Isn't all of this simply a continuation of the way MOD procurement has always work?

The services argue to get ships or aircraft knowing perfectly well that the new kit will not be able to do what we want them to do.

Then once we are fully committed to the purchase, we point out the limitations and start arguing for extras.

In this case the extras just happen to be all of the aircraft.

Didn't they start calling SMART procurement a decade or so ago?

As I said before, sell it to the French. Amazing that though - bring Nimrod and HMS QE together and that's something like £6.0 billion down the drain. Apparantely, it has been announced that there will just be 12 F-35Cs deployed on HMS PoW in 2020 and not 36. They haven't given a number as to how many F-35s will now be ordered. Might as well built a LHD in the first place.

An air wing of 12 F-35s, what's the point? Just enough to maintain a 4 ship CAP to defend itself. A self-licking lollipop!!

ORAC,

When I heard that I almost crashed my car in disbelief!!

What fecking use is 12 Daves?????

Christ even 12 F/A-22 Sea Raptors would be hardly worth the bother!!!

From the horse's mouth as to speak:

"The single carrier will therefore routinely have 12 fast jets [F-35C] embarked for operations while retaining the capacity to deploy up to the 36 previously planned, providing combat and intelligence capability much greater than the existing Harriers. It will be able to carry a wide range of helicopters, including up to 12 Chinook or Merlin transports and eight Apache attack helicopters.... This will delay the in-service date of the new carrier [HMS PoW] from 2016 to around 2020 [and how much extra cost will that entail?]. But it will allow greater interoperability with US and French carriers and naval jets. It provides the basis for developing joint Maritime Task Groups in the future..."

It does mention on page 28 that there will be a reduction of the planned number of F-35Cs ordered, but nothing else.

I'll whisper it in case 'he' hears but isn't it the Sea Harrier thing all over again? Except with the Sea Harrier there wasn't the ability to put other aircraft on the floating airfield to do something more useful than guarding themselves.

How can there be a reduction in F-35Cs, when none have either been planned or ordered?

Sorry, typo. F-35s ordered. And yes there was a plan or requirement if you like for an order of 138 F-35Bs, of which, three F-35Bs have been ordered so far. Now they have switched to requiring the F-35C (number unknown), while still having three F-35Bs on order.

Are the phrases "defend itself" and "guarding themselves" referring to the defence of aircraft themselves or defence of the carrier group? I thought the F35 had no AD role as such (other than it's own self protection as it 'fought' its way in and out) and that carrier group protection was provided by the escort ships (assuming there are any of them left following the 'fire sale' going on in the RN ... have they really ditched BRNC???).

F-35C is designed as a replacement for the F/A-18A and C models of the Hornet (the so-called 'legacy Hornet' since the arrival of the Super Hornet in USN service), therefore is a swing-role A-A/A-G aircraft

Not as odd as it may sound I think. We have one sqn of GR4 depoyed for operations but can deploy more from the other sqns if required.

Similar?

It means that we can train with the other two sqns in UK without having to have a 4th training sqn and an additional number of jets in depth.

At least there is no mention of selling one of the carriers, merely that it will be "kept at extended readiness".

SDSR also 'speaks' of an annual increase in the defence budget from 2015 onwards. Although the phrase "We cannot now foresee circumstances in which the UK would require the scale of strike capability previously planned (in referring to operating only one carrier) there's nothing to suggest that if perceived security threats warrant it there won't be moves to have both carriers able to operate at the same time at some point in the future. Indeed, SDSR does mention this option.

They also reckon Dave-C will be 25% cheaper wrt through life costs.

Sorry for the constant 'updates', my first scan didn't glean every detail.

One of the required performance items for F-35 (since it is the F-16 replacement for the USAF and F/A-18A/C replacement for the USN/USMC) was always to "equal or exceed the air-to-air capabilities of current models of F-16* aircraft".

The reports from the evaluations of the program indicate that it has indeed "exceeded" the A-A capabilities of the aircraft it is designed to replace.

Funny that.


* you know, the aircraft much of NATO and many other nations in the world currently rely on as their primary AD fighter (as well as A-G striker)?

Which much of NATO is planning to replace with F-35, which will become their new primary AD fighter (as well as A-G striker)?

doesn't getting conventional F35 make the Harrier skill set redundant?

GK, it's also intended for Dave to replace A-10s in the USAF.

NURSE, Dave's elecrickery allegedly makes most skill sets redundant.

WW,

Wrong... sorry

http://download.cabinetoffice.gov.uk...ier-strike.pdf

Our carrier strike capability will be based around a single operational carrier, with a second planned to be kept at extended readiness. This leaves open options to rotate them, to ensure a continuous UK carrier strike capability; or to regenerate more quickly a two carrier strike capability. Alternatively, we might sell one of the carriers, relying on cooperation with a close ally to provide continuous carrier strike capability.

Like I said - first scan and all that - but not the doom and gloom the journos predicted.

The decision won't be made until 2015 though.

What are the implications of a CTOL carrier without an angled deck?

They were introduced to solve many problems which will now reappear .

There are the issues of landing/recovery cycles,; deck spaces for loaded aircraft etc. Do all next wave aircraft have to be streuck below deck?

With no off landing line/bolter spots, can no one hold deck alert?

With an angled deck an aircraft on approach can deviate left or right before bolting, and with no issues of turbulence around towers; what happens with an aircraft drifting right on the approiach to the POW?

Have all the issues such as these been considered and resolved such that an angled deck is now superfluous?

And that goes back to my original comment yesterday. If we don't hold onto it, sell it to the French - a close ally, apparently - they'd be delighted with a cut price carrier and one that meets the specs and design changes that they actually requested while French Navy personnel were embedded with the CVF IPT. I believe they bought the necessary equipment from the Americans for PA2 a while back, so they can re-equip the renamed Richelieu at little cost to enable le Rafale to operate onboard. That eventually leads to the formation of a joint Anglo-Franco maritime task group as well as the use of Rafales and F-35Cs on each other nation's carriers, allowing enhanced co-operation and interoperability. Mon dieu! I have just started the carrier sharing story again.