miles radius.
A case could easily be made for saying the the A6 Intruder was the last "real" carrier based strike aircraft. With the Cold War being perceived, rightly or wrongly, as being over, what seems to have happened since 1991 is that considerations of carrier deck landing performance, and the subjective views of pilots and former pilots regarding aircraft performance, have been given more weight in the specified requirements for carrier based aircraft than would previously have been the case.
J. Southworth - University of Hull

03 March 2012

I fear this will basically echo many comments already made (Steve Rigg) but I feel compelled to have a say.

F-18 Hornet has to be the option now for the FAA, lease/buy a squadron from US to operate from whatever functioning carrier we have by 2020. These excellent platforms can happily carry on for another decade, so we can delay our purchases of F35C until 2028-30, to get the 'best' prices and make sure the kit is up to standard.

Another alternative, maybe, is to navalise the Gripen though the timescale for this I suppose would make it pointless. Worth asking Saab to do the numbers and ETA for 20 aircraft though...

Of course its becoming more and more clear that the best course of action would have been to keep one carrier with a dozen or so Harriers to tide us over until the vaunted 35 arrives.

Regardless of how daft the UK looks now (which is admittedly gargantuan) imagine how funny the Eastern powers are finding the whole debacle?

I guess the problem is that we cant hit upon the right answer now because too many mistakes have been made in the planning, design and manufacture/procurement of the UK's next-gen carrier (and air group) and we are left with a compromise whichever way we look.

A total sham.
Anon - Abroad

03 March 2012

I feel actually like crying. F18 or Navalised Typhoon.
Tom - London/UK

05 March 2012

Naval Typhoon is never going to happen. No money for development and it is not just as simple as sticking bigger landing gear and an arrestor hook on it. You guys are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think this is a simple solution. To design (The Naval Typhoon is still a line drawing right now), develop and test a Naval Typhoon and to ensure it can stand the rigours of a Carrier landing and that it's equipment is EMR protected is a huge task.
Off the shelf solutions are the better option.
HamishUK - GB

05 March 2012

I think this is a smoke screen put up by The Guardian in response to the recent job losses announced by BAe Systems at Brough. The Govt knew before it announced switching from 'B' STOVL to 'C' CTOL variant that there would be non-recoverable costs associated with adding cats & traps to the QE class ships. The only unknown at that time was the final unit price of the different F-35 variants and we still don't know. What we do know is the CTOL variant is more capable in terms of performance and payload and cheaper to operate. Over its 40 year lifetime, that will more than negate the costs in altering the QE class ships.

In a previous post I suggested a more effective way to manage the lack of UK carrier strike capability was to lease F/A-18 E/F/G models until full capability had been achieved with F-35. Could still be done in time for QE in-service date.

Naval Typhoon is not going to happen. Too late and too expensive to do it now. With the mods required for cats & traps, naval Typhoon will be much heavier than its land-based cousin and not as capable as F/A-18 in terms of range & performance. If it had been done 10 years ago, then it would have been worthy of consideration. Sad, but true.
AW Employee - Yeovil

05 March 2012

To all those stating Naval Typhoon is too late and too expensive - it would be operated in STOBAR mode, hence not need mods for a CAT.

The QE class is big enough to have both a ski jump on one of the angled flight decks and a CAT on the other, for launching AEW and the like.

As per the Babcock executive's opinion who resigned, the Naval Typhoon is both affordable, formidable and the best possible deal for the UK. It would probably mean RN Typhoons flying off the QE carriers before 2020.

It is the only sane option. I suspect too many career Oxbridge civil servants have nailed their careers to the F35, I only wish engineers were running the MOD and not PE (Polotics and economics)) Oxbridge types who think they are born to miss rule and not face the consequences.
Martin Bayliss - Stroud

05 March 2012

Although I think my earlier idea of STOBAR/F18 to be the way forward, the important thing is to decide on a plan and STICK TO IT! Lets get rid of the uncertainty, which will be good for the country, the Navy and Industry! Going back to plan A, with F35B would however not be as detrimental as some would have us suppose. The problem seems to revolve around the planes lack of range and internal payload compared to the CTOL version. As the aircraft normally would carry external ordnance in its "day job" this would not be a problem, and only affects its Stealth strike mission where the aircraft has to operate "clean" to maximise its stealth cabilities. However, does that mean no external fuel tanks for the whole mission? Surely they can be used for the outward leg, jetisoned at the last moment and then complete the mission on internal fuel? How much range can be added in this way I dont know, but could be worth a thought. Dumping fuel tanks would add to the cost, but lets face it, you don`t launch stealth deep strike missions every day of the week!
Steve Rgg - London

05 March 2012

Read about the F-35 prograam and the F-35B & somewhat about the F-35C on

www.Best4Beaufort.com
Ted - USA

06 March 2012

@ Martin: Even with STOBAR the Typhoon would need a major redesign. It would still need a strengthening of the undercarriage and airframe. This was already looked into and would add significant weight to the aircraft. In addition the electronics onboard are not protected for EMR Carrier operations and would need shielding.

Sure it could be done...however since the Naval Typhoon right now is nothing more than a marketing drawing practical test models etc have not been built. We would be entering new territory again and no doubt cost overruns. All this costs time and money..something we do not have.

As for the Babcock exec this is from a ship perspective and not from an aircraft design. Changing the flatop is easy....ammending an aircraft is a tougher proposition.
HamishUK - GB

07 March 2012

The idea of operating a modified Eurofighter Typhoon from the CVF ships in the STOBAR mode has sufficient potential to be worth further study. This would provide an interim capability.
Everything seems outwardly rosy with the development of the EMALS, but I'm not completely convinced. So far they haven't done the kind of intensive, repetitive testing that I would expect to reveal any problems with the engineering or materials. Remember that in service, this system might have to perform hundreds of launches in a 24 hour period, or several thousand over a period of months, this after months of exposure to the marine environment.
A steam catapult makes more sense in a ship with nuclear-steam propulsion than one with diesel electric propulsion. Using a gas turbine and alternator to generate electricity to heat water to produce high pressure steam-the "electric kettle", in the words of those technical geniuses at the MOD-is possible, but grossly inefficient in terms of the amount of fuel it takes to launch an aircraft that way. Burning the fuel in the boiler to heat the water directly would be slightly cheaper. Another potential problem is the time it takes to bring the boiler up to pressure. If you have to keep it at high pressure all the time so that you can launch aircraft at short notice, the costs will be high. Plus, you need large amounts of fresh water and hence a large desalination plant and storage tanks.
J. Southworth - University of Hull

08 March 2012

With regard to EMALS, I must admit to a few misgivings, certainly regarding reliability, which will take some time to prove. There is also the question of launch rate, ie; how quickly the catapult takes to re-cycle after each launch and also what affect the power drain of using the system would have on the ship`s other systems, such as propulsion. Perhaps someone out there can put my mind at reston these points? Of course there are advantages to launching aircraft via a ramp, which requires no maintenance (thus no maintenance personel to accomodate!)does not break down and is much more resistant to damage.
Steve Rigg - London

09 March 2012

Steve Rigg - London

EMALS has a recycle time of 45 seconds (?) and interstingly can be used as part of a ski jump to reduce the takeoff speed (and the power required to achieve that speed)for an aircraft.
Rob - Telford

09 March 2012

The F35 is a capability joke and way beyond what is necessary. Cat and trap ensures interoperability, and frankly, the choice should be for either marinising the Typhoon tranche 3 (for which the design is already in existance and paid for), purchasing F18 super hornets, ensuring compatibility with the US, or purchasing the lesser capable but highly agile Rafale, and so strengthing our treaty with the French. Any of those options would be cheaper, as effective against the opposition we are most likely to face and be delivered as the carriers are built, as opposed to waiting half a decade whilst F35 continues to fail its test programmes.

F35B cant land back on with weapons because its too heavy. Its simple physics. In the USS Wasp trial, it "landed" with vapour for fuel to save weight and no weapons. In todays modern warfare, if you cant Id the target, you dont fire, so the weapons have to stay on and because each one is mighty expensive, you dont want to ditch them in the sea just to be able to land back VSTOL. One of Harriers problems was this very fact. Simple maths says its too expensive. For god sake, will people in the MOD and Government wake up......ditch F35 now, buy F18 and get on with it.
Bertie - Huntingdon/UK/RAF

10 March 2012

I don't think that the fairly minimal performance and cost advantages of the F35C over the F35B were ever worth the expense of converting the carriers to catapult operation or the considerable technical risk factor inherent in the development of the EMALS or alternative electromagnetic launcher systems. I think we have a problem in that some of the people who make these decisions don't have the necessary knowledge to properly assess technical risks. If they don't know the difference between an electric boiler and an electric kettle, they should defer to people who do.
J. Southworth - University of Hull

14 March 2012

A naval Typhoon would take off from a 'ski jump' deck solving this problem and have the added benefits of an earlier in sevice date and creating jobs in the UK. Please see previous article "UKIP: 'UK must build naval Typhoon"
Steve Diggle - Cambidge

14 March 2012

@ Steve - The UKIP knows absolutely nothing about aircraft design. It has been said time and time again there will be no Naval Typhoon.
HamishUK - GB

16 March 2012

You can't just turn a land based aircraft into a naval one. Naval aircraft are designed with an undercarriage that can take the deck impacts and a back end / arrestor hook that won't get ripped off. This is DESIGNED into the plane from the beginning.

And let's be honest, does anyone REALLY think that the RAF will want a Naval aircraft? The will want their own version of the toy, just like the F4 (RAF) and the F4K (RN).

Common sense would say build all future aircraft to be capable of hard deck landings (navalised) as that gives you the most options.

But we all know the MoD doesn't do common sense decision making, in fact it's very hard to get them or Senior military officers to make any decisions at all!
Shaun - ex RM - Sierra Leone

16 March 2012

"A naval Typhoon would take off from a 'ski jump' deck solving this problem [it would STILL need a catapult!!!]and have the added benefits of an earlier in sevice date and creating jobs in the UK.
Steve Diggle - Cambridge"

Really? You trust a ground up re-design to be on time, on target and work? From the UK defence industry (BAe) hahahahaha what a joke. We want the plane on the carriers in 2020 (ish) not 2120!!!
Dream on :-)
Shaun - ex RM - Sierra Leone

17 March 2012

I dare say this is nothing to worry about and not a real issue in the long run.

By the time the vessels are finished, unmanned bombers and ground attack airframes, and their software, will have improved to the point where lighter weight, smaller aircraft with 50% greater range, 20% greater firepower and 100% more maneuverability will be able to be launched and land back on Britain's new 'power projection waggons'.

As everyone who hasn't been sheltering under a rock seems to be aware, the age of manned warflight is coming to an end.

By the time "HMS ForeignerManagement" and "HMS DoAsYouAreTold" are in active service, the choice of jet plane aboard them will be but a minor half-remembered issue.
David H Parry - UK

21 March 2012

Fascinating spectator sport. Only Hammond has the spreadsheet with the delivery times and costs. But if we discount outsider technical options like Sea Typhoon, Gripen and new build Harriers and political 'challenges' like Rafale then if we want early restoration of the carrier capability and a balanced budget thro' 2016 we probably have 2 options a) delay catapults and make a small F-35B buy with a view to part exchanging them for F-35C and catapults around 2025 b)fudge it by allowing the budget flex a bit, continuing with catapults on POW, mothball QE and leasing whatever version of F-18 we can afford. Then we could negotiate with the French on conversion costs of QE or sell it to Brazil. On balance I hope they fudge it because the F-18 actually works.
Paul Nigel - Swindon

22 March 2012

with the US now threatening to cut numbers if costs dont come down will mean everyone else will end up paying ever increasing amounts of dollars for fewer aircraft. At what point does something become too expensive??

How long before the price starts pushing $200m per aircraft?
JC - UK

30 March 2012

I always thought the interoperability with france was more about training than borrowing each others carriers for operations with our two cvf and cdg europe should always have one carrier at sea one at sea for carrier qualification training and the third in refit/reserve. On the question of air wing why cant we have a mix of E/F/G bugs and a smaller fleet of F35c for an air wing of 12E,12F,12F35c,and6G plus3/4 hawkeye and 1/2C2 for cod conversion training in us to save costs plus merlins,wildcats,apaches,chinooks/CH53K as required
Andy - Solihull,uk

01 May 2012

cats and traps would be better may just have to find a cheaper altrenative aircraft
steve bell