NaB - "has removed the highest risk bit from the programme (F35B)."

Does this refer to certain rash commitments made by Mr Boffin concerning what he would do if SRVL was adopted as SOP?

Also, this comment is not exactly consonant with the vehement insistence of the Commandant of the Marine Corps that the F-35B program is going just tickety-freaking-boo and that all that it needs is to be taken off probation and given lots more money.

So are we to believe that the Commandant is blowing smoke up our collective convergent-divergent nozzles?

No mate, I was referring to programme risk as opposed to personal risk.......:yuk:

Always thought that B was for barking when it was clear that the ship would need to be big enough that C was an option. SRVL was always a desperate throw of the dice to make a poor choice (for the UK) work against all evidence to the contrary. My bet was a "low" personal risk on that basis!:E

Program risk at two levels: One being that the B would simply not work, and the other that the US would can it anyway, because it's very expensive for a jet that operates in small numbers (without tanker, EA or AEW) off multi-use ships.

And presumably the UK was aware of what was going on inside the program - and three months after all the SDSR decisions were being taken, Gates put the B on two years' probation. All well and good for Uncle Sam, aside from dealing with the Marines throwing their toys out of the pram, but that would have made any SDSR that included STOVL look majorly silly.

Re ship size: I had the same experience when I sat down for a briefing and learned why the QEs had to be Forrestal-sized and why that was a relatively small cost driver. It left training as the only real potential advantage for the B.

And that meant that the UK, unlike the Marines, had an option to go CATOBAR.

Amusing read. I especially enjoyed the script for a play they attached to the end of it!

the Chinese have a series of big long range anti ship missiles - their obvious use is to keep the USN at arms length and, if possible, deny the Taiwan Strait to any carrier battle groups

relatively recently they have been developing a ballistic missile (rather than a cruise/Exocet type missile) to do the job - this could push the USN well out east of Taiwan

the Varyag has been sitting in China for years - the real problem they have however is that they cobble together systems from all over the place - some are developed locally, some bought in from the russians, french & brits, and some are "reverse enginneered" or just straight stolen

Given the problems that the Brits, Russians and the yanks have in making their own kit work (Nimrod AEW anyone??) together you have to have some real doubts as to combat effectiveness of the Chinese ships

In fact her latest destroyers appear to be a step back from the last lot in terms of weapons/systems fit and some people think they got too ambitious

you can buy a lot of missiles for the cost of one carrier

You can indeed. But you can't use them for anything other than sitting in a silo and then, if you use them, hope that they get through defences.

er...how does a ballistic missile work against a moving target? Unless of course you are going to use a wide-area airburst nuc!

£6.2Bn !!
 

When I was involved with this programme in 2004 the book price was £3.9Bn but the MOD had a line entry which totalled only £3.6Bn. Over £6Bn is cost over-run gone mad!

Glad to see the boat building is going well. If we really do have to wait until 2030 thats 4 more SDSRs to get through. Still I'd rather see this than HS2 at £29Bn.:E

Conventional weapon using satellite guidance (some combination of SAR and visual)

DF-21 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now would a Four Star stretch the truth to justify funding a pet project? Tell me it ain't so?:ugh:

Do you think there is a hint in the choice of the lower photo?

Assembly of UK

Scary part is that some Aircrew could spent their whole career in RN and never fly off an RN deck given the delays etc that will occur....

The development of drones may make Carriers redundant in the conventional sense.

Having 1000 drones (or more) attack targets simultaneously from multiple locations may not be "sexy" but lot less damaging on personnel.