Hammond 'recommends' F-35 switch

HAVE YOUR SAY

19 March 2012

At least plumbing for the STOVL variant means the carriers will have a ski jump, enabling whole sale cancellation of the bungled F35 and adoption of the STOBAR Typhoon. A steam CAT can be fitted at a later date for AEW launch hopefully.

However, Cameron's sick bag inducing White House visit will probably mean the UK will be screwed yet again and the RN will be forced to support US interests to the exclusion of its own and adopt the flawed F35. Also, given Hammond is a through and through Oxbridge PE major with a standard issue treasury labotomy he will do all he can to damage the UK's indigenous fast jet design and build capability by pushing the F35 at the expence of the cheaper and more capable home grown STOBAR Typhoon.
Martin Bayliss - Stroud

19 March 2012

Well done the senior officers of the RAF; if this reversal of policy does occur it will be a massive victory for the RAF who will finally have killed off the fixed wing capability of the Fleet Air Arm (FAA), something they have been trying to do for years to the detriment of the UK's defence capability. And have been working behind the scene to do ever since moving to the C model was first announced. Why do I think this? With the C each carrier would have required a properly constituted air group with the FAA taking the lead and thus providing most or all of the F-35 squadrons. However, with the B model the RAF will argue for "tailored air-groups" with the Bs just "visiting" for the occasional exercise (as did the Harriers, post Sea Harrier axing) and thus all fast jets will be able to belong to the RAF. This will result in the Royal Navy owning the world's two largest helicopter carriers, with occasional and limited strike capability; or worse case scenario NO strike capability if the B falls by the wayside. Still what does that matter when set against extra toys for the RAF? Call me cynical but just check the historical records of how the RAF has constantly worked to destroy the FAA over the years in order to protect their empires.
Bob M - Surrey UK

19 March 2012

Monty python running our defence it seems!!!!

Even they couldn't come up with something this sad and pathetic as our current crop of dithering fools in charge of the UK's defence.

Heaven help us in foture if the RAF is denied the use of airfields in far off lands or denied overflight permission to get to trouble spots. They will then be found out for what they really are... a local defence force with no strategic capability whatsoever.

As to the aircraft carriers themselves, didn't Labour order the two along with the F35B, so forgetful of Labour now, they have saddled us with a no hope aircraft and two helicopter replacements for HMS Ocean.
JC - UK

19 March 2012

One day someone in the ministry of defence will come up with a bright idea. Would it not have been better to have the cats and traps right from the start, so that they are compatible with the French and American carriers and to have a carrier variant of the Typhoon which at one stage the Indian Navy were going to have. Perhaps we should follow UKIPS suggestion : come out of the EU and all the billions that we give to them help towards the defence budget. I think they said, " 3 super carriers, 11 type 45 destroyers, 11 Astute class submarines and 22 new type 26 frigates with extra RFA capability to cope with the extra ships.Lets have a navy we can be proud of again.
david a osborn - woodford bridge, essex, england

19 March 2012

You couldn't make this up! We are a laughing stock worldwide in any area you wish to mention. These carriers were designed to be convertible to catapults and arrestor wires. They could be in service for 50 years (see USS Enterprise). So, where this £1.8 billion comes from is anyone's guess. It's probably the sum of everything the RAF (oops - opponents of F-35C and FAA-led strike capability) can lay at the door of using the system over its lifetime. If B enabled both carriers to be brought into service in quick time then I would welcome it - we would simply be back where we thought we'd be but several hundred million quid lighter.
Chris - London

19 March 2012

David Cameron can still save face by splitting the purchase between F-35B and F-35A for each service such that the total cost of the more expensive B model is offset by the less expensive A model while claiming that he has still made a version change in the A model so it can argue his original statements were in fact valid criticisms of Labour.

Stop bashing the RAF and get real it is not the RAF that has cocked up it is the fact that a study has calculated £2bn to fit cat and trap to one carrier which is three times the estimate at the time of the last SDSR. The RAF were not part of that cost estimate so how are they to blame and they will be arguing for the F-35A on their part to make up a split buy as the Italians are doing.

The recommendation will mean that both carriers can be used even if only one is operational at any time with the other in extended readiness as opposed to being mothballed and either sold or scrapped.

Some of the concerns regarding the STOVL model can be addressed with stealth drop tanks that are being developed that extend the range and SRVL means it can bring back weapons.

Also we were always going to use the 12 HM1 Merlins to replace the Sea King AEW.
Graham - High Wycombe

19 March 2012

Two operational carriers, each with two FAA squadrons of F35B's plus UACV's, Merlins and AAC Apaches is far, far better than one operational carrier with, perhaps, 3 squadrons of mixed bag F35C's plus the others mentioned above.
Never mind the suicidal management axiom of once a decision is made you must stick with it ... you could follow some prat off beachy head under that thinking ... let alone expecting your guys to follow you too!!
Norman - UK

19 March 2012

Addendum.
JC is right just look at the American air head for Afghanistan (In Kyrgistan (SP?)) which has just been cancelled by the new President of the country!!!!
I presume our illustrious leaders would, if a crucial overflight or foreign basing agreement was cancelled at short notice, take the offender (who has just banked millions in foreign aid) to the International court for breach of contract. This is of course where finger-play begins (or should I say TWO finger play?).
Norman - UK

19 March 2012

Norman - UK

Actually it will mean two operationally capable carriers as we are never going to get funding to operate them both fully rather they will be able to swap as the in service carrier as opposed to the other non EMALS carrier being mothballed, scrapped or sold.

A purchase of 35 B and 35 A would allow two squadrons (24) of each with a mixed A and B OCU (say 4 A, 4 B as most training will be done with simulators) that will allow pilots to qualify on either and be seconded as required and allow a partial surge capability. They would approximately cost as much to buy and operate as 70 odd F-35C.

I liked the idea of changing to F-35C but it only made sense if both carriers were converted which it now seems stands no chance.

Oh and the RAF bashers: It was the RAF that championed a switch away from F-35B to the F-35C and they had no part in the cost estimates that have sunk carrier conversion to cat and trap.
Graham - High Wycombe

19 March 2012

It's not just operating in tandem with US and French carriers it's the comparative lack of range and payload that prejudice the 35B variant against non VSTOL options.

Cost Operational Effectiveness and Investment Appriasal has been overtaken by politics and chaos and overspend results. Coupled together with a procurement organisation that removed all it's key talent in the mid 80's and you have the carrier saga, the FRES cock-up the NIMROD disasters etc etc etc.

Is one option buying F18 using the cost saving(?) to go with the cost of building an induction catapult? I am clutching at straws here, but I can't see the point in F35B.
MATT2 - LONDON

19 March 2012

In my opinion Phillip Hammond is thinking like somebody from the treasury and not somebody who is championing what the Armed Forces really need. I would be horrified if we went back to the F35B as I really do not think its capabilities (range, internal payload etc) justify the cost of the aircraft.

However, I would rather go to the F35B than not have a Carrier capable aircraft at all and on the positive side, we would have two carriers available without having to go through expensive conversions.

My preference would still be to go with EMAL's (on both Carriers eventually), with a decent size purchase of F-35C's to go with them, however I am fairly certain in these times of limited funds this is not going to happen.
Rob - Telford

19 March 2012

Rob - Telford

Exactly, Hammond is a treasury man to the core which is why he was picked for the defence secretary role by Cameron/Osborne.

I have come to the same conclusion as you that we are best with both carriers fitted with EMALS and F-35C but as that looks like it is not going to happen we must at least look at the positive that both carriers will be equally capable and so one can be in extended readiness.

As for the STOVL variant agreed it has less range and payload but drop tanks are being developed that will extend it to a much more useful range and although nothing can be done about the internal payload at least with SRVL it can bring it back again if need be!

A split buy is now the best option to fulfil the needs of both the FAA and RAF and will at least allow the additional cost of the STOVL variant to be offset by the CTOL variant.
Graham - High Wycombe

19 March 2012

Jim Murphy...
Stop publicly gloating especially consideering Labour took Ten years to decide if they should build the damn things.......
Tories, get a grip, we sit at the top table of the UN, either scrap the whole lot or do it right from the start. We need carriers with suitable airframe. The installation of catapults will only happen a few years into the lifetime of these valuable assets.
Time to realise that these assets are here for the next 50 (FIFTY) years. We can, and indeed we MUST install the Catapults as they give maximium flexibility to UK Plc. This coming from a former advocate of the F35B...
People on this and forums similar need to geta grip and stop harping on about Old weapon systems such as Typhoon. I suspect F35 will more than match Typhoon even out of the box.
Degradable - UK

19 March 2012

I doubt anyone on this blog are in the slightest bit surprised in the latest of what will be many U-turns, changes and scope creep that has blighted the MoD for years regardless of those in power.
However this is really pushing the boundaries of what is at least comical at worst shameful. We still seem to be having the same arguments amongst ourselves though and that displays the other area where the MoD is at fault.
Until the individual services can get their own houses in order and stop attacking the other how can we expect the politicians to make strategic decisions when those below them are arguing over who has what aircraft and why.
So here are some simple choices to make.
Do we need the carriers? Probably – yes
What aircraft do we need on them? Probably F-35C but upfront costs probably preclude this where as the long term costs of the F-35B will overtake at some point (But not in this parliament or spending round).
How can we afford it?
Here is an idea, just purely numbers however:
Retire the Tornado GR.4 early. Replace with 2 Seat Typhoon fitted with FAST packs. Modern technology replacing old technology. Single type of airframe to be supported further reducing costs. Increased benefit to industry, no reduction in Typhoon purchase just change in number of seats and additional tanks (If the US can do it with the F-15E…)
Purchase F-35C in the Fighter strike role and supplement the Typhoon on land and provide FAA with aircraft that the can cross deck until RN carrier with CAT TRAP becomes available.
Purchase F-35B in the CAS/Fighter role and supplement F-35C and Typhoon with an aircraft that can operate remotely, on small carriers and on large carriers. Flexible, supportable and technologically advanced. This aircraft is potentially available in the shorter term and is a good stepping stone before the RN fully enter fast jet operations from carriers in about 2020.
Number wise we are talking perhaps:
48 Typhoon (4 Sqn's) OCU out of current fleet
36 F-35C (2 Sqn's) and 1 OCU Sqn
48 F-35B (3 Sqn's) and 1 OCU Sqn
Suddenly we have a 2 aircraft fast jet fleet that could be sustained until the late 2020's and with the F-35 series an aircraft that can be supported by both services, accepted by both services and utilized by both services.
If we were to go further why not buy an extra 2nd hand 707 so we wouldn't have to use an operational aircraft to do circuits so pilots can keep current therefore releasing E-3 and soon JSTARS aircraft for operational tasking.
We could also purchase at least 12 P-8 and support it in very much in the same way as we support the C-17.
Sacrifice the Puma HC.2 and replace with NH-90, again bringing more jobs and providing an aircraft that has a lot more life and commonality with our allies and ourselves (It has the same engine as EH101 and AH-64 Apache (RTM-322)).
Lee Hannaford - Bristol

19 March 2012

Degradable - UK

You underestimate Typhoon, it may not have the stealth characteristics of F-35 but with AESA/DASS will be able to jam most radar systems it comes up against and so is 'stealthy' but in another way. It is also the best air superiority fighter and with passive PIRATE system is a match for anything in the air today and for some time.

F-35 is not an air superiority fighter it is a strike/attack aircraft with a good air to air capability which is the other way round to Typhoon. Hence they perfectly partner each other. Typhoon will be good out to 2030, F-35 to 2040 with mid life update.
Graham - High Wycombe

19 March 2012

Graham, many thanks. I always enjoy your comments. All rational people (and I am formerly dark blue who has had experience of the RAF for an extra 7/6d per day) would love to have joint force F35C typhoon with two operational carriers and c. 8 operational squadrons. Hammond is obviously a bean counter par excellence with no understanding of military requirements; along with the rest of the politicians.
Norman - UK

19 March 2012

Graham
Typhoon does not have AESA... Also it may not be as good as suggested when it is ready.
"F35 is not Air Superiority" WHat does that mean to us..
Years ago that would have suggested ability to out manouver the opponent, get in to weapon arcs and job done.
Today that is not the case, Link to AWACS, Radar capability of your own aircraft and others around you, analysis of incoming data, thus powerful data circuit. Ability to fire at targets based on visual queue.
Surely the most modern system will have more capability than an older system that has limited spend.
Therefore I would suggest that in its current guise teh F35 will more than match Typhoon.
Give me data to deny that, not speculation
Degradable - UK

19 March 2012

More rethinks !!!!! Probably down to the U.S. pushing the B variant of the F35. It's suffering and may be cancelled out by a number of countries, so Obama has probably told Cameron to honour the first order and stick with the STOVL option. I would rather have the C version and it's longer range and larger payload. The Typhoon would be nice, but it looks like not happening. Shame.

Angled flight deck, F-18E as an interim and the F-35C or navalised Typhoon to follow.
Ian R - Durham

19 March 2012

The F35 is not a stealth aircraft even fronton its at best low observable, it is not a fighter, it mainly a interdictor. During recent RAND simulations not 1 aircraft came home after contact with either the Russian or Chinese stealth fighters. As I've stated before it does do what its says on the tin....
The UK needs a Fleet Air Arm,the RAF can't fly around the world dropping bombs (Although it likes to think so)
I'm not going to spout off about other aircraft but the F35 is not the answer.
Jack - UK

19 March 2012

While it appears the ongoing review into the selection of the F35B or F35C now hinges on the 'unanticipated' additional cost of converting the carriers to CATOBAR operations, perhaps the question is why the carriers were designed from the outset to operate in the STOVL mode, albeit with the long term capacity for conversion at some future date in their proposed 50 year lifespan?

Presumably the thinking at the time may have been influenced by the assumption that the Harrier would continue in service until replaced by the F35B and with it a smooth transition from the Harrier to a new, more capable aircraft in the form of the F35B. Notwithstanding our mutual disappointment, at the premature withdrawal of the GR9 it would seem (on paper at least) that, notwithstanding its shortcomings, compared to the F35C the F35B offers a step change in capability over the Harrier. When we take into account that at present the US Navy will operate the 'C' variant, in fact the USMC will, under current plans operate an even larger number of the 'B' variant. For the USN the changeover to F35C will be a relatively straightforward exercise involving few changes if any to the existing 10 Nimitz Class carriers, nor in the longer term the new 'General R Ford' Class. All designed from the outset as conventional carriers and at over 100,000tons and nuclear powered, very different from the QE Class, notwithstanding the latter's considerably greater size than any previous UK carrier.

Despite its obvious shortcomings, the combination of the Invincible Class and the Harrier, provided the UK with a modest strike capability which is now mourned by all. The re-taking of the Falkland Islands is an oft quoted example of the importance in the operation of such assets, but it should not be forgotten that back then, it was the larger 'Hermes' that provided the vitally important extra aircraft needed for the job.

The question appears to me, what role does the UK envisage for its new carriers over and above the role they have performed since the demise of the previous 'Ark Royal' in 1979? Which in fairness had soldiered on alone from 1972 with the demise of the slightly less capable 'Eagle'

Assuming the UK intends to 'carry on where it left off' then the original proposals for the QE Class would seem like a major improvement over their immediate predecessors. If on the other hand conversion to full 'CATOBAR' operation is proposed to put the UK on a matched footing with the USN's Carrier Battle Groups, then clearly this would seem unachievable in realistic terms.

It is the RN's credit, how much has been achieved with our limited carrier fleet and I include in this HMS Ocean, which has proven a far more versatile platform than was ever envisaged when she was first delivered.

It would seem very likely that come the 2014 decision on which ship will remain in the UK LPH role, HMS Ocean will be the winner.

Clearly the potential 'versatility' of the QE Class will be seen by many politicians as the answer when the decision to replace her inevitably arises, however, even their ability to operate numerous Chinook size helicopters, will not be a substitute for a dedicated LHD type vessel, which would provide a far more versatile platform, not to mention a far less valuable 'target'

The claimed build cost of $360m for the Spanish LHD 'Juan Carlos 1' would seem (if true) an absolute bargain, while providing a multi-role platform to replace 'Ocean' and indeed supplement, if needs be the availability of the QE Class during refit etc. The fact that Australia has selected two of these ships must be considered significant. The fact that as in the case of the RAAN vessels, the hulls will be built by Navantia in Ferrol, Spain and the ships completed by BAE (Australia) it would seem perfectly feasible a similar arrangement could be made for the UK.

As mentioned elsewhere on this site the reduced size of the RN has now reached a serious point and should not be allowed to deteriorate still further.

If opting for a marginally less capable platform now, saves money, then perhaps the advantages of how a fraction of the money saved could enhance overall capability, it should be worth consideration?
Hereman - Wirral, England

19 March 2012

We are where we are. The easiest way out, would be to give QE a ski ramp & 12 F-35B, then fill it up with helicopters & use it as a Sea Control/assault carrier. Then give PoW cats/traps & 24 F-35C as our strike carrier. That way, we always have at least one carrier available. When both are available, we can send the most relevent to that mission.
John Hartley - Woking/Surrey/UK

19 March 2012

Yup Martin is here spouting nonsense again.

I hope this is a joke. The first carrier is going to be sold, anyone thinking otherwise is delusional. I do hope they stick with the F35C version as the B is handicapped.
Still there is always the F18 or Rafale.
Hamish - GB

19 March 2012

Ditch the F-35 project entirely and purchase the far cheaper/yet still very effective and proven Rafale. Am sure a good deal could be made between the UK and France, as to cost per unit.
JohnR - Ilfracome

20 March 2012

Well at least this proves one thing, the uk government is all about money and nothing about defending our country. Nothing these idiots do has any connection with reality.

As always moving the goal posts in the middle of the the first half of the game costs.
One can understand them fitting out one carrier for f35b and selling it as soon as the other carrier is commissioned with cat and traps for f35c.

On the other hand if this is the RAF trying to get one over on the navy again then it is nothing short of disgraceful and does more damage then many foreign powers could ever hope to achieve. It also begs the question do we need a separate airforce at all? why not transfer all the aircraft to the FAA and AAC.

tim dainton - romsey, hampshire

20 March 2012

next part of this ongoing joke guess what HMS Ark Royal to be re-activated as a training ship for the F35B any takers!
Reckon we will end up with QE flying F35B and PoW fitted "cats and traps"and flying F18 to start with & F35c later.
The White House must be fed up with the bunch of clowns we have in government and the Mod keep changing their mind!
Ian L - norwich

20 March 2012

Martin.

The RN will not fit a steam catapult. You do not listen at all. Steam catapults require boilers. The CVF does not have boilers, it has gas turbines, diesels, and electric motors.

------------------------------

What these articles fail to point out is the cost of the respective solutions in their entirety. If the cost of the CTOL conversion plus the equal number of STOVL aircraft versus the STOVL carrier design; then the whole argument for another turn-around is just plain stupid.

As I have said before. The CVF was originally designed for STOVL aircraft, abet on a medium scale of efficiency when considering that the size of the vessel does allow for further optimising in this design path. Conversely; Should the UK government, MoD (lets face it the RN have no major say in the matter...to the detriment...politicians and defence bureaucrats show time and time again they are all hot air!) keep the CTOL path decided on in 2010 then the CVF obviously needs a major redesign to operate her air group effectively and efficiently.


Shaun - Ex_RNZN

20 March 2012

Grief. To be honest my head has been turned in so many different directions I'm not which way I'm facing anymore.

What to add that hasn't been said?

I'm to the point on not really caring as long as they make a decision and stick to it. The MoD bods are flip-flopping like a fish out of water...

What is the fastest way to get a carrier and 20 strong airgroup sailing out of Portsmouth?

Answer me that and I will go with it.
Anon - Abroad

20 March 2012

Graham - High Wycombe

Perhaps there will be an outbreak of common sense and the RN will have both Typhoons and F35s on the new carriers. A ski jump would enable the carrier to operate both types.

Clearly this would be expensive as we would be buying two types of fast jet were one would suffice. So ditch the F35 for the Navy, thus enabling a bigger buy of Typhoons, hence reducing unit price and enabling common maintenance requirements for the RN and RAF.

And if we do buy Typhoons or F35s for the RN, they should be RN property - the RAF have a VERY poor track record with jointery which usually degenrates into the Navy loosing out. The RAF know logic dictates their short range strike assets never made or will mever make sense if the option of carrier strike is avialable. They will do all they can to block the RN obtaining a credible carrier strike capability - because they know that ulitmately leads to the loss of the RAF's strike role - which to be blunt - is logical.
Martin Bayliss - Stroud

20 March 2012

Solution??: £60bn in "Navy Bonds" (amortized over 40-50 years) + a legitimate, long-term (30 year) functional plan* for the Royal Navy...

* defined by capabilities required for the RN's expected duties and roles during 2012-2042

Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada

20 March 2012

... And if the under-development, deeply problemmed F-35B ends up not going into production--- which has regularly been mooted by the US's Department of Defence and White House officials and by Congressional committees during 2008-2012--- the UK will have built two 65,000 tonne super carriers without fixed-wing aircraft to deploy from them....

.... Sure to instill confidence and interest overseas in the UK's defence and high-technology industries' products and capabilities....

...... If the Uk wants to retain its long-held leadership positions on the world's most powerful & influential international bodies & organizations, it needs to continue possessing a real, blue water navy with full spectrum capabilities.... not a 'make-believe', 'facade naval flotilla': which is exactly where the country is headed without legitimate, fixed-wing aircraft aircraft carriers & without more than 6, 21st century-capable escorts (IE:more than 6 'fully equipped' Type-45 Destroyers)

Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada

20 March 2012

This choice had already been made, then reversed by this governement and them reversed again. Please don't present this as some kind of sensible process.
Slaine McRoth - Lancashire

20 March 2012

Graham - High Wycombe

"A purchase of 35 B and 35 A would allow two squadrons (24) of each with a mixed A and B OCU (say 4 A, 4 B as most training will be done with simulators) that will allow pilots to qualify on either and be seconded as required and allow a partial surge capability. They would approximately cost as much to buy and operate as 70 odd F-35C."

I very much doubt that 'A' model drivers would be able to provide any surge capability for RN carriers as the aircraft are vastly different to operate. In the A model, you land and stop, in the B model you stop and land. Getting to grips with the different engine & flight controls would take too much time and in moments of stress (combat) could lead to terminal confusion. Using a common pool of Harrier pilots was fine because all variants flew exactly the same way. The F-35 models do not!

This has all the hallmarks of a classic procurement cock-up in which the winners will be Lockheed Martin and BAe and the losers MoD & taxpayer.

It must be remembered that the Hamster is only making a 'recommendation', he can be over-ruled by DC or Osborne at any time. Depends on the amount of extra money needed, the political willingness to look pathetic and likely penalties for changing the contracts yet again.
AW Employee - Yeovil

20 March 2012

Degradable - UK

AESA: It has already flown and is in production from 2015 with an upgrade plan for all the 107 RAF Block 8 and above. It is this that you have to consider not the current version. And yes it is already proving it's capabilities (first prototype AESA flew in 2007). With reposition-er it will outperform any current AESA equipped aircraft with 120 degree azimuth compared to 90 degree for all current AESA radars INCLUDING F-35 !.

And what I mean with F-35 is it's being developed first and foremost as a strike aircraft, it is this role in which it will excel. I said it will still be a very good aircraft in the air-air role with sensor fusion, Link 16 and ASRAAM and Meteor but I still believe that Typhoon will perform better in this role (marginally agreed).

They do as I said compliment each other. There is no speculation about Typhoon it has already been used (as has E-3D) with Link 16 to nominate targets to other Typhoons that then approaches stealthily (no radar but still able to launch AMRAAM - eventually Meteor) and destroy targets without being detected itself. Typhoon has been proven in the air combat role where in excercises it was able to shoot down two F-22 by approaching using PIRATE to feed data to ASRAAM, such that the USAF withdrew F-22 from further exercises, this has been documented. What more do you need to prove its capability in the air to air role, it will make an excellent strike aircraft eventually but F-35 will excel better in this role, particularly in high threat environments.

As I said Typhoon will be good in its post 2015 version which is under development and on track to be good to the early 2030's. It will be good in the air to ground role but the F-35 will have the advantage in high threat environments and until SEAD has degraded defences F-35 is the best aircraft in the air to ground/strike role beyond that Typhoon can still be used with stand off weapons initially and then later in ground attack once defences have been suppressed. We need both aircraft as they have different strengths to each other but together will give the UK a powerful punch.

Martin,

We will not use Typhoon from the carriers and the best outcome now is F-35B for the RN and F-35A for the RAF to partner enhanced Typhoon post 2015. I will grant I prefer naval Typhoon to any other alternative if F-35 is not available but this will not be the case so its pointless discussing it.
Graham - High Wycombe

20 March 2012

Re the QE carriers and CATS.

I read somewhere that the QE carriers could be fitted with steam catapults but they would therefore also need an extra gas turbine (it has two at the moment) to generate the power to raise the steam. It could be done therefore - given that they are 65 thousand tons there are more options.

In other words EMALS is not the only option for CATS on the QE carriers.

If the QE carriers enter service with a ski jump and no CAT - it could operate Typhoons or the lamentable F35, and then after a while be retrofitted with steam or EMAL cats for AEW and UCAV operations.

Yes this expensive - but the RAF does not need strike aircraft anymore and the Tornado could be scrapped with no replacement and the RN could take over the strike role - which is far more logical with short range fast jest from a carrier. Plus, carrier fast jets can also operate from land as well - but curcially - they can fly from carriers too - so extend the UK's expeditionary reach massively.

Of course the MOD, treasury and RAF secretly don't want the UK to have independent expeditionary capabilities, they just want us to be a division of the US air force/marine core. But that would mean the end of the UK as any kind of world power. Do we really want that? The French seem to manage OK. It just takes political will.
Martin Bayliss - Stroud

20 March 2012

AW Employee - Yeovil

Pilots will be able to master both A and B model, this is totally different to Harrier I've watched simulators being switched between the two and believe me pilots will have no issue. There will be no problem pilots being dual qualified and in any case most training will be done on simulators that will keep up pilot ability on both types.

The surge capability may be slightly less with a split buy but that is compensated by the RAF using a model that is better suited to them and cheaper offsetting the cost of the B model for the RN. While I believe the RN would get ownership of B models and could operate them all (except those assigned a joint OCU). The recommendation is actually coming from the RN if the reports are correct.

If we had 35 to 40 of each there could be two FAA squadrons (24 a/c total) equipped with the B and two RAF equipped with the A. With a joint OCU having both types (4-6 of each type). That would allow two squadrons available for the carriers and in a very real emergency a surge with the OCU instructors or any pilot deemed qualified that could provide a number of aircraft to surge as there would be spare B models available.

The B is more expensive than a C by the same amount that an A is cheaper than the C. So a split buy costs the equivalent as the same number of C's.

However each service would have the aircraft that best suited their circumstance. If we are not going forward with the C then this is the next best way forward left to us, in fact I think the RN believe it is best for them:-

Two carriers built to the same spec as the aircraft that will fly from them and not having to shrink the fleet any more to find another £2 bn or reduce the numbers of JSF ordered causing the RAF to demand it has sole control which would be a real possibility if the numbers ordered fall to far which they would if that's how we were to find the extra £2 bn.
Also it was estimated that carrier operations would be delayed till 2027, so I think the switch back to the B is RN led not RAF.
Graham - High Wycombe

20 March 2012

@ Martin Bayliss

Re Steam catapults, you suggest generating steam by the addition of a third gas turbine, presumably your proposal implies the use of an exhaust gas boiler/economizer or heat exchanger of some sort? If so why would an additional gas turbine be required as presumably the two existing units could suffice?

Whatever method of steam generation were used it would be the associated 'plumbing' that would add to the complexity of the installation. Currently and as far as I am aware historically, all carriers using the steam catapult were/are steam propelled. As the QE Class are 'electric' ships, i.e. propelled by electric motors powered by gas turbines/diesels, then the EMALS system would be the natural choice one might think?

Clearly the US Navy consider the EMALS system to have advantages over the steam catapult, or surely the new 'Gerald R Ford' Class, with two nuclear reactors apiece, providing ample steam power would be fitted accordingly?
Hereman - Wirral, England

21 March 2012

As a follow on to this I read that David Cameron was told on his recent US visit that defence cuts are making the UK less important and less influential which should be a sobering thought to someone as Atlanticist as Cameron.
Graham - High Wycombe

21 March 2012

Graham, I would have to completely disagree with your post about a possible reduction in Lightening's causing the RAF to demand owning them.

Talk like that sounds like the interwar years and how the RAF completely screwed up British carrier aircraft in the process.

Alternatively, if The UK was to reduce the Lightening; the RN by rights should have them since the best exponents of naval airpower are the navies of those nations that operate the carriers. This is fact, based on 60yrs of war, peace and everything in between. Additionally, the RAF has the Typhoon and Tornado; while the FAA currently has zip.

The new centre-pieces of UK military strategy - The CVFs - must have the aircraft to fulfil their intended role so they can best serve the UK; this decision should be above inter-service rivalry and represent common sense.
Shaun - Ex_RNZN

21 March 2012

Shaun - Ex_RNZN

The RAF and RN both have a need for JSF, the GR4 only has a few years left and Typhoon will only be a strike aircraft in a secondary role. Any thoughts of JSF being for the RN only is not going to happen, if numbers are cut to fund EMALS it will be the other way round not as you suggest.

So like it or not if numbers of JSF get reduced I see the RAF operating them all and having responsibility for carrier operations. You can disagree all you like but that is the likely outcome.

That is not what I want and we will find out if either we get one carrier with EMALS and a joint force of F-35C for both services to operate which will result in 1 FAA and probably two or three RAF squadrons or if we switch back to the F-35B then a split buy makes most sense with the FAA and RAF operating two squadrons each of B and A respectively with a joint mixed type OCU. This is now what I believe the RN favours. It also means both carriers are capable of operating them.

BTW This also means the surge capability can be reduced as there would be more carrier based aircraft to start with.
Graham - High Wycombe

21 March 2012

Graham,

I have no doubt the RAF with their close political mates will probably go down the path you mention – The RAF owning everything that flies.

Of course this will be the uncommon sense approach.

With that (lack of logic) it appears military history prior to April Fools day 1918 has no bearing on military operations today.

-----

With your own logic, Since 2006 FAA requires Fighter-bombers to replace their retired FA2's; the RAF requirements for GR4 replacements should be the second cab off the rack.
Shaun - Ex_RNZN

22 March 2012

Shaun - Ex_RNZN

The requirement to replace the strike capability of the RAF is equal to the carrier program there is not a case of one being more important than the other in reality but if forced to go down that route the RAF will win and operate in both roles if numbers of JSF ordered dictate.

Let me be clear I DO NOT WANT THAT OUTCOME. I do however believe we have to maximise our assets and effectiveness with joint force structures.

This is how I see the reality of the situation being one of two choices.

Either:

1 carrier with EMALS and either 1 or 2 FAA F-35C squadrons and 2 or 3 RAF F-35C squadrons. The other carrier being mothballed, sold or scrapped. The carrier would not have a strike capability until 2027 at the earliest according to the review.

OR:

Both carriers built to original ski jump specification and one held in extended readiness and rotated with the operational carrier as Albion and Bulwark are now. This would mean the FAA gaining two squadrons of F-35B while the best way to meet the RAF needs would be the F-35A. As the surge requirement is less it could be met easily enough through the joint OCU squadron instructors and/or any other pilot qualified as secondment would be routine between the services. Flying either model is easily achieved due to the flight computers being in charge of landing and simulators being very advanced.
The carrier force could be in place by 2020 making cancellation less likely.

It seems the RN are recommending the latter rather than the former and that is why Hammond is making the recommendation which saving the £2 bn for EMALS and splitting the buy to keep the procurement cost the same as for the F-35C is one which he will naturally favour.

It is certainly not a case though of the FAA lost its FA2's first so they get replacements before the GR4, sorry it doesn't work that way and you know it.
Graham - High Wycombe

22 March 2012

Graham.

Logically a carrier with its own dedicated organic air group is a far more a strategic and tactical asset to the UK than any land based jet the RAF will operate.

I agree both the RAF and RN need new aircraft; I just disagree completely with you that if push come to shove; it is the RN which should operate them; when and where they choose to for the UK.
Shaun - Ex_RNZN

22 March 2012

Shaun - Ex_RNZN

P.S It is the former option that I believe runs the risk that JSF numbers will be cut to fund EMALS and prompt a bun fight to operate the remaining JSF. I am not saying it would happen but is a possibility. As Hammond is a treasury man would you discount it ?
Graham - High Wycombe

22 March 2012

Shaun - Ex_RNZN

It is to you Shaun because you are so biased in favour of naval power but that is not a view shared by all otherwise we would not have scrapped Ark Royal/GR9 in the SDSR and saved the GR4.

In reality if push comes to shove the RAF will win as they can make a better case of being able to fulfil both a maritime and land based capability with JSF whereas the FAA will find it harder to prove they can handle both.

However let us both hope that if option 1 it is not funded by cutting JSF orders then as I said in option 1 there would be at least one dedicated FAA F-35 squadron and possibly two in time.

However I believe the RN have looked at the options and have made recommendations based on having both carriers usable and operating the STOVL variant even if this means the RAF using F-35A. It is after all what the Italians are doing and I think weighing it up that is what the RN now favours perhaps the RAF even who knows.

I've heard a decision could be announced on the 26th March if so we will all be waiting to find out.
Graham - High Wycombe

22 March 2012

The best solution short term I believe would be to go for F35C in reduced numbers.
Quite frankly we need to ofset costs, therefore we take the carriers, and put the tools required to launch aircraft of it, and interoperate with allies.
We then procure a reduced first batch of F35, with a plan to purchase more as they become cheaper, and or are replaced with next generation airframe/drone.
From a timeframe perspective this is the way to go.
Degradable - UK

22 March 2012

Graham,

Regardless of my former service, my only bias is for the best option for the UK military as a whole; based on military trends, current operations and history. What annoys me is exactly what you ironically accuse me of, which is single service bias based on uneducated opinions (likely inbred from parent service) rather than fact.

The facts remain; with global commitments; as an island nation; 95% all materials moving by sea; with reduced overseas bases (with complex political situations with overseas basing); shrinking defence forces in quality and quantity; and the most important fact – A large proportion of the Earth been covered by water; The UK requires forces which can best utilise this element and not be hindered by it.

With the posts; We will just have to agree to disagree on this topic.
Shaun - Ex_RNZN

23 March 2012

Degradable - UK

Have to disagree, I believe we would still only get one carrier with EMALS. Although we will only ever have one operational at any time I would rather we had the increased availability of a carrier that having one in extended readiness would allow rather than no carrier which would be the case often if we only have one that is capable of launching F-35C.

That is why I have always predicated my arguments in favour of the F-35C on both carriers being fitted with EMALS. If that is not the case I think having both carriers capable of launching aircraft outweighs the benefits of F-35C over F-35B, if a split buy is used to keep the cost the same and provide the RAF with its own variant. I also believe this way the FAA would be able to operate more than the 12 aircraft planned if the F-35C is used.

There are arguments both ways so myself I will have to wait till we understand all the facts to decide if I think we have made the right decision.
Graham - High Wycombe

23 March 2012

France has plans to build cat and trap equipped 'big deck' aircraft carriers in the immediate future- are these vessels likely to be designed to be smaller, lower-technology and less capable than the UK's big deck aircraft carriers??

http://www.rpfrance-otan.org/IMG/pdf/Dossier_de_presse_Livre_Blanc.pdf (pages 116-118):

"After analysis, the decision on the construction of a second aircraft carrier (PA2) is postponed for the following main reasons: ... the economic conditions have changed since the decision in 2003 to use conventional propulsion for the new aircraft carriers... Additional studies are needed to assess the comparative advantages presented by conventional propulsion & NUCLEAR PROPULSION (my emphasis- rvl) options..."

http://www.dcnsgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Dossier-de-presse-Euronaval-2010-GB.pdf (pages 20- 22)
http://navy-matters.beedall.com/pa2-1.htm
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/france-steaming-ahead-on-pa2cvf-carrier-project-01621/

"French Carrier Design Work Continues", October 26-2010:
www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4977422&c=EUR&s=SEA
www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4969353&c=AME&s=SEA

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/porte-avoins2/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/dpa.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/dpa-background.htm
---------------------

The UK's currently undergoing construction- highly problemmed, 5 years behind schedule & massively over-budget- big deck aircraft carriers were designed by 1/3-France-govt-owned Thales:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2706727.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2709133.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3063621.stm

... and the UK's big deck aircraft carriers are in large part products of the 2001-2008- mainly UK financed- UK/France aircraft carrier project that France destructively pulled out of in 2008:

"UK and France sign carrier deal", 06_03-2006:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4780630.stm

"Porte-Avions 2 (PA2) Future Aircraft Carrier, France":
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/porte-avoins2/

"PA2 deferment scuppers CVF savings", 08_07-2008:
http://www.janes.com/news/defence/naval/jdw/jdw080708_1_n.shtml or
http://www.janes.com/products/janes/defence-security-report.aspx?ID=1065927557

THE UK SHOULD SELL BOTH OF THEIR 2 UNDERGOING-CONSTRUCTION 'BIG DECK' AIRCRAFT CARRIERS AND COMMISSION THE DESIGN OF BIGGER, BETTER, MORE IMPRESSIVE ONES->>> AIMING FOR THE EXPORT MARKET!!
Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada

23 March 2012

The F35B is a better proposition than the C version, but even so my advice would be to limit the purchase to no more than about 36 aircraft. Similarly, if further versions of the Eurofighter Typhoon and/or the Harrier are acquired, it should be in limited numbers because the only real purpose of these aircraft now is to tide the forces over until UCAVs arrive.
The Lockheed Martin F35 is quite an advanced aircraft technologically, but obsolescent in concept. It might be thought of as representing the technology of the 21st century applied to the tactics and military methodology of the mid-20th century. This criticism can be made of all modern manned combat aircraft, with the possible exception of light Counter-Insurgency (COIN) types, which are usually modified civilian light aircraft.
I wouldn't expect to see manned combat aircraft entirely replaced by UCAVs within the next 20 years, as some people are predicting. But it seems likely that the manned aircraft which enter service in the next 10-15 years will be the last to do so.
J. Southworth - University of Hull

24 March 2012

Noted some comments indicating the QE would be sold when PoW is brought into service!
Question which country would want to buy it and fly F35B from it and would the White house allow it?
Ian L - norwich

26 March 2012

Ian L
"None of them" and "no" would appear to be the likely answers to your two questions.
The two ships have not been launched yet, so the names Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales are provisional. I favour naming them Winston Churchill and Horatio Nelson.
What I can't understand is why anyone would want to name one of them after Margaret Thatcher. We'd have to call the other one the Dodi Al-Fayed if we did that.
J. Southworth - University of Hull

28 March 2012

The logical course is a switch back to F35B. Sure, its range and payload are lower than the C model, but it's still essentially the same aircraft. Buy the B and both carriers can be used interchangeably. That factor is greatly more significant than the slight range and payload advantage of the C. The USMC will fly the B and can cross-train with the RN. Criticize the government, if you have to, but a switch-back to the B is the right thing to do.
Bowman - Tampa, FL (ex-pat)