Rumour has it the announcement may be made on Thursday.

The scales are tipped towards the 'B' as the books balance better in the short term.

All speculation of course.

This Daily Telegraph article About-turn on new variant of carriers’ fighter plane - Telegraph from this morning reads as if some was reading PPRuNe over the last couple of days.

Is this corroboration or just the same information repeated?

Reading the PQs above and other stuff re likely reduced purchase of whatever version of Dave is bought, it seems to me that the Government is going to want to see these ships and jets deployed. This raises the question over who will be the Competent Authority to run the "carrier strike capability". I use the term carefully as this will not be about just running the jets, but the whole package. If the buy is small then there will be strong pressure for this capability to be flly worked up at sea and remain so (unlike the way the Harrier was treated in its later years.

So, who will it be - the RAF, with a philosophy of minimal contribution to the wider capability (manning the ship) and a hopon-hop off mentality; or the RN with a deep desire and long developed understanding of operations "from the sea"? The two services are poles apart on this, with little trust now in existence - I can't see Joint Force JSF working somehow.

This must be the bit where Harry Hill leans forward across his desk and says:

"Now I like the Royal Navy, but I like the RAF too. But which is better? There's only one way to find out...FIGHT!"

Remember boys, theoretically at least, you are all on the same side.

It all sounds pretty real.

The future of the UK carriers now depends on the Marines' ability to sustain support for the idea that they should get an F-22-priced fighter that is slower, less agile and shorter-legged than an F-16, and that will normally be deployed in six-aircraft units in a combined force with no AEW or AAR. And sustain that support through the next few budget years.

This was also done against US advice, which should probably raise a question or two.

It may also be worth pointing out that any decision will be taken by Cabinet (e.g. our elected representatives) and not the military. I suspect though that whatever decision is taken will lead to angry posts, books, poison pen letters for decades to come.

Yes, I was just thinking the same thing. Just how much have we hacked off either or both of the USN or USMC with all this fannying about? And if we have seriously p****d them off what longer term impact does that have? At the military level do you get away with just rolling your eyes and saying "Politicians, huh?" or does the damage go deeper?

Still, if the story is confirmed, which looks 99% certain given the leaks to the press, at some point you just have to knuckle down and get on with it. F35B it will be. Another u-turn or major change is unthinkable.

Well, until 2015 anyway.

F35B v F16
 

"F-22-priced fighter that is slower, less agile and shorter-legged than an F-16"
where is there info that says this the case.
As I understand it , the B is less useful in Range & load against the A & C.
but I was led to belive that the B would be better than the Harrier GR9 and the F16/F18 in Range and load carried.
is someone telling me porkies:confused:

Porkies! Heaven forfend!

F-35B MMo is 1.6, F-16 is 2.0

Note: it can be argued that the F-35B will reach 1.6 with bombs on board. Flight testing will show whether this can be done practically without burning too much gas in acceleration.

F-35B is 7g, F-16 is 9g

F-35B radius of action is 450 nm, high-med-high with 2x1000 lb bombs and 2xAIM-120, and no gun; F-16 will do similar range without external fuel but has loads of ext fuel options (370 or 600 gal tanks, centerline tank, conformals), which the B does not.

Please feel free to shoot me down.

This is obviously completely theoretical now, but.......

My understanding is that taking off with a ramp the B will point at the ramp, full throttle and brakes off. I.e the lift fan won't be used. Like a normal takeoff except you leave the ship before your at flying speed.

If this is the case then surely a C could use a ramp also? The Russians seem to have no difficulties.

Logic: The C variant has an issue with it's tail hook. This surely is a relatively simple fix in contrast with the B that just looks a bit too complicated for it's own good (the need for autoeject does not give me a warm and fuzzy feeling).

The one advantage the B has over the C is getting back on the carrier. Clearly
the C is the better aircraft for the UK if you have the choice.

I can only assume the costs have gone through the roof because the 'fitted for but not with' was a lie, and what this really meant is that a space was left for some extra cabins, the AAG but NOT space for the catapults. Hence the massive cost has likely come from the expense of redesigning the top third of the ship to fit the catapults and energy storage devices.

Thinking outside the box, just because EMALS is too expensive, does that mean you have to go back to the B? Keep the ramp, install the JBD's that were planned, put the AAG in the space left free for it, make a few adjustments to the left sponson, fit the LSO station and forget about the science fiction catapult. Launch the C off a ramp and accept the lower pay load as it will only matter when there is no tanker, it will make a much better Tornado replacement (which is what the thing really needs to be) and the hawkeye can go off a ramp (apparently) if it's arrested so there is no need for a bodge job AEW solution.

If the C does get delayed to a deal to take B's to start and then swap them for C's if you need the capabilty early.

Please point out the flaws in my idea.

And God knows what the spams are thinking, but our reputation with the USN and USMC must be in tatters. Let's hope the sake of the exchange lads the USN doesn't do the same as the USMC and sent them packing. And good luck trying to get some harrier exchanges, although it is ironic that the result of this is we will probably end up with some harrier boys and girls on exchange flying ex UK frames.

With regards to FAA vs RAF control, assuming FAA Fast Jet survives this cluster it will have to be joint, the FAA is not going to quadruple in size during a period when they have no aircraft. Similarly the RAF has no interest in flying off boats, at least not for a career. It will be joint, it will be a mess and it's inevitable (unless as will probably happen the whole thing gets canned and we end up with 105 typhoons and the 2 biggest most expensive helicopter carriers in the world).

Who on earth is making up this BS, to want the B based on flexibility, lighter training burden etc. is absolutely fine, but whoever is advising that we take it because it's going to be cheaper and less risky is an example of the reasoning why we have found ourselves in such a god awful financial clusterf*ck, with very little to show for it.

You can take the Air Force out of the STOVL game, but you can't take the STOVL game out of the Air Force!!

Personally, I think its a sensible and pragmatic move. The uncertainty over the IOC of the C model makes it a very risky proposition. Taking production set 2 of EMALS is certain to be a risk also. Better take the B regardless of its perceived limitations and get Carrier Strike reestablished as soon as. This sensibly means that we can operate/rotate both our new carriers as planned. Agree they should be Navy cabs also.

And all that expensively purchased (cos it ain't an exchange) F-18 expertise is for .............

Does this mean the 400 million that was going to be used to convert the carriers, will now buy us more jets? Well at least there will be plenty more cockpits...oh wait, that's only going to buy us 2 extra aircraft.

Happy days.

Nope the £400M will be just a little drop out of the swimming pool deficit that needs to be emptied!

To B or not to B......?
 

F-35 'facts have changed' since SDSR - Defence Management

:ugh:

For everyone's sake....PLEASE SORT IT OUT!

Beeb says F35B as well:
BBC News - Government in U-turn over fighter planes

Erm...embarked maritime fixed wing experience to grow expertise within the RN to run Carrier Strike. Be that delivered with the B or the C.

Apparently listening to the House of Commons live at 1115 ish tomorrow MAY be of interest to some.

Of course noone really understands the finances for this but on the assumption that the amount of cash allocated to buy (and maintain) aircraft remains constant, this clearly means that we will get fewer, less capable (ref: dstl) aircraft. This is a big negative.

On the other hand it does mean they can operate off both carriers (assuming the mothballing plan is, err, mothballed). This is a big positive.

Unfortunatley the carriers are now limited to VSTOL/rotary, probably for their entire lives. A big negative.

Although it might appear more attractive now to go for a split buy (A and C) for RAF and RN, especially given the CEPP plan to only have 12 JSF embarked, I think it would be a mistake, denying us the ability to surge in crisis a la Falklands, although it must be a very tempting option for the RAF.

... that by the time the capability arrives, will be flying for the airlines! :D

Just out of curiosity:
Where does the optimisim come from that B Version still equals 2 active carriers ?

Being German I don't have much experience with your politicians.
If I look at ours I'm sure I would expect the smallest common denominator.
And that would be the combination of only 1 carrier plus selecting the less capable aircraft. :}
But maybe you are more lucky with your politicians...

Good point. You could assume that one of the drivers for going for only 1 carrier when they switched to C in SDSR was they couldn't afford the converson costs - but I suspect they also took all the savings from not operating the 2nd carrier too. This money maybe unlikely to be found to go back - but we'll see!

It will be interesting (and perhaps revealing) if the number of carriers is not mentioned if the u-turn is annouced tomorrow?

Or will be Cdr Air. Change to the B also potentially brings capability further left arguably strengthening the rational for F/A18 slots right now.

This is true, but perhaps the RN crews currently with the USN F-18s could switch to the USMC and train with the new GR9 squadron that they're about to stand up - VTOL Harrier ops more relevant to B etc. :ugh:

No, because the RN are after experience in embarked multi role carrier ops focused on delivering carrier strike. USN F18 ops from a CVN are more in line with what the RN is looking to deliver in the future when compared with USMC AV8B ops from a LHD.

Also, a tour with the USMC doesn't guarantee embarked experience. The only benifit with going AV8B is VSTOL experience which we are all led to believe is a very straight forward affair in the JSF.

The RNs biggest challenge and main argument for being involved in JSF is that they need experienced aircrew to run the show on the carriers. The bigger, more complex the carrier and the more time they spend on board the better.

Or is it because there ain't gonna be ANY F35's purchased at all and the RN ain't gonna commission any carriers?

who knows how this CF will turn out!:mad:

The article in the Times cites risk of no carrier strike capability until 2023 as the biggest driving force behind the decision, along with up front cost...am I missing something when I say that the F18E seems like the perfect solution to this, in more ways than one?? I'm sure the 100 unnecessary trainee pilots in the pipeline would be thrilled to hear that there is suddenly going to be cockpits available for them, the cost of catapults is mitigated by the peanut price of the F18 and the lack of F35 is completely acceptable because the US Navy are on the same time frame?? Who knows, we may even have been able to eek out a deal with the Americans for a discount as compensation for having to buy them in the first place.:mad:

Fantastic. A giant, expensive, fault prone fan where bombs, missiles and fuel could be, all because we're too poor to afford real carriers. You couldn't make it up.

More of the same....

Government forced into U-turn over Royal Navy fighter jets | UK news | The Guardian

F-35B? Oh good, another "whistling sh!tcan" like the Harrier...

http://echostains.files.wordpress.co...pot-groovy.jpg

Henra asked where does the optimism come from that B Version still equals 2 active carriers.

I don't think there is any suggestion that there would ever be 2 carriers active at the same time, rather that because both would be usable without conversion we would cycle them in and out of high readiness, meaning we'd have one carrier available 8 years out of 8. Given how difficult reversion to B will be politically (the Guardian has helpfully reprinted all Cameron's statements about B vs C at the time of the SDSR) I'm kind of hoping that the Govt will cite the ability to alternate between both carriers as one way of sugaring a difficult pill.

However, the uncomfortable truth here is that CTOL did not necessarily equal one carrier. I think it was Gerald Howarth who noted that it was hoped that converting the second ship (ie QE) would be looked at in 2015.

What the current debate has done is highlight that at no stage has the provenance of these "conversion" costs been exposed to real scrutiny. I think I am correct in saying that it is still unclear whether the "£1.8Bn" or whatever it is today has been generated by ACA, by MOD or by Aunty Betty in the commons tea room. I hope the "costs" are opened to scrutiny, but doubt it will happen.

This has stitch up (with saving DPOC as a non-carrier capable frame) written all over it. Forget all the nonsense about UCAVs. Whether the next generation aircraft is manned or unmanned, high in the requirements list ought to be carrier compatibility. By going STOVL, it is pretty much guaranteed that "carrier compatibility" will be too difficult and expensive.

What seems possible is that the 1.8Bn is a total cost, including DLODs etc. and includes things beyond just the conversion costs (e.g. extra manning/training etc.) - it begs the question as to whether the SDSR decision was properly costed (or rushed) or whether it omitted some costs that have now become clearer or have just risen.

What I would like to know is who actually pushed for the B >> C switch during the SDSR - was it a political driven request - perhaps driven by Liam Fox and his "advisors" in pursuit of the catchy headline, or a jolly good idea from one of the floors of MB to make some short term or through life savings that was actually pushed in the first instance by some in MoD?

I wonder what side of the B/C fence some of the key actors are actually on - e.g. CAS, FSL etc.?

NaB,

I totally agree, I can't help but get the feeling that old STOVL habits die hard, and that the Harrier guard's nostalgia has a lot to do with this.

NaB - Not to mention this factoid, which just appeared again in the Grauniad:

"We are looking at a potential seven-year delay for the F-35C, which would mean we would not get the aircraft on the carriers until 2027," the source said.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? If the C is seven years late it will be dead, because its carrier slots will be filled willy-nilly by Super Hornys by then. The B will then be nonviable.

You would think that the RN would be happy to get away from STOVL when it was only a short sighted political decision that led them down that path in the 1970's in the first place. Does anyone think the Sea Harrier was more capable than the Phantom?

Arseholes.

Pious,

Was that a (succinct and accurate) summary of the whole debacle or an answer to the question about SHAR and Phantom? Or both?

I wonder if we could have a year when we found something out by the proper channels instead of just getting it from the press with 24 hours to run?

Phantom / Sea Harrier
 

"Does anyone think the Sea Harrier was more capable than the Phantom?"

Maybe not, but what about the Falklands?

Rgds SOS