Guys,
Just a little proportion here.
Yes, the UK is broke and any defence spending is going to strain the budgets, which are broken anyway, but...
The carriers are not going to 'cripple the Defence budget for years'.Let's look at some NAO figures. Last cost to completion for QE2 class carriers was £5.1bn. Let's look at some other programmes. How about Typhoon, which the NAO reports will cost £20.2bn for 160 aircraft, with total cost of £37bn. How about FSTA at £12bn, or perhaps Meteor at £1.15bn?
Yes, choices have to be made. I'm damn glad I don't have to make them. But the carriers are one part of a broken budget. Personally, I'm not convinced that spending £37bn on an AD aircraft with a very secondary AG capability represents best value for money right now, but I'm not the guy making the calls.
Just a response to silverstrata -
1. The F-35B does not have 'trouble' doing a transition to the hover. It did, that's why the lift fan door was redesigned after the X-35 programme. Now it doesn't. Oh, and a Brit led the redesign.
2. The B needs a lift fan because it is required to land vertically. It's a STOVL aircraft. Sorry if this sounds obvious - but it is.
3. The B can't vector in flight because there was no requirement for it to do so. Harrier doesn't use VIFF operationally.
4. The B (and A and C) has issues right now with supersonic flight due to heat effects on the aft fuselage. This will be fixed.
5. The C has experienced problems with arresting gear tests. A longer hook probably wouldn't be the fix they will choose - they're looking at hook tip and damper rates. If these don't work, they are in real trouble - but they're not, not yet.
6. Like every variant of the F-35, the C is designed to carry external stores as an option when really 'low' LO isn't required. It's a requirement to give flexibility to the system, unlike the F-117, B-2 and other legacy stealth aircraft.
HVAL - sadly, all the studies carried out for around 15 years by the UK and the US showed that the Harrier layout would just not go supersonic in any meaningful way, and carry the avionics and internal stores required. LM were right to go for a concept that split the lift fan and thrust engine and put the thrust engine at the back of the aircraft.
Have a pop at the aircraft by all means - it's a free forum. But look at the facts, then make up your mind. And make any judgement you like - free country.
Very Best Regards
Engines