It all appears to be about cost savings as opposed to operational needs and here I am again querying costings. When this first carrier deploys with its wing of F-35b aircraft the battle group will be reliant on the venerable Sea king for AEW coverage.
The carrier is deployed to regions where it needs to be able to not only project power, but also protect itself from any type of enemy threat. What duration does the Sea King have and how many will deploy with this battle group? As soon as I start asking these questions I am told that BAe are developing a replacement aircraft which will be operational before our first carrier becomes operational.
I am listening to Mr Hammond talking and at the moment he is criticising the Labour party for ordering 65,000 ton carriers without cats and traps... He is calling it lunacy and I agree, it is lunacy and remains so. It is lunacy to commission carriers with no tanking capability, no air EW and a very limited AEW ability.
Are we now going to spend far more money developing the MASC system for the STOVL carriers as opposed to simply buying the E2 off the shelf? How much money is going to be spent developing this system compared to EMALS conversion? When the Merlin eventually becomes operational will its operating systems compare with that of the E2? Are we developing a system that is better that that of the E2? The RAF quite correctly operates the excellent Sentry aircraft, would they be happy if that cover was not available and all they had was the trusty old Sea King?
I have always said having carriers is going to be expensive and if we cannot afford the best, we should not play games by getting an inferior product. This is an inferior product and listening to the grilling Mr Hammond is getting I would say it is very much deserved.
Not a Boffin
Will the new carriers operate the Chinook as Hammond is claiming they will deploy with them?