Hammond 'still considering carrier options'

HAVE YOUR SAY

26 April 2012

It must be so hard for people who don't know what they're doing to know what they're doing.

But I have no sympathy for them - they need to take defence and British industry seriously instead of playing party political games with capability, people's jobs and the future industrial might of this country.

Credibility comes from consistency and not from vacuity and flip-flopping.
Michael - Hertfordshire

26 April 2012

Geez.... maybe buy F-35B for QE and operate it as an LPH replacement for Ocean and then build PoW with EMALS and operate it with F-35C at a later date.

Then we can argue that we have saved on the replacement cost for Ocean which in turn has funded the conversion of PoW for EMALS.

I know we would have to make changes to QE to make it effective as an LPH but I doubt it would be as much as a new build Ocean. Some davits and accommodation for Marines should suffice.
Graham - High Wycombe

26 April 2012

Watched this debate. Brennan didnt answer any questions. Ok what I got from this is a decision whether to u-turn has yet to be made, secondly as the leaks are officially under investigation means there is some truth as to what we have heard.
She refused to answer the jump in costs from 800m to 1800m.
Conclusion ... We have to wait and see a few more weeks.
Robert Perry - Birmingham

26 April 2012

More indecision, Somehow i still harbour some hope that the government will come out and say we are to operate both carriers with F35-C Airwings, but the chance of them commiting to such a plan is i assume unfortunatley very low.

For me even considering having only one carrier capable of operating our aircraft is just ridiculas.

We need two operate both of our carriers, whether it is with F-35B or F-35C is the question.
David Forster - Durham

27 April 2012

Having watched the hearing, it was shocking to see how much the MP's doing the pressing had so little clue on the program and took their lead from the crap press stories doing the rounds !.

Its a pity Ms Brennan was so tight lipped on some of the questions, its obvious that the £1.8 billion price tag being quoted for the conversion is not correct for the actual conversion of 1 CVF but wouldn't eloborate until the PR12 is announced
Geoff Baker - Bolton

27 April 2012

The quoted price of £1.8billion is reported so that when the decision is made and it comes in cheaper the clueless MP's and MOD can claim to have made savings. Start thinking of the people who have to fly the jets then decide which one offers the best capability ie range, payload and time over target. F35C wins hands down, but I digress, MP's and MOD don't give a damn about the pilots lives do they!!!
JC - UK

27 April 2012

They should have stuck to the same schedule that the last government had. Yes, the F-35B was the preferred option - dating back at least to the 90s when what became the F-35 was originally a joint Anglo-American project only (although obviously more weighted to the US) with the STOVL version to replace the now retired Sea Harrier - but no actual commitment to anything, just a preferred option. Then Cameron's lot say, no we'll go for the F-35C and then change their mind again after a year or so when they realise it might cost more than they had thought. Wasn't it Cameron who said that the Eurofighter was a Cold War relic (with a coalition partner prior to the election that was pushing for tranche 3s cancellation for the above mentioned reason) and then later said it was a great piece of kit when trying to flog it to the Indians. It'll end up with this incompetence and publicly-announced indecision on this issue that we'll probably end up with no aircraft for the carriers in the end with one sold off and the other to be used as a giant LPH until that's sold off as well.
Steve - London, UK

27 April 2012

How come just about all who comment here can see that we need two operational CATOBAR carriers with FAA airings of F35C with RAF F35C squadrons able to surge when necessary and politicians can't??
I see from elsewhere that the US congress has added $1.1 billion in order to ensure the US armed forces have equipment they need and, of course, to preserve jobs in their industry. Whats our problem? Handouts in benefits, foreign aid and a very expensive NHS. Surely we can make the latter more efficient and the other two smaller??
With the yanks concentrating on the Pacific we must put more effort and resources into the Atlantic/Med/ME areas which really do affect our national security (in all its forms). Lets hope they deliberate rationally i.e. defence of the realm should come first and get it right.
Norman - UK

27 April 2012

The delay is encouraging if it means we are building political and military consensus on the capabilities we need. The UK hybrid F35B/helo assault carriers were conceived in the 1998 defence review and we are close to realizing them. If we are to change their configuration to catobar strike and long range air superiority we need to agree either that UK defence priorities have changed or understand how we will deliver what was previously thought to be the primary capability for the UK, LHA expeditionary capability, close air support and local area air superiority. Nimitz or Kearsarge?
Paul Nigel - Swindon

27 April 2012

Paul Nigel - Swindon

So two 65,000 ton carriers with STOVL aircraft was always the plan! YOU DON'T NEED 65,000 TON CARRIERS FOR STOVL AIRCRAFT!!!!!

65,000 ton carriers are OK for CATOBAR or STOBAR aircraft, but two 35,000 ton carriers would be adeate for STOVL aircraft. Which makes me think reverting back to STOCL aircraft is not planned but part of general mess where the MOD react to events (largely driven by LM's F35 program).

And I will remind you the naval Typhoon was and still should be a STOBAR option for the two QE carriers.
Martin Bayliss - Stroud

27 April 2012

Martin Bayliss - Stroud

"YOU DON'T NEED 65,000 TON CARRIERS FOR STOVL AIRCRAFT"

Oh Yes you do !!!

Not for landing agreed but for take off you need as long a run as possible before the ski jump to get airborne with maximum payload especially with external fuel tanks. So in the case of a QE carrier an F-35B would position itself at the stern and open full throttle the whole length to achieve maximum take off weight. If you have a shorter run then you cannot achieve max weight take off.
Graham - High Wycombe

27 April 2012

Martin,

There is no such animal as a 'Naval Typhoon'. It does not exist, except in the fevered imagination of BAE executives. It's not an option. End of.
Steve - Yeovil

27 April 2012

"YOU DON'T NEED 65,000 TON CARRIERS FOR STOVL AIRCRAFT"

At the moment they're on schedule to become the world's largest and most expensive helicopter carriers.
Jeremy - Newcastle

27 April 2012

Graham - High Wycombe

But the F35B apparently will not be able to use the ski jump with a full (i.e. useful) weapon load. A Harrier would benefit from a run up, and the ski jump, but not the F35B. How about newbuild generation III harriers, bin the F35 as the wrong "excess baggage" VSTOL concept.

For some reason the US don't like ski jumps.
Martin Bayliss - Stroud

28 April 2012

What's the point of a Press Conference where no one can give answers to the major questions ? All just political waffling.
Ian R - Durham

28 April 2012

Once the politicians decide what is best, they should choose the other solution. When has a politician ever made a correct decision??? They're a waste of time & money, a dyslexic Alsation could do a better job for a fraction of the cost and without the associated corruption.
Gaz - Lancashire

28 April 2012

Graham,

The idea of having the F35 is for its stealth, sticking external fuel tanks on does the exact opposite so why go for the shorter range aircraft that needs extra fuel tanks to complete its mission than the F35C which would be more stealthy at take-off
JC - UK

29 April 2012

Martin...Still flogging a dead horse I see.

How many times must one keep saying to you that there is no Naval Typhoon. The concept has got about as far as a piece of paper and an idea. There has been absolutley no proof of concept built yet.
HamishUK - GB

29 April 2012

Against the perpetual carping about the cost of these carriers it seems never to be pointed out that they are - so we are told - intended to last for 50 years, twice as long as most RN warships are retained in UK service. This means the costs also are spread over twice as long a period. It is unfortunate that the need for these ships comes now, at an economically tight time, but the 50 year life of the ships must be taken into consideration when carping at this. As to which aeroplanes - remember that the planes can be replaced by others in due course; the ships must be built NOW - BOTH of them.
John Gilbert - Cradley, Herefordshire, UK

29 April 2012

Nice YouTube clip of new BAE facilities at Samlesbury, Lancashire for F-35 production courtesy of 'The Engineer'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0WxflxXkh8
Graham - High Wycombe

30 April 2012

we still await a decision on which f35 we may finally see enter service.as an advocate of a balanced defence budget,shorn of waste but one who also believes in the absolute requirement for a balanced fleet may i make a plea that the decision this time is msde in the best interests of the royal navy and the country and not one forced by the treasury.There appear to be only two scenarios. we have a strike carrier in which case we should b buy th f35c or perhaps lease a number of f18's in the short term.British aircrew are already training on them after all or we have a very expensive LPH so we buy the f35b instead.Fast jets and large numbers of helicopters do make for good deck companions.either way we need to operate both carriers and have built to the same configuration so that one is always in service.
geoffrey roach - plymouth devon uk

01 May 2012

Martin Bayliss - Stroud

Where did you read that an F-35B will not be able to use a ski jump with full load. I've read a great deal on these aircraft and nowhere have I read that an F-35B can't make use of the 240m length of a QE carrier and launch from a ski jump with a full load. I think you are thinking of lift fan up nozzle down as they will be operated by the USMC which we are not going to do.
Graham - High Wycombe

01 May 2012

Ski ramps can be a gentle 2 degrees to a sharp 12 degrees.
A gentle 2 degree ramp would probably be enough off a long QE deck.
John Hartley - Woking/Surrey/UK

02 May 2012

JC - UK

The external tanks are stealthy they are being designed by LM to not compromise stealth. The shape and material will be effective. Even the pylon is designed for stealth!
Graham - High Wycombe

03 May 2012

Try doing what the RAN did, allow the supply ships to go into disrepair what for a disaster that has political implications, such as a natural disaster or humanitarian mission, which is bound to occur if you have patience. That is how they go the Largs Bay, they wanted another LHD to be used as a carrier, the Government said no. The asked for a carrier, in hope of getting the second option. So now they have the Largs Bay and 2 LHD's one that can be fitted as a carrier and one LHD and LSD. Smart.
Matt