Originally Posted by
ORAC
That may be perfectly true NAB. But it’s not the justification they used to sell the large carrier size to the politicians........
F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
In case you're not aware how it works, the funding comes from the EAC (as was, now IAC last time I was involved) and is discussed in classified session, where the detail of the OA and economics is outlined (or more precisely, the plethora of studies that support the OR dossier, now IGBC is summarised). Prior to endorsing the requirement (itself a joint process under DCDS(EC)) and approving funding. For the avoidance of doubt, the EAC/IAC is a joint body, not something the Navy, Army or Air Force just pitch up at and ask for some money cos they feel like it.
The HCDC is an unclassified forum at which various pollies get to air their various hobby horses. Detail is not something they do - hence the level of brief from the witnesses. By the way, the "they" you refer to (assuming you mean Blackham) is the
joint DCDS(EC) post, so many thanks for pointing out it was a joint endorsement......
At all stages from the endorsement of the original ST(S) in 1997, inclusion in SDR98 and onwards, it was clear that carriers were required and that they needed to be carriers from the off, not just a helicopter carrier with some make do and mends like their predecessors. It's just that some have always struggled to understand that relatively simple point. Not least because they equate size with cost, which is often far from the case. The real money is spent in a very different place from the surface fleet and carriers.