Home » Air » It’s Official: UK to Fly F-35B JSFs

It’s Official: UK to Fly F-35B JSFs

by John Reed on May 10, 2012

It’s official, Britain is going back on its choice to buy F-35C carrier variant Joint Strike Fighters and will buy the F-35B short take-off and vertical landing version of the jet, you know, the model the Brits originally intended to fly. News emerged yesterday that confirming months of rumors that the United Kingdom wanted to go back to buying the B-model after it was revealed that equipping the Royal Navy’s two Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers with General Atomics-built electromagnetic catapults and arresting gear would be a lot more expensive than originally thought; as in, it jumped from $1.6 billion to $3.2 billion.

Here’s part of UK Defence Secretary Philip Hammond’s May 10 announcement on the descision:

As the programme has matured, and more detailed analysis has been carried out by suppliers, it has become clear that the conversion to ‘cats and traps’ will cost about double what was originally estimated – and would not be delivered until 2023 at the earliest.

That is unacceptable.

The cost growth distorts the equipment budget crowding out other important investment in the Armed Forces.

And the delay extends the time period when our Armed Forces lack a carrier-strike capability.

The most cost effective route to deliver Carrier Strike by 2020 is now to switch to the STOVL variant of the Joint Strike Fighter.

We will complete the build of both carriers with ski-jumps, in the STOVL configuration – giving us the ability to provide continuous carrier availability throughout the life of the ships.

Although the range of the STOVL variant is lower, it is a 5th generation stealth aircraft – with a range significantly greater than the Harrier — and represents a step change in the UK’s combat air capability.

The STOVL variant has been significantly de-risked since the SDSR, and flight trials from American ships have taken place, with a US Marine Corps initial operating capability date of 2014 declared.

On the basis of the latest information, we can plan to start flight trials with STOVL JSF off the HMS Queen Elizabeth from 2018.

Keep in mind that the under construction Queen Elizabeths were originally designed to accomodate STOVL F-35Bs by launching them into the air using a ski jump ramp on the bow — the way the Brits did for decades with their Invincible class Harrier carriers. The switch to the C-model meant that the flight deck and spaces below it had to be redesigned to accommodate the multibillion dollar catapult and arresting gear systems. However, the B-model has less range than the carrier variant and by limiting its new carriers to STOVL jets and helos Britain may be giving up the opportunity to operate a new crop of long-range, stealthy, carrier-launched UAV strike fighters that many see as the future of naval aviation. Oh, and what about all that planned interoperability with France’s catapult-equipped aircraft carriers?

Share |

{ 109 comments… read them below or add one }

octopusmagnificens May 10, 2012 at 12:00 pm

Sad news.

Reply

passingby May 10, 2012 at 12:07 pm

only for the brits.

LMT is fine with it

Reply

jamesb May 10, 2012 at 12:00 pm

Smart Move!

Reply

JRL May 10, 2012 at 12:14 pm

And the glorious British Empire takes the final step down and joins former greats Italy and Spain as a 3rd-rate power unable to operate independently against a technically advanced adversaries. No organic AEW or air refueling capability means no venturing into range of people who can actually fight.

Oh well…The 'Bee' should be good enough to push around4th rate powers like Libya and Argentina, anyway.

Reply

chris May 10, 2012 at 12:43 pm

No AEW or Air refueling !!! where have you been for the last forty years?.

Reply

rob May 10, 2012 at 12:51 pm

we have been unable to conduct independent operations for a long time this has'nt changed that at all!

at least we man up and supply troops on the ground.more then most!!

Reply

Josh May 10, 2012 at 7:41 pm

I see this move as having pros and cons.
Pros: we should have our birds in the air sooner with STOVL, and we'll have two carriers we can use instead of only one fitted with cats and the other being a 65,000 tonne paperweight in mothballs.
Cons: obviously limited range and payload is a concern, as well as limitations in AEW and aerial refueling.
Personally, I'd always hoped we'd get cats on both ships, but unfortunately that kind of spend in modern Britain isn't really justifyable in the current climate. Although I always thought it a good idea to cut back the F35C order and supplement with Super Hornets, a high-low mix if you will. Send in the JSF's to suppress enemy air defences, then send in the Rhinos with full loads to do the real damage. Just my little pipe dream I guess…

Reply

Josh May 10, 2012 at 8:40 pm

Further to that, I wonder if this decision brings HMS Ocean in as a candidate to operate F35's in a pinch. i.e a Falklands type scenario.

Reply

Tom May 12, 2012 at 11:22 am

The Ocean was designed to commercial standards as a helicopter carrier, and given its size, weight, and thrust I'm really not sure the F-35B will be able to operate from just any ship 'in a pinch'. The FRS.1 used in the Falklands had a maximum takeoff weight of 17,000 lb, the F-35B has a maximum takeoff weight of 60,000 lb, the aircraft are basically not comparable aside from the fact they are both V/STOL.

Tom May 11, 2012 at 10:10 am

Dedicated AEW certainly has its advantages, but the AESA on an F-35B on CAP should provide a credible early warning capability (probably better than the AEW helicopters used in recent years).

Reply

Lightbringer May 10, 2012 at 12:22 pm

What a mess… The decision is logical in the short term, but represents a humiliating political U-turn for the coalition government. The notoriously predatory British press are already making heavy weather of this.

It’s such a shame cats & traps worked out so expensive: it feels like the carriers are now not as future proof as they might have been… But on the plus side at least we’ll have two of them in service now!

Reply

Mark the German May 10, 2012 at 12:26 pm

I read the whole Secretary Philip Hammond’s announcment and i do understand the decision. Congrats to the brits at last for two fine carriers, skijumps with STOVL JSF aint too bad and a lot better than cancelling the program in 2023 because of further rise in costs . Converting the skijump carriers to EMALS would not have been like changing the headlights of a car… Imho this idea was always weired from the beginning. One bird in the hand…

Reply

SuperiorIQ May 10, 2012 at 12:47 pm

Wise decision.

Reply

passingby May 12, 2012 at 7:42 am

you misspelled Spurious as Superior.

Reply

Joe May 10, 2012 at 1:27 pm

Not really clear why the limeys did not collaborate more with france regarding carrier design. While the de gaulle had some problems, seems the naval rafale integrated well.

And if memory serves, doesnt the russian carrier lack catapults?

Reply

Black Owl May 10, 2012 at 1:34 pm

This now makes the only customer of the F-35C the US Navy. The F-35C model is now also the ideal model to kill since only one force is buying it. I guess if the U.K. won't have CATOBAR capability the F-35B is now their only option. Just like the USMC they are putting all of their eggs in the F-35B basket. This is a terrible decision, Hopefully the UK and USMC won't regret this later.

Reply

Bobby May 10, 2012 at 2:29 pm

And you know better than all the above when it comes to knowing what they want?

Hardly.

Reply

Black Owl May 10, 2012 at 7:12 pm

Well I suppose you do then? Enlighten me.

Reply

Richard May 10, 2012 at 2:57 pm

usmc will get 80 f35cs.

Reply

Black Owl May 10, 2012 at 4:47 pm

Oh, you're right. I forgot about those.

Reply

mike May 10, 2012 at 9:25 pm

They also had a safety net with the Rhino if the 35 slipped.

Reply

Brian Black May 11, 2012 at 7:10 am

"The F-35C model is now also the ideal model to kill since only one force is buying it"

The USN has been the only likely customer for the F-35C for most of its development. The Royal Navy carriers were being built for the STOVL version; it was only at the UK's Strategic Defence and Security Review a couple of years ago that a decision was made to investigate a switch to the C. This latest decision simply returns to the original plan.

Not a justification for scrapping the F-35C at all.

Reply

Tom May 11, 2012 at 10:05 am

Has Australia confirmed they are buying A's? I thought they were considering buying C's because they would have a longer range.

Reply

mike May 11, 2012 at 3:43 pm

RAN was looking into running 35B's off their new amphib class like the marines would. Which is also what the Japanese want to do with that new class of helicopter destroyer.

Reply

mike May 11, 2012 at 3:49 pm

I should add that the RAN is only looking at about a dozen or so not the full order.

Black Owl May 11, 2012 at 3:03 pm

No, I'm saying that when Britain said they were going to buy the C it made cancelling it have political ramifications that would stretch to a US ally. Not all of these variants are going to be able to made. If we have to kill one or two, then it would be best to kill ones that aren't being ordered by other countries. Since we are now once again the only customers of the C, then it would be the least damaging politically to cancel and the US Navy easily has the Super Hornet as a back up. The Super Hornet is better for the Navy anyway. The B model and the A model are being ordered by our allies so cancelling them would be difficult.

Reply

Mark May 11, 2012 at 10:26 am

Brainless, the US Navy is the only Navy in NATO and quite possibly the world that actually has Carriers that can launch planes via catapult. So of course it's going to be the only country ordering the C variant.

Reply

Black Owl May 11, 2012 at 3:04 pm

That only changed recently, genius.

Reply

Mark May 12, 2012 at 12:55 pm

Since you do know this fact then it's glaringly obvious to all that you only post to advance your agenda against advancement in the USA's ability to defend itself. This brings into question "just what country do you suport?"

Reply

Black Owl May 12, 2012 at 6:48 pm

So because I don't support the F-35, then that makes me an enemy of the US? Seriously, what crap are you smoking? I want the US to have the best and most flexible military. I also want it to have fighter jets that actually do what they are designed to do and give the right amount of capability for their cost.

Sgt_Buffy May 14, 2012 at 8:02 am

Defend itself against whom?

Tom May 12, 2012 at 11:26 am

France is still in NATO and there may well be a scenario where F-35C's operate from their carriers if there was a high intensity conflict in the future.

Like I said previously, I thought Australia was considering the F-35C not because of its carrier capability but rather because it will be the longest ranged version.

Reply

EJ257 May 10, 2012 at 1:37 pm

Why is it France, GB, Italy and Spain never got together to design a common aircraft carrier like they did with the Eurofighter?

Reply

Richard May 10, 2012 at 2:56 pm

because the Eurofighter turned out to be a cost nightmare which is on going through BAE and its service costs.

Reply

Cph May 10, 2012 at 3:55 pm

Imagine the clowns responsible for the last generation of RN carrier policy negotiating successfully with the Europeans

corben-dallas.blogspot.com/2012/03/real-cost-of-royal-navy-carriers_6549.html

Reply

Beno May 11, 2012 at 4:21 am

We have. France is getting the third "Queen Elizabeth" class the PA2. If they ever approve the cash for the build. They have already paid millions in design budget

Reply

R_S_M May 29, 2012 at 8:16 am

France pulled out of the Eurofighter.
Think of it this way, could you imagine trying to work with Columbia, Cuba, Israel and japan on your next military project?
Multiple countries with multiple ideas, budgets and politics – its just a nightmare. In the end, no one wins.

Reply

STemplar May 10, 2012 at 1:56 pm

Sure hope the B model works. If the C didn't at least the UK could still buy some kind of carrier aircraft, it's all in for the B now.

Reply

EJ257 May 10, 2012 at 2:24 pm

They should have went with CATOBAR from the very beginning and went with the Rafale. It would be 100% interoperable with France because guess who else also flies the Rafales. When the F-35C becomes available they could also get some of those too to augment the air wing if they have the need and/or have the cash. Sadly that is not the case. Now they have a gap in their capabilities that will continue to 2018 if nothing else goes wrong.

Reply

STemplar May 11, 2012 at 2:36 am

Or they could fly F18's and be 100% interoperable with the only navy in the world with a 24/7/365 carrier deployment presence.

Reply

matheusdiasuk May 10, 2012 at 2:02 pm

Be free to corret me if I'm wrong.

STOVL fighters were designed because of the small area of carriers like Invincible Class Carriers or Amphibious Assault Ships, right? Sacrifice range and a true strike capability because of the cost.

Now, what's the bloody point of building a hell of 65,000tonnes carrier, with a flight deck big enough to operate a carrier variant fighter with every advantage that comes with it If you won't use IT?!

What about that "blá blá blá" about interoperability with France’s aircraft carriers? Just free talk? –'

Yes, Royal Navy will get the carriers soon. But and the fighters? What guarantees London have that F35B will be ready and in their hands before the F35C? It's going to be funny to see Britan with the largest helicopter carrier ever built by humanity.

Sorry for the bad English.

Reply

Sgt_Buffy May 10, 2012 at 2:48 pm

Mayhap they will order the carrier variant when the Elizabeth is nearing ready.

Reply

chris May 10, 2012 at 8:51 pm

we can always buy are gr9's back.

Reply

Pat May 10, 2012 at 2:02 pm
Ben May 10, 2012 at 2:06 pm

Poor choice.

They're sacrificing, payload, range, and a much more simple aircraft design for a much more expensive, less capable aircraft that's likely to be a maintenance nightmare. Even with the catapult's cost increase, you'd ultimately be opting to buy cheaper aircraft with increased capability with the F-35C. So would you really be losing in the end? I don't think so.

Reply

tiger May 10, 2012 at 3:53 pm

Are you going to pick up the check?? They can not rob The Army & RAF to pay for a catapult. The cost benefit studies must not be in favor of the C model. Also they have 30 years of harrier ops. They know how to use ski ramps & use less deck crew. So why change?

Reply

Josh May 10, 2012 at 7:48 pm

That is true, our navy has ski-ramp STOVL ops pretty well sorted at this point. Will be interesting to see if the RN runs out and tries to recruit back all those who left when Harrier was retired.

Reply

Ben May 10, 2012 at 8:29 pm

If they reduced their order and went with the C they'd be within their budget and would have a much more capable fleet of aircraft, likely with reduced maintenance costs in the long run.

The B variant is nothing but an overcomplicated, underachieving, money vacuum.

Reply

Richard May 10, 2012 at 2:53 pm

The point is we shouldn't have considered ski jumps in the first place. Steam or EM, CATOBAR is a winner.

Reply

tiger May 10, 2012 at 3:54 pm

What larger carrier?

Reply

Keep in Mind May 11, 2012 at 10:01 am

Queen Elizabeth

Reply

Lance May 10, 2012 at 4:04 pm

Bad move better to have planes that already fly well and carry more fuel ammo and munitions than a crappy Harrier replacement. I hope they reverse this decision and go with the C model.

Reply

chris May 10, 2012 at 8:53 pm

What….

Reply

tiger May 10, 2012 at 4:04 pm

The Accountant's pen is mighter than the Naval sword…… Sad, but true.

Reply

Richard May 11, 2012 at 3:42 pm

Shame that the accountant is only there for 4 years, if he were a lifetimer then maybe it would be different.

Reply

tiger May 11, 2012 at 6:43 pm

Look at the elections in France & Greece. Folks want butter over guns.

Reply

matheusdiasuk May 10, 2012 at 5:05 pm

Yep. The U-turn can still become a S-Turn

Reply

Brian Black May 10, 2012 at 5:31 pm

Once the decision had been made to build 65kt ships, the design should have been for catobar aircraft. The only real benefit that STOVL gave was the ability to launch from small carriers, and that need went out of the window years ago.
Had the ships’ design followed a single operational concept from the start, rather than flip-flopping back and forth, cats and traps could all have been a whole lot more affordable too.

Reply

justin May 10, 2012 at 5:48 pm

If the shit really hit the fan in terms of a drawn out war and as in the past we had to do things like convert other ships into temporary aircraft carriers which of these aircraft would be the easiest to accomodate under those circumstances? I do not know the answer but if I did that is what I would choose. We are no longer one of the big cheeses and yes if it really came down to it and we had our back to the wall we have the nuclear deterrent but it would be better to have more options available before geing forced to make such a decision and take such a terrible action.

Reply

tiger May 10, 2012 at 5:56 pm

What is the deal with the twin island design by the way?

Reply

chris May 10, 2012 at 8:27 pm

Technology.

Reply

blight_ May 10, 2012 at 9:35 pm

Possibly to make each island smaller than if they were merged into one?

Reply

Beno May 11, 2012 at 4:27 am

First is ship control, with relevant radar etc second is flight control with relevant sensonrs. both contain air in heat our for large gas turbine engins for Hybrid Electric Drive, seperated for tactical reasons and redundancy. i belive there is also some aerodynamics across the flight deck to be considered also ?

Reply

KarlW May 10, 2012 at 6:44 pm

I see a lot of good / bad comments, but no reference to defined missions. Who or what will these carriers be up against? Bombing runs against Lybia, defending Singapore against the Chinese, or guard convoys across the Atlantic?!?

Reply

matheusdiasuk May 10, 2012 at 11:02 pm

Protect the Falklands Islands and show off.

Reply

Guest May 13, 2012 at 7:38 pm

The UK wouldn't be there to defend Singapore, history has proven this. USN has more facilities there, and Singapore's own AF is more advanced than the RAF.

Reply

James Black Omar June 20, 2012 at 1:40 pm

Singapore do not need the British to defend this tiny republic, they already got advanced F-16C/D Falcon and F-15SG Eagle for long-range strike mission and in the future they will certainly buy the F-35 to replace the ageing F-5 Tiger. They have the most advanced and sophisticated air force in south east asia.

Reply

tee May 10, 2012 at 8:16 pm

By the time the UK Carriers are ready the Saab Sea Gripen ( Being Co-Developed in Britain ) will ready ( 2015 ), and at around $60 Million a pop. They want their Carriers Desperately. Does anyone really think that their involvement with getting the Sea Gripen ready by 2015 is "Just a Coincidence ". I don't think so.

Reply

chris May 10, 2012 at 8:29 pm

A option.

Reply

tee May 11, 2012 at 7:24 pm

Check out a leaked copy of the Sea Gripen PDF as proposed to India. http://www.the-desert-fox.com

Reply

Richard May 11, 2012 at 3:45 pm

The last thing we need is to buy anything else from BAE

Reply

jessmo24 May 10, 2012 at 8:16 pm

Good lord!

1.If the Brits cannot afford cats and traps for the F-35C how will the rafale be able to magically trap?

2. The Typhoons is more expensive than the F-35, even at LRIP cost.

3. You don't need stealth and sensor fusion for missions like Libya and Afghanistan.
This plane allows the British to punch above weight class. Mix a F-117+F-18+Rivet joint+Sea harrier+F-16 all together in a pot, then stir, This is the F-35.

4. Since #1 and 2 are true, the plane can launch 1st day of the war strikes.
Throw in the NSM cruise missile (100NM range) Now you have worked around the range issue.

5. The plane is a remarkable upgrade over the harrier please research before posting.

Reply

chris May 10, 2012 at 8:45 pm

O dear!!!!!. Its nothing to do with cats and traps!The F-35c has a big problem it cant land on a ship!!!!. it has a design problem.
We can now have two carriers with twice as many aircraft.
The US marines will be OK with this, as we have been working with them for many many years. the French they have never worked with us or any body else. so they are not !!well I will not go any further.

Reply

Mark May 11, 2012 at 11:53 am

A fix has already been made to address this issue for trapping.

Reply

matheusdiasuk May 10, 2012 at 11:08 pm

The only thing good in sending to hell the interoperability with France is that Nelson for now can sleep better.

And, of course this sentence won't be made: Monsieur Hollande, could you send Charles with some british planes to kick of argie asses?

Reply

Jerry May 11, 2012 at 3:22 am

Of course, the Brits could have compromised and modified both of their ships for STOBAR. Just add the arrestor gear and modify the flight deck a little to account for the angled deck. That way, the Brits could still go with the F-35B’s and also fly F-35C’s, F/A-18′s, Rafale’s, E-2D’s, etc even though the conventional carrier planes would have to operate with a little less payload.

Reply

Beno May 11, 2012 at 4:37 am

I'm really divided by this decision. The F35-B is the version with the highest british component content. its also the "coolest". But tactically the C has its advantages.

The one thing I do know is that you yankies will be pissed beyond belife if us Brits are the first to have serious stealth carrier strike capability ;)

And lets face it that is now looking alot more likely …

Reply

Mark May 11, 2012 at 11:58 am

That's ok so long as you do not let Islam take over your country. Instituting Sharia law is the first concrete step in this process.

Reply

Chops May 11, 2012 at 4:54 pm

I'd rather have British and Australian troops fighting along side the US troops than anyone else no matter who has what equiptment.The trust and friendship between these great countries has existed for decades and no one ever will tear that apart.

Reply

Tom May 14, 2012 at 9:09 am

How is it looking a lot more likely? The USMC is the F-35B's biggest customer and they have nearly a dozen aircraft carriers they will operate them from, and unlike the British, there is no gap in that capability that will need to be reconstituted.

I think it's much more likely that F-35B's will be operational off USN carriers before they are operational off of RN carriers.

Reply

Waylander May 11, 2012 at 9:02 am

The Tories should never have switched to the F-35C in the first place, fitting cats & traps to ships that were already being assembled was always a non starter. It was just their usual conceited arrogance & the fact they could not resist the opportunty to grandstand & attack the previous government. It was utterly ridiculous that Queen Elizabeth would be mothballed or only used as a giant LPH. At least now the UK will have two fleet carriers in service, with a very capable 5th gen fighter. After all it's not like the UK is ever going to be fighting the Russians or Chinese on it's own anyway!
Two air groups of F-35Bs is more than enough firepower for the UK, even with STOVL jets QE & PoW will give the UK a greater force projection capability than every other navy on the planet except of course for the USN. The stupidest decision of the SDSR was to scrap the Harriers, then flog them to the US for peanuts, especially now they have gone back to a STOVL design! The GR9s could have flown from the new carriers untill the F-35B enters service in significant numbers.

Reply

Mark the German May 11, 2012 at 12:34 pm

Thumbs up, royal navy should have kept at least one skijump carrier and a dozen gr9 even if this would have been used just for training. What are the royal navy pilots doin in the years to come anyway? Simulators until 2018?

Reply

Richard May 11, 2012 at 3:55 pm

RN pilots have been flying in the US training to use catobar. :(

Reply

Leroy May 11, 2012 at 12:44 pm

Which shows just how much you know about the situation! The ships were orginally supposed to have room set aside to have either Electric or steam powered Cats installed in future if required. However BAE the real criminals in this sorry saga along with gordan brown conspired to ensure that any change would be made so expensive, to force us to by the F35B in which they have a bigger slice of.

Going with STOVL leaves us without carrier borne Tanker or AEW support. BAE need jailing along with Labour and all teh MOD madarins looking for cushy directorships at BAE in the futre, ABSOLUTE DISGRACE

Reply

Waylander May 11, 2012 at 3:27 pm

If it had been up to the Tories the carriers would never have been ordered in the first place. They would have cancelled both ships in the SDSR if they could have done so without it costing an arm and a leg.
That damn fool John Nott was banging on about scrapping them the other week, the same guy who wanted to sell off Britain's carriers before the Falklands war! No matter how much PR spin they put on it the SDSR was a complete fiasco. They sold the Harriers & scrapped Ark so quickly so that the decision could not be reversed, i bet they are regretting it now.
The coalition even had the gaul to say that one of the invincible class strike carriers would not have been useful in the Libyan intervention, when the US & Italy both deployed Harrier carriers.
Instead the UK spent £40,000 a night putting RAF pilots/crew up in posh Italian hotels.

Reply

Richard May 11, 2012 at 3:51 pm

Well said. I dont know why we keep doing business with BAE, they are rotting us from the inside.

Reply

tiger May 11, 2012 at 8:46 pm

On the other hand…… You might have opened a role for the V-22 Osprey in the FAA. If i'm Boeing, i'd be working on a tanker and AEW version for use by the RN.

Reply

jamesb May 11, 2012 at 12:53 pm

He, he, he….
With ALL the spotlight on overspending….
People here STILL want to spend EVEN MORE!
Good for Brit's!
Common Sense solution to a problem…

Reply

Sanem May 11, 2012 at 6:25 pm

on the RN, I think they should have gone with CATOBAR, because it gives them with a lot more alternatives long term. short term, it means that if the F-35B fails (not unlikely), the only alternative at this point will be helicopters

on the USN, they never wanted the F-35C, like they never wanted the F-111. they’re pumping a lot of effort into UCAVs, and plan to fly them IOC by 2018

that will be huge, because they’ll be the first to fly advanced, stealthy UCAVs, and certainly the first to fly them off aircraft carriers. after that, manned aircraft will be to UCAVs what prop aircraft are to jet aircraft: a niche capability at best, but without the cost advantage (to the contrary)

either way, both the UK and the US will soon be bankrupt, and they won’t be able to afford large carriers, never mind F-35s. and the JSF program will become a symbol of the wastefulness that will cause such great nations to fall

Reply

Paul May 12, 2012 at 4:22 am

The right decision and F-35 model comparisons notwithstanding, is imbued with quite some symbolic significance for the UK. It is what we can afford; it is what all 3 service chiefs want (interoperability between rival services comes before interoperability with France – charity begins at home); it required the Prime Minister to get off his high horse; it maintained continuity of thinking from the previous government (a miracle almost unheard of in adversarial UK politics); it affirms the skill of the English and Scottish shipbuilders who by their teamwork have in fact already voted on Mr Salmond’s referendum on the Union; it respects relationships and commitment to the US Marines and the F-35 project; it respects the history and pioneering technology of Harrier; it strengthens Rolls Royce and (since it is unlikely SAAB who are developing Gripen) will buy BAe, it keeps UK in the manned aircraft business; it frees up the defence budget to buy other capabilities (more and better frigates, maritime patrol); it validates the United Kingdom industry alliance of (British) BAe, (French)Thales and (US) Babcock. One CV carrier shared with the French was never a choice – just a French scam hoping we would fold, buy Rafale and, as they see it, become a French poodle rather than a US poodle. Remember your Shakespeare. “To be or not to be, that is the question”. Now we have the answer. This is a very good decision; the United Kingdom is no-one’s poodle. The UK is back!

Reply

GlobalStrat May 12, 2012 at 5:02 pm

Let's just be honest!

These are hypothetical aircraft for as yet hypothetical ships. We're going to be waiting a few years before we even see one in training, let alone two, without even being near to being deployed with a full airwing (whichever aircraft). Plenty of years for them to yoyo about yet!

Reply

mick May 13, 2012 at 1:21 am

what may now be considered is the addition of long range stealthy missiles to the carriers to make up for the short range of the b ,work is being done on future versions of the radar carried by the carriers and the 45,s to double its range this should be urgently looked at ,these ships will operate closer to harm to be effective and may face supersonic missiles and the lack of an e2 type aircraft .

Reply

tiger May 13, 2012 at 2:23 pm

I think this may provide a opening for Boeing To sell the V-22 to the RN. How hard would it be to make a AEW/ COD version? A tanker would be nice if it could handle the takeoff load.

Reply

Robert Fritts May 13, 2012 at 6:08 pm

Brazil will build the RXX carrier with French assistance. 2 for Brazil, 1 for France and (rumored) 1 for Argentina. The South American nations are now bouyed by huge oil(Brazil) and natural gas(Argentina) industries. France is smart to marry up with young countries with new money, instead of their nearly bankrupt Euro allies. RXX is a 280 meter, 75000 ton CATOBAR carrier capable of operating 55-75 aircraft. Its on the front page of every Argentine and Brazilian newspaper weekly. French design and cheap South American Materials and labor make it a big possibility. Brazil also plans 2 Mistral class assault carriers, 4 Nuclear attack subs, 12 Scorpene class desiel subs, all before 2025. After the way Obama dismissed President Rousseff on her trip to Washington last month, most Senators in Brazil want to use the $100Billion Obama gave for oil developement on 60 Rafale M for the Navy and 50 for the BAF. They have enough private oil investment funds from China & Russia anyway. $20 say the Brazilian Navy launchs a Rafale M from their carrier before the UK gets its carrier and the USMC gets F-35B off safety hold.

Reply

matheusdiasuk May 13, 2012 at 11:03 pm

dafuq was that?

Reply

tiger May 14, 2012 at 2:16 pm

Interesting development.

Reply

Tim UK May 13, 2012 at 11:08 pm

A joke , Clown Brown the PM at the time and the idiots at the MOD and Admiralty have sunk their own fleet !

This money could have gone a full compliment of Astute Class Subs which are as good as anything the US has plus more Daring Class with a full cruise , anti-ship ,and some BMD capability .

Two Astutes could blockade any Country except the US and Russia .

A battle group of 3 astutes and 3 Daring Class could reduce pretty much any potential enemies , argentina, military infrastructure to dust in a hour or two .

We don't need carriers , HMS OCean rammed with Merlins and enough Army Apaches should be good enough to help secure any on shire invasion with teh Daring's providing air cover .

We have lost power, projection and bang for buck all for some Royal Navy fantasy and Scottish Labour jobs !

Reply

Tim Uk May 13, 2012 at 11:09 pm

Friggin hell four pints of Stella and typo's everywhere , apologies !

Reply

Robert Fritts May 22, 2012 at 9:17 pm

I concur with you 100% on the Astute Class subs, And the Stellas! Two big thumbs up.

Reply

Jeff May 14, 2012 at 6:27 am

When they said they were making this change, I said it didn't make sense since they were simply trading $15M/copy savings for fewer than 100 fighters for a $1.5B ship redesign… the decision reversal is made the more easier by the jump up to $3.5B

Reply

Curious May 14, 2012 at 10:25 am

Semi-unrelated question: Why doesn't the US give or sell one or two of our decommisioned carriers to the British (and Aussies and Canadians if wanted)?

Reply

tiger May 14, 2012 at 2:20 pm

Too old & Man power heavy. Would you buy a 1974 Chevy Nova today? Or a newer car?

Reply

Riceball May 14, 2012 at 3:29 pm

I'm not sure that we have any old carriers that aren't museums and if we do have some the costs of modernizing and upgrading would probably be just as much or more as building a brand new one. We could theoretically sell the Enterprise once she's been decommissioned but none of the British Commonwealth nations, or Britain for that matter, could afford to man and operate a nuke carrier.

Reply

DavidJ May 18, 2012 at 11:07 am

Australia currently has 2 x 27,000t LHD's under construction in Spain, complete with ski jump. We have not yet decided to buy any F35B for them, but do have 14 x F35A on order & expect to order up to 100, so there is still plenty of time to convert a few of those to F35B. Why would we want old worn out US carriers that would cost a fortune to maintain & operate even if they were free to begin with. Also there is nothing stopping Britian from buying F35B now, which could also operate from HMS Ocean, or any friendly LHD (such as France's Mistral class) or carrier regardless of type & later convert to CATOBAR when finances allow with either F35C &/or Sea Griffen. The F35B can still operate from a CATOBAR carrier even then if required so the planes won't be wasted.

Reply

Riceball May 14, 2012 at 3:46 pm

It seems to me that the decision to make the QEs ski-ramp carriers instead of CATOBAR is kind of short sighted. Assuming that the RN plans on keeping these carriers for a long, long time not making them CATOBAR means that when they eventually retire their F-35Bs they'll be forced to replace them with another VSTOL aircraft unless they think that UCAVs will have completely matured by then and that they'll be able to make a VSTOL UCAV. They really should have made the QEs CATOBAR from the get go so they'd have more plane choices down the line although I suppose that it could be argued that the Invincibles never lasted long enough to worry about a Harrier replacement.

Reply

tiger May 10, 2012 at 4:02 pm

He knows his stuff. FAA legend.

Reply

Richard May 11, 2012 at 3:48 pm

its more expensive because BAE say so

Reply

matheusdiasuk May 13, 2012 at 1:00 pm

Watch out, BAE hater here.

Reply

Mark May 14, 2012 at 10:58 am

Now this is something that you said that I can agree with.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: