No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FODPlod,
You don't seem to be putting forward any coherent argument; you are simply rubbishing my point, without any evidence, that our carriers will both end up costing around the same amount as the last of the Nimitz class. Which is true.
And how is asking legitimate questions that are going to have to be answered sooner or later, generating nonsense? Surely it is ignorance of the answers to long term questions such as this, which led us to such an erratic and unproductive procurement programme.
It doesn't take a financial audit to recognise that these aircraft carriers are going to be extremely poor value for money; if it was a private company that was procuring it, it would have been cancelled years ago.
You don't seem to be putting forward any coherent argument; you are simply rubbishing my point, without any evidence, that our carriers will both end up costing around the same amount as the last of the Nimitz class. Which is true.
And how is asking legitimate questions that are going to have to be answered sooner or later, generating nonsense? Surely it is ignorance of the answers to long term questions such as this, which led us to such an erratic and unproductive procurement programme.
It doesn't take a financial audit to recognise that these aircraft carriers are going to be extremely poor value for money; if it was a private company that was procuring it, it would have been cancelled years ago.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ronald,
Interesting question. So to frame the answer we need to understand who has 20-30 Su-30s and can put them in the sky in a coordinated fashion along with a surpic asset. We also need to know how good their weapons are and whether or not a Type 45 might be able to fend them off.
Ah, you say, but what if the Type 45 isn't there? To which I say, how could that be? And we get back to the basic understanding that a Su-30 vs QE grudge match is not very probable.
I have also tried to raise the point before but why do we always go for the worst case when it comes to carriers but 'broadly representative' when it comes to anything else. Why is it 20 SU-30s against a carrier but no thread about 5 F-22s or 6 PAK-FAs against 2 Typhoon for example?
I think I made the point before in this thread, but until I can be convinced that the RAF (which apparently isn't that bad an air force as air forces go)could even scratch - no wait a minute - find* - a QE class guarded by 2 Type 45 then I tend to pay little attention to the school of thought that they are vulnerable.
* = no MPA for a small island nation is easily the single worst decision ever, although allowing cameras at private parties in Vegas comes close.
I will take criticism from any ASuW/ TASMO (whatever we're calling it this week - haven't got AJP 3.3.3 to hand!) types. I count myself as one incidentally.
Bastardeux.
You have a point. They cost a lot. They don't cost anywhere near as much as other programmes (or bank bail outs) which we conveniently forget about when it comes to having a go at carriers. But there we go. I think however that they are flexible, they will be useful, they will allow us to project power. IMHO we have let ourselves down badly by reverting to F-35B and I do sometimes wonder if they are worth bothering with now, but on balance I think they are.
As for the other debates. I think F-18E/F closely mirror F-35 capabilities. AV-8B does not. MarStrike is MarStrike - so whilst our chaps might be wasting their time gaining hands and feet skills the rest is valid. That being said the aircrew are, as ever, a very small part of this. I think 'flight deck minded' maintainers and yellow shirts could be bred in either the CVN or LPH environment, but it will be an uphill struggle to provide a safe and assured platform either way.
Interesting question. So to frame the answer we need to understand who has 20-30 Su-30s and can put them in the sky in a coordinated fashion along with a surpic asset. We also need to know how good their weapons are and whether or not a Type 45 might be able to fend them off.
Ah, you say, but what if the Type 45 isn't there? To which I say, how could that be? And we get back to the basic understanding that a Su-30 vs QE grudge match is not very probable.
I have also tried to raise the point before but why do we always go for the worst case when it comes to carriers but 'broadly representative' when it comes to anything else. Why is it 20 SU-30s against a carrier but no thread about 5 F-22s or 6 PAK-FAs against 2 Typhoon for example?
I think I made the point before in this thread, but until I can be convinced that the RAF (which apparently isn't that bad an air force as air forces go)could even scratch - no wait a minute - find* - a QE class guarded by 2 Type 45 then I tend to pay little attention to the school of thought that they are vulnerable.
* = no MPA for a small island nation is easily the single worst decision ever, although allowing cameras at private parties in Vegas comes close.
I will take criticism from any ASuW/ TASMO (whatever we're calling it this week - haven't got AJP 3.3.3 to hand!) types. I count myself as one incidentally.
Bastardeux.
You have a point. They cost a lot. They don't cost anywhere near as much as other programmes (or bank bail outs) which we conveniently forget about when it comes to having a go at carriers. But there we go. I think however that they are flexible, they will be useful, they will allow us to project power. IMHO we have let ourselves down badly by reverting to F-35B and I do sometimes wonder if they are worth bothering with now, but on balance I think they are.
As for the other debates. I think F-18E/F closely mirror F-35 capabilities. AV-8B does not. MarStrike is MarStrike - so whilst our chaps might be wasting their time gaining hands and feet skills the rest is valid. That being said the aircrew are, as ever, a very small part of this. I think 'flight deck minded' maintainers and yellow shirts could be bred in either the CVN or LPH environment, but it will be an uphill struggle to provide a safe and assured platform either way.
Last edited by orca; 31st Aug 2012 at 04:16.
that our carriers will both end up costing around the same amount as the last of the Nimitz class. Which is true.
How much is it going to cost us to refuel this behemoth every few hundred yards, with the price of oil increasing exponentially?
Last edited by peter we; 31st Aug 2012 at 06:06.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, a new reactor design, automated weapons-handling/transfer equipment, and other similar features has reduced the ship's crew on the Ford class to ~1,900 vs ~3,000 for the Nimitz class... for a total of 4,660.
So just the ship's crew on Ford is just about the total crew+airwing complement of CVF. Ah, well.
So just the ship's crew on Ford is just about the total crew+airwing complement of CVF. Ah, well.
Last edited by GreenKnight121; 31st Aug 2012 at 06:31.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"How much is it going to cost us to refuel this behemoth every few hundred yards, with the price of oil increasing exponentially?"
well actually it isn't................... it goes up and down - like the Carrier
well actually it isn't................... it goes up and down - like the Carrier
Last edited by Heathrow Harry; 31st Aug 2012 at 09:55.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peter We,
The compound interest rate averages around 2.3% for the time difference. so the difference in price is likely only to be a few hundred million.
And I never tried to suggest that oil is more expensive than nuclear.
You're missing my point anyway, my point was never "we should have bought the USS George Bush", I'm pointing out that once again, the mod has spent the family silverware and is ending up with a very much diminished capability. Rather like the decision to go with Typhoon over the Strike Eagle.
HH
Fair point.
The compound interest rate averages around 2.3% for the time difference. so the difference in price is likely only to be a few hundred million.
And I never tried to suggest that oil is more expensive than nuclear.
You're missing my point anyway, my point was never "we should have bought the USS George Bush", I'm pointing out that once again, the mod has spent the family silverware and is ending up with a very much diminished capability. Rather like the decision to go with Typhoon over the Strike Eagle.
HH
Fair point.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P.s.
the cost of building them with 2 (not 4) cats and and arrestor gear was estimated to push the price up by another 2 billion no? So £6 billion for a 2 cat ship? so $9.6 billion for a 2 cat ship...?
the cost of building them with 2 (not 4) cats and and arrestor gear was estimated to push the price up by another 2 billion no? So £6 billion for a 2 cat ship? so $9.6 billion for a 2 cat ship...?
The cost of the cat n trap conversion quoted has always been suspect, because it (allegedly) includes a whole raft of things (eg AAR capability) that are add-ons to the wider capability. There is an element of comparing apples with clothes pegs here. Whether all LOD should be included in costing can be argued either way. However - two things are clear :
1. We are paying more than we should have done for the two ships. This is largely due to the incredibly incompetent way that MG and production contract decisions were used as a political football by the last lot and by inter-service rivalries. Nevertheless, the money is "spent", we are buying them and they are coming along nicely.
2. Because they are big ships with (very) large margins, they will not suffer the sort of limitations that CVS did. Over a fifty year life capabilities can be added - particularly when capability is largely vested in aircraft. Some may be surprised to learn that initial buys of aircraft can be added to over the years, although I'll admit that that's now the exception rather than rule. Still, C17 numbers have doubled from the original "interim strategic airlifter" plan, Wokka numbers have also increased - it can be done.
Arguing about what this will eventually look like now is a bit like trying to decide whether your six-month old nipper is going to be a Nobel prize winner or a regular contributor to the Jeremy Kyle show.
1. We are paying more than we should have done for the two ships. This is largely due to the incredibly incompetent way that MG and production contract decisions were used as a political football by the last lot and by inter-service rivalries. Nevertheless, the money is "spent", we are buying them and they are coming along nicely.
2. Because they are big ships with (very) large margins, they will not suffer the sort of limitations that CVS did. Over a fifty year life capabilities can be added - particularly when capability is largely vested in aircraft. Some may be surprised to learn that initial buys of aircraft can be added to over the years, although I'll admit that that's now the exception rather than rule. Still, C17 numbers have doubled from the original "interim strategic airlifter" plan, Wokka numbers have also increased - it can be done.
Arguing about what this will eventually look like now is a bit like trying to decide whether your six-month old nipper is going to be a Nobel prize winner or a regular contributor to the Jeremy Kyle show.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"As oil begins to run out though the cost will start to increase big time"
if shale oil takes off the way shale gas has in the States prices will come down big time - US gas prices are at very low levels now
if shale oil takes off the way shale gas has in the States prices will come down big time - US gas prices are at very low levels now
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I kind of agree with Bastardeux in that we are paying an awful lot for something nowhere near a Nimitz type capability. Where I disagree is that I think we should spend more to get that capability (not Nimitz, but it would be nice if it was close).
Anyone who thinks we could operate 36 F-35 off it, except in a "best-effort, national survival shut everything else down" case is, IMO, slightly optimistic. You could probably get the aircraft and crews from the OCU and various staff jobs and fly the aircraft out there (probably at different standards of kit etc) but how are you going to change all the stores? Even if the QE was alongside in Portsmouth it would be a huge job (workspace configurations, correct crew etc) then she would have to get to this ultra important mission at a TG speed of, say 15 kts. So we need a "best effort....." that it is OK if we don't turn up to for a month.
Last, but of course most importantly, is logistics! This is the conventional v nuclear point - price is nearly irrelevant if you need to spend a large proportion of your time not fighting but resupplying. Especially if you are doing a HIC, 36 F-35 type of thing. Luckily the RN has supply ships in service or funded to adequately support QE. Oh wait, no we don't.
I'm not really trying to have a go at the RN, except perhaps for some v senior types who have allowed the decline. I think the RN needs some serious investment to bring it up to a reasonable capability.
We need to be realistic a stop thinking of the QE class in Nimitz terms. It will be a large, multi-role, flexible ship that will be able to do a massive range of things pretty well (PPP, disaster relief, LitM....). It just won't be great at anything and certainly not Carrier Strike if you think in US terms.
I wholeheartedly endorse this statement.
Anyone who thinks we could operate 36 F-35 off it, except in a "best-effort, national survival shut everything else down" case is, IMO, slightly optimistic. You could probably get the aircraft and crews from the OCU and various staff jobs and fly the aircraft out there (probably at different standards of kit etc) but how are you going to change all the stores? Even if the QE was alongside in Portsmouth it would be a huge job (workspace configurations, correct crew etc) then she would have to get to this ultra important mission at a TG speed of, say 15 kts. So we need a "best effort....." that it is OK if we don't turn up to for a month.
Last, but of course most importantly, is logistics! This is the conventional v nuclear point - price is nearly irrelevant if you need to spend a large proportion of your time not fighting but resupplying. Especially if you are doing a HIC, 36 F-35 type of thing. Luckily the RN has supply ships in service or funded to adequately support QE. Oh wait, no we don't.
I'm not really trying to have a go at the RN, except perhaps for some v senior types who have allowed the decline. I think the RN needs some serious investment to bring it up to a reasonable capability.
We need to be realistic a stop thinking of the QE class in Nimitz terms. It will be a large, multi-role, flexible ship that will be able to do a massive range of things pretty well (PPP, disaster relief, LitM....). It just won't be great at anything and certainly not Carrier Strike if you think in US terms.
no MPA for a small island nation is easily the single worst decision ever, although allowing cameras at private parties in Vegas comes close.
They know what it did. But they cancelled it with the intention of replacing it with something new. If they can get away with it, they will cut the new thing back as far as they can. They will not do another massive U-turn and lease/buy back the Harriers they already sold to the Americans.
Accept it. They have defined a path for the future of Naval Aviation and the best we can all hope for is that it doesn't get watered down too much. Certainly don't expect an expansion of the plan. You know what I mean. Don't you?
Originally Posted by Bismark
As I am sure has been said elsewhere, the aircraft and pilots just represent the front end of the carrier strike capability. The idiocy of the SDSR decision, which the PM is about to compound in the FR/UK Defence deal (FT Today), is that we risk losing the capability to operate jets off carriers. All of the expertise on the current CVSs will have gone (we are getting rid of the CVSs), the aircrew will have gone (either PVRd, redundant or moved to other aircraft types, the command experience will have gone (as will the met, ATC, FC, deck handlers, planners etc, etc).
Originally Posted by Not_a_boffin
ICBM - unfortunately, while your point re CV ops might be true, I'd put a fair bit of money that the guys who've done exchange tours have not done time in CATCC, Wings / Little F (Air & mini-boss in USN), handlers office or the squadron engineering and logs posts.
While they may be adept at doing the mission plan, launch, mission, recovery thing, they are unlikely to have a great understanding of how to spot a deck, arrange aircraft for servicing vice maintenance, weapons prep and bombing up and how all the various departments both in the squadrons and on the ship work to deliver the sortie rate. People thinking just about aircrew and (to some degree) chockheads are missing the point - it's the corporate experience of how to put it all together that is about to be lost. Nor can that be maintained at HMS Siskin - that just gives the basics of handling, not the fine art of pulling it all together.
As SDSR says "we need a plan to regenerate the necessary skills"- all I can say is it had better be a f8cking good one, cunning eneough to do more than brush your teeth with!
While they may be adept at doing the mission plan, launch, mission, recovery thing, they are unlikely to have a great understanding of how to spot a deck, arrange aircraft for servicing vice maintenance, weapons prep and bombing up and how all the various departments both in the squadrons and on the ship work to deliver the sortie rate. People thinking just about aircrew and (to some degree) chockheads are missing the point - it's the corporate experience of how to put it all together that is about to be lost. Nor can that be maintained at HMS Siskin - that just gives the basics of handling, not the fine art of pulling it all together.
As SDSR says "we need a plan to regenerate the necessary skills"- all I can say is it had better be a f8cking good one, cunning eneough to do more than brush your teeth with!
Maybe a better idea would be to bring back the Phantom and the Buccaneer..
Recently there was a story in Pompey Evening News about a proposal to build a couple of extra Patrol Vessels. Apart from the industrial skills issue, would this not be a tacit admission that ship numbers have been cut too far? A U-turn even?
However, OPVs are not really suitable for counter piracy or counter narcotics work, despite what the member for Portsmouth North thinks. It would not be money well spent. Restoring the STOVL capability would - a squadron of leased Harriers would not only help us prepare for the future, but also have an immediate effect in terms of national capabilities and possible UK contributions to coalition operations. The more limited proposals, or even embarking foreign Harriers, would help make the path to CVF easier, and more coherent?
What would the cost of a single F35B crash on deck be? Seen in those terms, it might seem like a sensible precaution to try to prevent it.
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 31st Aug 2012 at 22:46. Reason: Edited to emphasis the non pilot/whole ship aspects - this was after Justanopinion's reply.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How relevant is it now? Sending people stateside to fly Hornet, and others to do CTOL work, when the future is STOVL?
Last edited by Justanopinion; 31st Aug 2012 at 20:51.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Besides, the RN can always ask the US to assign the exchange pilots & deck crew (yes, they are sending RN deck crew to the US) to USMC AV-8B squadrons & LHDs instead of USN Hornet squadrons & CVNs.
WEBF,
Re my "Maybe a better idea would be to bring back the Phantom and the Buccaneer."
Did you really think that was a serious proposal. My point was that we are (arguably) moving forward to a new generation of naval aircraft and we have canned all the old stuff. It would be as irrelevant to consider bringing the ones broken up last century as those we gave away this decade.
As for the U-turn, I was refering to giving the Hars to the Americans and then leasing them back. The fact that the Government has already u-turned once on the 35C, makes them even less likely to do so again (ie. back to the C or asking for the discarded jets back). I can imagine Miliband relishing another u-turn in PMQs.
No matter how good an idea it is, WEBF, it's unlikely to happen in this climate.
Re my "Maybe a better idea would be to bring back the Phantom and the Buccaneer."
Did you really think that was a serious proposal. My point was that we are (arguably) moving forward to a new generation of naval aircraft and we have canned all the old stuff. It would be as irrelevant to consider bringing the ones broken up last century as those we gave away this decade.
As for the U-turn, I was refering to giving the Hars to the Americans and then leasing them back. The fact that the Government has already u-turned once on the 35C, makes them even less likely to do so again (ie. back to the C or asking for the discarded jets back). I can imagine Miliband relishing another u-turn in PMQs.
No matter how good an idea it is, WEBF, it's unlikely to happen in this climate.
GK121
Yes, a few deck crew and others are going on exchange, but nowhere near the number involved in day to day carrier operations. Lots of people need skills and experience for things to be efficient and safe, as some senior bods have noted.
Why else do you think the RN leadership supported the Reservist/Harrier idea?
Courtney
Are you on a low irony diet? Yes, I saw the joke in your mention of Phantoms and Buccaneers.
I have a low opinion of politicians - and think that most of our current malaise is down to politicians. My view is that since we are now preparing for a different future, and that the world have changed post SDSR, I do not think it unreasonable to changes policies, and cannot see why the Government would not want to sell it as a success. Of course,one could argue that if they got the AV8B+ , then it would be a different aircraft, and tat they were replacing the old with something better (with radar/AMRAAM/cannon).
Plus, if Ministers are willing to consider building new OPVs (despite their limited utility) then ..... who knows?
I had a discussion about this privately with a serving Royal Navy. Actually we were talking about some of the comments and suggestions in my initial post on the Harrier thread - including some of the more outlandish ones. We both agreed that some things are too difficult, or too expensive in wartime, although in a crisis things change (remember the improvisation in 1982).
Of course it is too late then. We can all think of examples were MOD tried to save money - only to lose many lives. Lack of armoured vehicles in Iraq, no explosion suppressing foam in the fuel tanks of the Hercules the list goes on.
Perhaps the best example is Falklands task group's lack of Airborne Early Warning. Several years before the 1982 conflict, some had proposed converting some ASW Sea Kings by removing the sonar and ASW gear and fitting a version of the Thorn-EMI (as it was then) radar to provide at least a basic AEW capability. At least one Officer of Flag rank supported the idea. Nothing was done - the idea was judged too costly, too difficult, and not needed as our forces would never operate outside the NATO theatre.
Then war came. The Argentines took advantage of our lack of AEW, and flew low. The lack of AEW reduced the effectiveness of the use of the Sea Harrier. When HMS Sheffield got hit by the Exocet it was accepted that if the task force had AEW then it would not have happened. Within hours, an urgent project started to produce the SKW, and came to fruition in about three months. By then the war was over.
Organic AEW would have stopped the loss of Sheffield, likewise the Exocet attack against the Atlantic Conveyor. Not losing the Chinooks and Wessex aboard her would have meant that the Welsh Guards did not have to be transported about RFAs Sir Tristam and Sir Galahad. I have heard a comment (from an RAF Officer with an AWACS/ISTAR background) that organic AEW would have prevented all the ship losses. So why did it take the loss of a ship and twenty lives to make the politicians act?
This decade we seem to be planning on not facing any enemy, yet our politicians cannot resist speaking loudly, even though they have thrown away much of the stick.
Yes, a few deck crew and others are going on exchange, but nowhere near the number involved in day to day carrier operations. Lots of people need skills and experience for things to be efficient and safe, as some senior bods have noted.
Why else do you think the RN leadership supported the Reservist/Harrier idea?
Courtney
Are you on a low irony diet? Yes, I saw the joke in your mention of Phantoms and Buccaneers.
I have a low opinion of politicians - and think that most of our current malaise is down to politicians. My view is that since we are now preparing for a different future, and that the world have changed post SDSR, I do not think it unreasonable to changes policies, and cannot see why the Government would not want to sell it as a success. Of course,one could argue that if they got the AV8B+ , then it would be a different aircraft, and tat they were replacing the old with something better (with radar/AMRAAM/cannon).
Plus, if Ministers are willing to consider building new OPVs (despite their limited utility) then ..... who knows?
I had a discussion about this privately with a serving Royal Navy. Actually we were talking about some of the comments and suggestions in my initial post on the Harrier thread - including some of the more outlandish ones. We both agreed that some things are too difficult, or too expensive in wartime, although in a crisis things change (remember the improvisation in 1982).
Of course it is too late then. We can all think of examples were MOD tried to save money - only to lose many lives. Lack of armoured vehicles in Iraq, no explosion suppressing foam in the fuel tanks of the Hercules the list goes on.
Perhaps the best example is Falklands task group's lack of Airborne Early Warning. Several years before the 1982 conflict, some had proposed converting some ASW Sea Kings by removing the sonar and ASW gear and fitting a version of the Thorn-EMI (as it was then) radar to provide at least a basic AEW capability. At least one Officer of Flag rank supported the idea. Nothing was done - the idea was judged too costly, too difficult, and not needed as our forces would never operate outside the NATO theatre.
Then war came. The Argentines took advantage of our lack of AEW, and flew low. The lack of AEW reduced the effectiveness of the use of the Sea Harrier. When HMS Sheffield got hit by the Exocet it was accepted that if the task force had AEW then it would not have happened. Within hours, an urgent project started to produce the SKW, and came to fruition in about three months. By then the war was over.
Organic AEW would have stopped the loss of Sheffield, likewise the Exocet attack against the Atlantic Conveyor. Not losing the Chinooks and Wessex aboard her would have meant that the Welsh Guards did not have to be transported about RFAs Sir Tristam and Sir Galahad. I have heard a comment (from an RAF Officer with an AWACS/ISTAR background) that organic AEW would have prevented all the ship losses. So why did it take the loss of a ship and twenty lives to make the politicians act?
This decade we seem to be planning on not facing any enemy, yet our politicians cannot resist speaking loudly, even though they have thrown away much of the stick.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can think of any number of 'things' that might have saved the Sheffield but basically the Sheffield could EASILY have looked after herself on that specific occasion and perhaps a better example might have been the Coventry, Atlantic Conveyor or any other ship, but it is history, it is over.
What I do not understand is the reasoning behind ordering these 60000 ton carriers WITHOUT cats and traps? That to me is the most basic, of basic crazy decisions and yet it has been glossed over. If Mr Boffin can tells us if EMALS was on the horizon when these carriers were authorised but these ships are far bigger than any carrier we have ever had and yet there is still a risk that they might carry on with our current status of having an aircraft carrier sailing the seven seas without any aircraft and incapable of accepting any operational British military fast jets.
Having said that I am still not convinced these carriers will ever join the fleet.
Whilst I am in wittering mode a quick question.. I am already bored of all this American election news but.... If President Obama were to be re-elected then could he make some 'controversial' decisions as he cannot stand for a third term.
From what I have read, I understand that trillions of dollars have to be saved from the US Defence budget and the F35B might be an easy target?? The US Marines have political muscle but will that intimidate this President and would he be able to cancel this version of their latest aircraft?
What I do not understand is the reasoning behind ordering these 60000 ton carriers WITHOUT cats and traps? That to me is the most basic, of basic crazy decisions and yet it has been glossed over. If Mr Boffin can tells us if EMALS was on the horizon when these carriers were authorised but these ships are far bigger than any carrier we have ever had and yet there is still a risk that they might carry on with our current status of having an aircraft carrier sailing the seven seas without any aircraft and incapable of accepting any operational British military fast jets.
Having said that I am still not convinced these carriers will ever join the fleet.
Whilst I am in wittering mode a quick question.. I am already bored of all this American election news but.... If President Obama were to be re-elected then could he make some 'controversial' decisions as he cannot stand for a third term.
From what I have read, I understand that trillions of dollars have to be saved from the US Defence budget and the F35B might be an easy target?? The US Marines have political muscle but will that intimidate this President and would he be able to cancel this version of their latest aircraft?
