Ah, happy days. In the Cold War I used to dream of a raid strength 20-30. Not sure what I'd have done with them all, of course!

I wonder if that's a realistic raid today. I suppose someone could raise a lot aof assets if they really wanted to go against a capital ship. I don't suppose David was planning on that.

I look forward to opinions on that one.

Courtney

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.

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.

Yet they are much cheaper than a US carrier being built TODAY. Do you understand the concept of compound interest ? Something paid for a decade ago is cheap simply because of inflation never mind having a different design.

Running costs of Nuclear is more than oil. The CdG also has had availability problems due to its nuclear propulsion.

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.

"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


http://cdn3.chartsbin.com/chartimage...4b4ac6bc9864bb

As oil begins to run out though the cost will start to increase big time.
I wonder when thats really going to begin to happen and take effect.

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.

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 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.

"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

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.

If only :ok:

http://i646.photobucket.com/albums/u...kRoyal-2-1.jpg

Well, you wouldn't want that lot coming at you with bad intent, Even today.

Nice one, GeeRam. :ok:

What amazing aircraft, if only they still looked this good!!!

Surely the move from F35C back to F35B was the major U-turn? Well, the Government seem to have survived that. Leasing a few AV8Bs, and operating them Illustrious/QE instead of just sending people to learn CTOL skills would just be changing the implementation of policy?

How relevant is it now? Sending people stateside to fly Hornet, and others to do CTOL work, when the future is STOVL? Also if the post SDSR plan was so good, how come they were concerns about the retention of skills which led to other proposals (all mentioned elsewhere on the same thread - as were the issues. See the posts by Bismark and Not_a_boffin that are on the first page or the following ones). Some of the proposals had backing of senior people - including the First Sea Lord!

Can they fly from Lusty/QE? Will they provide a capability now? Will they prepare our people for a STOVL future?

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.

Completely relevant. I have been fortunate enough to fly both the Harrier and the Super Hornet and what you gain in the technology experience of the Super Hornet more than balances the lack of VSTOL experience. The Super Hornet , even the legacy Hornet, is in my opinion a better lead in to JSF (for the pure multi role capabilities it brings) than the Harrier (and I love the Harrier!). By all accounts VSTOL in F35 B is going to be so straightforward anyone can do it.

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.

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.

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?

Glojo,

It's not really Obama's decision- the Pentagon (Obama) can ask Congress to change Defense funding to cancel/delay/suspend the F35B. It's then up to Congress. They often disagree with the Pentagon- V22, SR 71 and F136 engine are past examples where Congress funded something the Pentagon wasn't ( at the time) keen on.

It boils down to pork-barrel politics and how much political influence the USMC (and UK) can deploy in that process. The USMC have big clout, and if LM are smart they have done as Bell-Boeing did with the V22 and make lots of F35B peculiar components in lots of different states, thus assuring the support of senators in those states.

Nonetheless the fiscal cliff approaches and Congress has either to re-visit US spending and borrowing, or find and approve some serious spending cuts.

N

From inception on CVF/QEC there was always a presumption in favour of STOVL operations, based on the early concepts for a STOVL Strike Fighter or SSF. Even when the programme was Future Carrier Borne Aircraft (FCBA), this was still the preferred option as it was in the comfort zone and many of the "operability vs sea state" and cost of training arguments seemed compelling. The early assumptions were also that STOVL ships would be significantly smaller and therefore much cheaper.

However, risk to a STOVL programme was always acknowledged and so CTOL and STOBAR (even ASTOBAR) ops were looked at, with what was EF2000 and FA18E.

Round about 2000/2001 it became clear that given the proposed sortie rate and deck parking requirements, there would actually eb little difference in size between STOVL and CTOL options (the STOBAR ones were larger) and so the "adaptable" carrier idea was born to try and balance the risk to the aircraft programme.

It is also important to understand what is meant by "adaptable". It is not (and never has been) the equivalent of Fit To Receive or Fitted For But Not With. It was simply arranging the flightdeck and gallery deck areas such that area and volume for two cats and an angled deck were available and that sufficient weight margin was available to accommodate these systems.

The arresting element is fairly straightforward. Mk7 Mod 4 is a relative self-contained simple system, no major dramas there. The real issue was always about the cats and unfortunately the timing was simply all wrong. EMALS was always the preferred option, but was so immature at the time that it added a lot of risk. Using steam was also risky in terms of through-life cost and people, so you ended up with two different factors militating against CTOL, whatever the "benefits" of the operating mode.

It was only when the payload and cancellation risks of F35B got really serious taht people really started taking the CTOL option seriously IMO.

Nice one, WEBF. :ok: Just making sure. And just to be clear, it's not your ideas that I question, it is absolutely the likelihood of the politicians doing something that makes good military sense.

Glojo,

I share your concerns about these. And the carriers really should have come with EMALS etc.

Courtney

If you think in US terms none of our armed forces (exempt SF) can do much - not least the RAF. As a nation the UK does what it can afford to and as much niche capability to support the US effort. The US are extremely supportive of our decision to provide a CVF capability, albeit at UK levels of effort.

The much bigger debate in my mind is whether the RAF are really behind supporting the generation of the embarked capability for the UK or just p*** around squabbling about who flies the aircraft and how much time should be spent at sea?

Thank you to both Bengo and Not_A_Boffin for those answers and as a follow-up to N_A_B were they at any stage considering steam catapults and if so I dread to think of the costs regarding any modifications.

I'm sure we all get rose tinted glasses as age overtakes us and I take aboard comments about adverse sea conditions affecting flying but the joy of a carrier is it is mobile and can attempt to move away from predicted bad weather. In other words see it coming and move to a more suitable location and make use of carrier borne tanking capability to make up for any extra distance. Yes STOVL can probably operate in rougher sea states, but when it gets rough, it can get rough and there can be no flying of any type but there would probably be no flying anyway??

I understand what you are saying about this 'early concept' but was it ever fully explained that this option was going to rule out any decent AEW capability and definitely no tanking. From the outside looking in it looks like we were never going to use these carriers to their full potential and surely even at that early stage of planning the government must have been told the only future aircraft for these ships would be the F35B or NOTHING and nothing is a possibility.

Not_A_Boffin
Are you surprised at the costs for those American super carriers compared to our ships?

The French are building TWO Mistral class warships for Russia and allegedly selling them for $1.7 billion. Yes these ships are approximately a third of the size but they are still large warships and I wonder how much this French ship builder would have charged to fit the cats and traps..

I find it hard to accept the costings but the deal is done, the turns have been made and we are steaming up the creek with some very shaky paddles.

Thanks again for the constructive replies :ok::ok:

John

In no particular order.....

Steam cats might actually have been less intrusive than EMALS in some respects, although not in terms of feedwater, condensers etc. It was always going to be op costs and manning that militated against steam.

The seakeeping issue is valid in that (particularly for smaller ships) STOVL aircraft can recover where ship motions are higher. There are limits associated with glidepath, clearance above the rounddown and motion at the touchdown point for CTOL recoveries. For STOVL, the criteria are less onerous - ie you can get aboard with higher ship motions. The rub is that the sea states where these higher motions occur add somewhere between 5 and 10% tops to your overall operability in the North Atlantic and much lower percentages elsewhere. However, as some pointed out, most DL training would be in the SWAPPS so ship motion would have an effect.

Tankers were never considered for STOVL. "Apparently" they are of no use whatsoever to STOVL aircraft. While you can see some sense in that in terms of max recovery weight and bringback (ie there's no point in having more fuel if you can't recover with it), there is a different argument that suggests that a relatively short-legged aircraft might benefit from having Texaco available either post launch or where there is a crowded pattern.

As far as CVN78 is concerned $12Bn doesn't surprise me at all. It's nuclear and therefore has a number of associated safety & survivability measures and the US are far from cutting-edge in their shipbuilding practices. If you compare the level of outfit in a CVN77 block when erected in the building dock compared to QEC, QEC is streets ahead. The reason this is important is that work done aboard ship when the hull is complete usually takes at least 4 times as many manhours as doing it in the sheds (pre-outfitting).

Mistral is a different kettle of fish. You could not fit an angled deck or cats to that ship, it's design and stability margins would preclude it.

The French have already built three, so much of the "overhead", production of design information, CNC tapes, work packages etc has already been done. Hence the relatively low cost. I would also suspect an element of subsidy to keep DCN / STX St Nazaire with a workload as well.

If you're suggesting that the French would have offered a better deal to fit EMALS etc to QEC, don't even go there. Aside from probably being precluded by ITAR, their cost would be equal or higher than doing it in Rosyth. As noted earlier, the quoted UK "cost" includes all sorts of LOD/Capability funding lines that are nothing to do with the actual fit aboard the ship. The costs of the UK QEC programme are everything to do with political indecision, interservice bickering and very little to do with the size and configuration of the ship.

I repeat my earlier statement. They are being built, they appear to be coming along nicely and capabilities can be added to over time. The sheer size of them will make them much more useful than a CVS-sized ship could ever have been. If there is one flaw, it is in having the aircraft procurement controlled by an organisation that is more concerned with it's own interests, hence the current manoeuvring for a split buy of F35A and F35B, perpetuating an inability to deploy from sea-based platforms, rather than maximising commonality and economies of scale.

Again - arguing about what this capability 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.

As for the B and the election, I am detecting another uptick in Marine activity, with a lot of PR aimed at the first planned operating locations, and the Commandant muttering about starting training before the AF/Navy team has conducted its planned review at Eglin. (Until the Corps can start to train at Eglin, it's stuck on its plans to start moving people and jets to the operating bases.)

Hi Mr Boffin,
As usual MANY thanks and I am guessing I have the same opinion as you regarding our Rana esculenta eating friends. Very much tongue in cheek.



Totally accept refuelling was never considered for the STOVL carrier and 100% agree with your thoughts on this issue.

My thoughts are that it is not beyond the realms of impossibility for potential enemies to fake an attack on our operational carriers, get the aircraft in the air and simply stand off as these things cannot tank and have a limited endurance.. Still I guess the powers that be have already considered that with the 'B'

I am glad to hear the build is going well and hopefully it will survive post 2015

Totally agree with LowObservable and we are going to see lots of powerful lobbying regarding this aircraft. I wonder just how thick the ice is that it might have to land on? Or should that be walk on?

Or skate on. That normally means thin ice.

We need this capability badly. We can only hope.

"My thoughts are that it is not beyond the realms of impossibility for potential enemies to fake an attack on our operational carriers, get the aircraft in the air and simply stand off as these things cannot tank and have a limited endurance.."

The USN carriers seem to have survived for decades with aircraft of even more limited endurance. In fact they haven't lost one, since 1945.

Peter, how many conflicts have they been involved in against comparable forces with the realistic ability to launch air, ship or submarine attacks against them? Particularly in the era of the super carrier?

dermedicus,

Maybe you have a point. Given the number of countries able to actually threaten an aircraft carrier is so low that not even the USA has bumped into one in the last 67 years, perhaps we should conclude that the risk isn't as high as some suggest.

I go back to a point I have tried to make before. Why is it that the carrier detractors always pick worst case scenarios to show how vulnerable carriers are...but never do the same for any other system?

If Typhoon was a carrier the recent flight of a Chinese Gen 5 fighter would have us all baying for an immediate cancellation of the project. If Challenger was a carrier we wouldn't have built it because the A-10 existed. If Lossie, Marham or Brize were carriers we'd mothball the lot because of the TLAM threat...you get the point.;)

Where have you been for the last 20 years? People have been baying for the project to be cancelled ever since the Wall came down - "a Cold War Relic" was amongst the kinder terms. The RAF purchase was severly curtailed and even Tranche 3 is limited - and even then only to replace airframes switched to fill the Saudi order.

If the carrier programme was handled the same way the QE and POW would be sold to India et al and a 3rd, smaller, single CVH would be ordered to keep the shipyards busy.... :ouch:

I like the way you make the point, Orca. To me, those are arguments for making the new carriers more capable, not less. Cats, traps, Super Hornets/F-35C, AEW, tankers, jammers, etc.

Your last sentence, ORAC, rings true too, but that would be all about money rather than threats/requirements.

Totally agree and from the air I would not fancy trying to 'spoil their day' but I wonder if these American Air Wings have tanking capabilities :oh: along with state of the art AEW support? :ok: What will the British carriers have to maintain defensive air cover when they are out of range of land based support?

I am not convinced we can play this big boy's game, to have the best, we have to pay for the best. If we cannot afford top players, can we play in the premiership and if so for how long?

Assuming an RW AEW capability (Crowsnest) emerges, QEC will have at least equivalent to CVS + SHAR + SKW in terms of air defence capability, but with the ability to embark many more cabs for both AD and strike. F35 is also longer-legged than SHAR and with limited supercruise to supersonic capability (good for intercept).

Implications of standardising on Dave-C
 

All,

I had an interesting chat with some thinktankers in town last week about the future of the US defence budget and the impact of sequestration. It was largely agreed that Dave-B is in serious trouble post election (unless Romney wins, in which case the spending cuts will allegedly fall elsewhere... allegedly), leaving the USMC with Dave-C, and the RN largely stuffed.

This led me to think about Dave-B, and was wondering what it would take - a la F-110A Spectre - for the US forces to standardise on Dave-C, with, presumably the USAF jets getting a UAARSI in the back. What would the difference in performance be, and (crucially) would it save any money?

S41

F-35C has a slower roll rate and other performance compromises that make it a noticeably worse air-air fighter than F-35A.

With many NATO nations relying on F-35A to be their sole fighter, that is a very important issue.


F-35C is significantly more expensive than F-35A... and no amount of production-number-shifting can cure that.
This is because of the differing materials and so on used in the carrier version.

If sequestration bites and the F-35B is cut, I would expect the Navy to take the opportunity to ditch the F-35C at the same time and standardise on the FA-18E/F/G until the X-47 and other lojng range UAVs can fill the attack role.

With China being the threat and with the range of shore based defenses the F-35C looks increasingly inadequate for the role.

That would leave the F-35A for the USAF and other partners - and the RN to ponder........