This was the known price of the carrier force when the decision was made several years ago. There is no surprise here.
If you look back you will find a couple of threads where this was discussed at the time. The major argument being made against the carriers was not their effectiveness, but the effect it would have on the rest of the RN. The present balanced fleet with frigates available for use to multiple remote locations being transformed as many are scrapped/sold off to fund the carriers and others having to be committed to carrier defence.
Now that this is starting to hit home I can foresee mounting alarm and opposition. Now that so much political capital has been sunk in the carrier force a cut back or cancellation is not an option. The only three viable alternatives are to find addition funds from the treasury, highly unlikely in the present climate, to reduce the size of the planned JSF force, or to re-allocate some of the costs elsewhere. A campaign to this effect has already started.
It has been apparent for some time that the present planned purchases of the JSF (150) and Typhoon (232) are incompatible, the total numbers exceeding the present requirement. The number of aircraft needed to replace the GR7/9 force is around 70-90 whilst development funds for system improvements for Typhoon tranches 2 and 3 are proving difficult to find - particularly for the Italians - and the choice of which aircraft is chosen for the manned element of FOAS remains to be made.
The case is already being made to substantially reduce the Typhoon order, or rather not to make the additional planned orders, and divert the funds to towards JSF. One proposal, being to replace the GR4 in the deep strike role with either some of the present JSF STOVL buy or, more likely, adopt a mixed fleet approach and convert a proportion of the order to the longer range USAF CTOL version. This case is made in this weeks AW & ST quoting "Senior Defence Ministry officials"
The funds, logically, could then be provided out of the RAF budget. The total JSF bill being around 10 billion. Based on the JSF replacing the RAF Harrier Sqns, you could make a case for the RAF paying at least half the cost of the first 75 and then for all the remaining 75 to replace the GR4 - a total of around 7.5 billion.
Which side of the argument BAe would support would depend on which aircraft they see, in the long term, as proving more profitable.
A decision does not, apparently, have to be made until 2005/6. I await future developments with interest.
Last edited by ORAC; 8th Oct 2002 at 23:24.