NaB - Not only are most of the C/Ds pretty well used, but you'll need a crowbar to prise the best frames from the grip of the Marines, who want every Classic they can get in order to keep squadrons flying while they wait for real numbers of JSF.

Because that's where the "off probation" thing was a joke: the biggest material bit of probation was the holding-down of production rates, and that hasn't changed.

Maybe the UK should buy some low-time, no-carrier-landing C/Ds from the Finns or Malaysians, who could then use the cash as down payment on some Supers...

Or do the RCAF (and forgive me, it's lovely to see the name back) have long term plans for all of their CF-18s?

S41

Yup. Fly them until the wings fall off, and then fly them some more. (Remember the Canadians and the Ozzies were the first F-18 export customers.)

Sorry all , didn't read the whole thread in dept therefor this question might sound a bit silly or already answered before but some of all this makes no sense.

Even if the Carrier costs 1.2billion£ more to convert to CATOBAR, doesn't that
still make the whole package more attractive nontheless?

50 F35B vs 50 F35C's would still mean a price difference of about 2 billion $ in
favor of the C version, let alone the undoubtedly higher maintenance costs for the B and the more limited growth potential of the B (weightmargins already paperthin as quoted).

Besides the better commonanlity with both the USNAVY and MN for the C version, a CATOBAR can take Hawkeyes and Greyhounds while the Skijump just doen't allow for such aircraft, let alone all the other good reasons to take the C over the B (lower wingloading, more range, less complexity,... )

Maybe (undoubtedly) I'm not seeing the whole picture clearly but the whole
extra EMALS costs seem like a mooth point

Kbrockman, I agree; any change to the B, on financial grounds, is a complete false economy...

Supposedly the decision is due in a week....

Liam Fox jet fighter error costs UK millions - Home News - UK - The Independent

David Cameron will rubber stamp an embarrassing U-turn over the Government's £5.2bn super aircraft carrier programme this week to avoid "a floating white elephant"...

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond has been warned by officials that his predecessor, Liam Fox, made a massive mistake when he decided to change the jets that should be used on the new carriers.

Mr Fox switched from Lockheed Martin's F35 B class to its supposedly cheaper C variant, a move that was criticised because the planes were not going to be ready until a few years after the ships were launched. The new planes also required changes to the carrier design, costing up to £2bn – with the first ship too far developed to make the changes possible.

Mr Hammond will advise that the Government must switch back to the more conventional B-class jets, which are still expected to cost around $10bn, and has pencilled in an announcement for one week tomorrow.

More conventional? Does anyone have a :mad:ing clue here?

If I were to guess maybe it is a case of the c solution being cheaper long term, but perhaps the cat/trap conversion puts a nasty lump of cash in inconvenient years which is no longer acceptable. Plus maybe rr have being lobbying since the decision to secure all their lift fan work share.

Now we'll get marge hodge saying 'told you so' when in reality she doesnt have a clue about any of it.

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond has been warned by officials

If this is true, I think the public ought to know just who these "officials" are and what the basis for the decision is. The cost values for conversion which appears to be the nub of the argument simply don't stack up.

There are no compelling technical reasons for going back to B (far from it!) and the risk balance short and long-term must surely be in favour of C. JFZ may well be correct that it's a profiling issue, in which case this simply compounds all the errors of the past, which are supposed to have been absorbed and learned from.

... or maybe he'll cancel the whole thing.

Was David Cameron Wrong on Carrier Cancellation Costs?

There may be a nasty, dirty underhand plan going on here that no one even thought a UK government would stoop to.

But you know, I think this lot are the type to pull it off.

Market Research
 

What a clever way to test the water (pun intended) for the reversion to the B model.

Pop it into The Independent and see what the reaction is over the next few days.

Were this to be the chosen path, I wonder how much money will need to be spent on Queen Elizabeth to bring her back to the standard that will allow her to operate STOVL? One might imagine that a shipbuilder, having been told that CV is the way but only for the second ship Prince of Wales, might just quietly take a few hundred (million) quids worth of savings against QE in the sure and certain knowledge (or maybe hope) that nobody would call their bluff and actually test the theory that she's being launched as a full-up STOVL round.

I'd be a little nervous if I were a UK shipbuilder at the moment; for lots of reasons.

FB11

If it really is the case that we're going for the B, that is by far the most moronic decision ever undertaken by those f*&@ing plebs at the MoD. Not only are we now sacrificing everything for this wonder jet, but we're also sacrificing a working, carrier deployable AEWACS for a jet that can't take ASRAAM or Meteor...or storm shadow...or bring back any of its weapons...or has much development potential (weight limits)...and is unlikely to have a good serviceability record...and will be eye-watering to operate, even compared to the A and C.

Is it just me?

B,

no, its not just you - i have a feeling that for many reasons, and not just defence related ones, this government, and this prime minister, will go down as one of the most incompetant in UK history.

there doesn't seem to be a turd they can't tread in - they are so useless that they can't implement even their worst ideas, and the catastrophes that will follow them are less likely to be the result of the plans (?) themselves, but the moronic inability to piss without getting their feet wet.

and yes, i did vote for them.

Looks increasingly like this really will get messy.

Government plans U-turn on aircraft carriers as catapult costs spiral | Politics | The Guardian

Didn't everyone say SDSR was rushed? Ironic that the very thing the tories / bernard grey bang on about - poor mod forecasting and short term cash profile driven decision making - seems to be featuring here on their watch.

This is insane.

You couldn't make it up - and as the CentreForum paper details on page 52, the whole airwing and the conversion cost plus Astutes and Type 26s is less than the cost of Trident. Wake up call, people.

S41

From an outsiders perspective going back to the B seems like the least-worst long term solution.

Yes, that the C is a better aircraft seems indisputable and, yes, a Cat-n-Trap capable carrier would provide the potential for AWACS, COD, IFR & interoperability with the USN and French.

However, when valuable platforms from all services have been cut-back (less T45s) or cut entirely (Nimrod, Harrier), does anyone really think it's likely we'll ever purchase a carrier AWACs platform? Certainly, the carriers will have a 30+ year lifespan and not having a cat-n-trap capability prevents us from getting AWACs, etc later, but in the last 20-years when have we ever added new capability in similar areas in any of the services?

If we stick with the C I'm guessing we'll have a part-time capability with only one carrier and barely enough money in the pot to keep the crews current. Which will be pretty embarrassing.

Whereas at least with the B we can use both the carriers and have a full-time capability. And we'd have interoperability with the USMC if not the USN (why would the USN care that much about interoperability with us given the number of carrier groups they've got?)

Also, I'd assume that if the USMC are taking the B then they'll put the time and effort in to making it a capable platform. Assuming that any of the F35 family become capable platforms that is.

Just an outsiders view.

I happened to catch an episode of Faulty Towers the other day,
the saga posted above reminds me of that, Manuel and Basil
running back and forth not being able to make a decision.



.

The USN have bent over backwards to help us, this will be the wrong decision on so many levels.

So how 'could' this all turn out?

We convert the carrier as planned and MoD procures a limited number of F/A-18E/F (2 squadrons of 8-10 jets) to ensure the Carrier Strike requirement is met in the shorter term and doesn't rely on the F-35 timeline. This also makes good use of the US-based F/A-18 training currently going on between USN and RN. Easy solution.

RAF continues with an F-35 buy however it now decides on F-35A as a compromise between range, internal bay size (for Meteor) and performance. F-35A replaces Tornado GR4 which leaves service later this decade and the MFFO desire to have Typhoon and JCA is met as well.

But there's no money for any of the above to really happen surely

And why would that be then?

They are not only gaining experience on an actual 4 generation multi role Strike Fighter (not a Typhoon) as well as maritime operations, all of which will be massively useful to the UK, not to mention the benefit they are bringing to the USN.