Hi Spaz,
I am in the corner that very much believes we are getting this aircraft, I might not agree with the choice but we are getting it.. However do we seriously believe that ANY pilot currently flying this amazing piece of technology is going to criticise it? Yes they might tactfully highlight certain issues but they will always take the party line and say the sun is shining in the middle of a monsoon.
I need to know how our carriers will be used, will they always rely on land based aircraft to act as tankers, land based aircraft to supply air early warning? Or will these carriers be able to operate without this type of support?
Will our F35B's carry external ordinance, fuel tanks, bombs, missiles etc when operating from our carriers and what about this controversial 'Close Air Support' Will it be having fifth generation aircraft flying at high altitude dropping intelligent ordinance close to friendly troops or will it be close air support where the aircraft gets down and dirty, letting the grunts on the ground see them attacking the nearby enemy, having the opposition both seeing and hearing the aircraft that is coming to the aid of the troops that might be in a tight corner? I would ask if this latter option is a non starter for such a modern, complex aircraft but I would like to hear the thoughts of others, especially the US Marines who believe that all pilots are first and foremost a 'grunt with a gun!'
why are the US Marines so adamant that they want the 'B'? We are now reading how any ship that carries this aircraft has to be adapted for that role, the aircraft will not be seen cross decking to ships that have not had this extra work and in this age of sequestration would there be huge and very significant savings if the US Marines purchased more fast jets but did away with their STOVL type fleet? More fast jets, more rotor wing aircraft but scrap the STOVL fleet and let the Navy pay the bill for sea based fast jets. I fully accept every word I read from orac the knowledgeable and I am very interested to hear why he is slowly coming round to the idea of having the 'B' as the aircraft of choice.
I do accept though that we are at where we are at and our only option is this aircraft but I am still far from convinced it is the right choice. All the latest advanced UAV, large drones, call them what you want will need a conventional carrier to operate them and by burying our head in the sand and simply saying we will convert our carriers at a later date just seems wrong... For years we appear to have taken this stance and for years we have been building these two ships knowing full well the 'B' is going to 'b' the last aircraft of its type and once retired, those two ships are redundant. I cite the embarrassing use of the Illustrious with her pretty ski slope and no snow!!! (sorry, aircraft) Yes it has been renamed as a helicopter carrier but how much deck space is wasted and when we have seen her she was carrying a minimal number of aircraft
Is having a very small number of very advanced, very expensive aircraft a better option that having excellent, more adaptable aircraft? Having the much cheaper option would give us so much more versatility and adaptability. I am told our Challenger tanks are an amazing piece of kit but because of the limited numbers they are not considered a threat!!! Is this what the world will think of our very own Air Force? Excellent aircraft but too few to be a threat?
PLEASE, please read this as me asking questions and not saying the F35B is the wrong aircraft. It may well be the best aircraft we will ever own, the best aircraft we have ever operated and might indeed be the best choice.