Thats not true
Theres no reason why you can't investigate technology independently of actual production. Used to happen in the past: the P.1127 is a good example, the Fairy Delta another. or more recently, the work on the rewinged FBW "unstable" Jaguar (sorry, I can't remember the acronym for it)
Those sort of aircraft all provided technical information as to what was possible - and could be used in a new model
Even the Spitfire was only possible because of the work on the Schneider Trophy aircraft - which were basically pure experiments

Milo Minderbinder,

I totally agree that in a perfect world that lots of different technologies would be developed and tested. Unfortunately companies need to make a profit to keep shareholders happy and to not go bankrupt, so development when their are no sales won't be perceived as being acceptable. The governments of today can't afford to fund such projects either. A slight generalisation there as it does happen, but on a small scale. We also rarely see the type of persons who are generous enough to aid such developments through magnanimity these days.

The Jaguar FBW aircraft was called Active Control Technology (ACT). Registration was XX765.

>>>The F-35 series of fighters are highly complex systems that will work, sometime.


I doubt it.

The F35b carries a large lift-fan, when there is no need for one whatsoever. It has trouble transitioning to the hover, because of fan door and airflow issues. It cannot go supersonic without returning to base after five minutes. It cannot vector in flight. The 'c' version cannot catch a cable, without a hook so long you could see it on your weather radar. And now to increase performance, it has external stores - "hey, Bud, why can every radar in Eyerakk see me?" Duhhhhh...

So in the end, after all this computer designed cutting edge technology, we will not get anything better than the 1970s Harrier. Happy days.

The theory for bigger carriers was sound.

No it wasn't. A nation has to live according to its budget. To have had four smaller carriers would have been much more flexible and probably cheaper (economies of scale) than two large ones. It was the most stupid idea ever, and who knows why the Admiralty fell for it.

Utter hoop I'm afraid. Every single study by any nation on taking aircraft to sea since the 1970s has conclusively demonstrated that both in terms of UPC and also operating costs, economy of scale favours larger ships. Or do you really think duplicating the required facilities and personnel for ops across more ships can somehow work out cheaper?

The external stores issue is to allow for flexibility in a situation where additional weapons / fuel might be more useful for that particular situation than an LO configuration.

As for the debate on aarse about survivability, that too is being conducted from a level of misconception as to STOVL ops. The nub of the argument appears to be that "a bomb crater" in the flightdeck will preclude cat n'trap operations. This conveniently misses the point that there will be two cats in different locations and also that without access to a ski-ramp and it's runway, which is a larger target than a cat and might therefore be statistically more likely to suffer damage, STO becomes VTO which is just about enough to get you off the deck to circle the ship and then land again. There are some detailed differences in survivability between the two modes, but the actual delta is literally in single figures of percent.

These things have been done to death years ago if you know where to look.

A perfect Sir Humpreyesque summation......

And IMHO, the most likely scenario that will occur.

Silverstrata,

The Harrier had its' own complexities and design limitations. Perhaps the additional lift fan is an attempt to get around these limitations. All aircraft development programmes suffer problems. These are resolved.

I don't see a design fault with the fan door as being a major problem. Most aircraft undergo inlet design changes. As for being unable to catch a cable, that is a current problem that will be resolved also.

Having written the above, I have never been a supporter of over complex kit. Adding things just means there is something else to go wrong. Complex things go wrong more often.

Personally I can't see why they didn't take the basic Harrier principle further by producing a supersonic airframe. Wouldn't look the same but there is an awful lot of technology in the Harrier to provide a base line to start from.

Not_a_boffin,

You are correct in what you write. I would write though that redundancy is provided by having four smaller ships. I would also like to add that there is no point starting to build ships when one is going to be sold (probably) leaving us with one ship. From my experience you really need to have three/ four ships to provide full time use. You normally have two in various stages of refit and upgrades, one sailing back to port and one sailing out from port.

The fact that we can't afford any ships is irrelevant. Think of all those wasted billions that could have been used to purchase further Astute class submarines or Type 45 Destroyers.

Guys,

Just a little proportion here.

Yes, the UK is broke and any defence spending is going to strain the budgets, which are broken anyway, but...

The carriers are not going to 'cripple the Defence budget for years'.Let's look at some NAO figures. Last cost to completion for QE2 class carriers was £5.1bn. Let's look at some other programmes. How about Typhoon, which the NAO reports will cost £20.2bn for 160 aircraft, with total cost of £37bn. How about FSTA at £12bn, or perhaps Meteor at £1.15bn?

Yes, choices have to be made. I'm damn glad I don't have to make them. But the carriers are one part of a broken budget. Personally, I'm not convinced that spending £37bn on an AD aircraft with a very secondary AG capability represents best value for money right now, but I'm not the guy making the calls.

Just a response to silverstrata -

1. The F-35B does not have 'trouble' doing a transition to the hover. It did, that's why the lift fan door was redesigned after the X-35 programme. Now it doesn't. Oh, and a Brit led the redesign.

2. The B needs a lift fan because it is required to land vertically. It's a STOVL aircraft. Sorry if this sounds obvious - but it is.

3. The B can't vector in flight because there was no requirement for it to do so. Harrier doesn't use VIFF operationally.

4. The B (and A and C) has issues right now with supersonic flight due to heat effects on the aft fuselage. This will be fixed.

5. The C has experienced problems with arresting gear tests. A longer hook probably wouldn't be the fix they will choose - they're looking at hook tip and damper rates. If these don't work, they are in real trouble - but they're not, not yet.

6. Like every variant of the F-35, the C is designed to carry external stores as an option when really 'low' LO isn't required. It's a requirement to give flexibility to the system, unlike the F-117, B-2 and other legacy stealth aircraft.

HVAL - sadly, all the studies carried out for around 15 years by the UK and the US showed that the Harrier layout would just not go supersonic in any meaningful way, and carry the avionics and internal stores required. LM were right to go for a concept that split the lift fan and thrust engine and put the thrust engine at the back of the aircraft.

Have a pop at the aircraft by all means - it's a free forum. But look at the facts, then make up your mind. And make any judgement you like - free country.

Very Best Regards

Engines

Engines,

Apologies, I obviously wasn't clear in what I wrote (making pesto and typing at the same time is not a good idea). I agree the current Harrier airframe can not be made to go supersonic. I was talking about a new airframe with some of the Harrier ideas used.

Personally I don't like the F-35 aircraft, but then I was not fond of the Tornado. That eventually became a good aircraft. I do believe that the F-35 will work.

HVAL,

Thanks for coming back - hope the pesto turned out right!

The basic problem with the Harrier concept (one engine providing both lift and thrust) was that to get the thrust required to allow a sensibly capable combat aircraft (around 35 to 40 thousand pounds) to hover required an engine just too big for sustained supersonic flight. Cross section got too big, and using hot gas to provide the main lift effort just didn't work.

The other problem with a big engine in the middle of the aircraft, driven by CG, is that it displaces lots of other stuff you want to put there. One of the major issues with the F-35 weight saving effort was to redesign the aircraft to put lots of bits and pieces back in their proper places. Having a dirty great engine in the middle makes that even harder.

Oner good thing to take away from this thread - STOVL is insanely hard. Supersonic, stealthy STOVL is even harder. Getting the F-35B to where it is, and making it part of a whole family of combat aircraft, is even harder than that. And here's the thing - this achievement (and it is a massive achievement) has included many extremely talented Brits doing things that our American friends could not do. Once in a while, it would be nice to celebrate that.

Hope this helps,

Best Regards

Engines

Engines,

Thanks for your response, much appreciated. Your explanation is clear and simple to understand.

I totally agree with your last paragraph.

Pesto did turn out alright; eventually. As I was making it I knew I had left something out but couldn't think what. It was the parmesan. It was only when I was making the pasta that I remembered what I had left out. I hurriedly effected modification.

A voyage to the bottom of the Internet yielded an actual link to the story Orac cited above:

Gulf Times ? Qatar?s top-selling English daily newspaper - Britain/Ireland

Cameron had been asked by his defence department, and the Navy in particular, to say that Britain would like to buy the limited Short Take Off Vertical Landing version of the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter for its two new aircraft carriers...

With the spiralling cost of the catapult apparatus, the Navy switched back to the Stovl or “jump jet version” — grandson of the Harrier — for the new plane. Although the plane is very limited in range and payload, it might enable the Navy to afford both carriers to be fully equipped.

This was to be explained to President Obama. However, voices from Washington suggest that the president said this was no option at all...

It is being circulated that the US is now likely to order only four squadrons of the jump-jet “B” version for the US Marine Corps. Since this would be a maximum of about 65 planes, it is now thought in Washington that this is all a preliminary to cancelling the “B” version altogether.

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond appears to have been asked by Cameron “to go through the figures again” with a view to buying the more expensive “B” F-35 and more expensive carrier with “cats and traps” for the aircraft. No announcement is expected before Easter.

OK, this may be full of :mad:. But this is not the work of the guy who covers TOWIE the other four days a week:

Full profile | guardian.co.uk

Curiouser and curiouser.

Hval

I understand your point. However, that level of refit/upgrade activity is not typical of what the RN has generally managed over the last 15 years of operating two CVS and one in reserve. The constraint is always the ships complement and (usually) not buying sufficient aircraft / aircrew to maintain 1CAG per ship.

Personally I'd be surprised if whichever of the two QEC doesn't enter service is actually sold. Partly because there are unlikely to be "acceptable" buyers and partly because if we manage to get both ships in the same configuration, you could run them as we do the LPD.

Additional T45 and Astute are of limited value if you don't have the full-spectrum capability (ie organic air) to do proper Fleet ops. This is the conundrum; either have the balanced fleet with the three core capabilities endorsed by every government over the last thirty years, or; build a small coastal fleet of FAC, OPV and MCMV and stay home. A posture that incidentally has similar implications for the Army & RAF.

Not_a_boffin,

I agree that we need a complete range of systems to provide adequate defence, whether this be Navy, Army or Royal Air Force. This need includes aircraft carriers (with aircraft).

Unfortunately there are many items missing, including LRMP, sufficient ASW asets, sufficient air defence assets, sufficient submarines, manpower etc. It therefore comes down to what provides maximum protection for the money available. The system must be robust. I really don't feel that the aircraft carrier are it.

As for a coastal fleet. I do feel that we need to increase the size of this.

It will be interesting to see what does happen with the aircraft carriers and the aircraft that should go with them.

Read it and weep.
The good news keeps on coming
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/03/20/mo...inty-for-f-35/

F35B probation lift "meaningless"
Software, software, software
Helmet problems that just wont go away
Price inflation for the umptiest time
overall cost now close to 400billion (up from 382)
still design changes expected
testing still at a very low (but steady) pace
rework finished frames 372 million$ on already produced frames payed by government, total = 1 billion$
More specifically on the 'B'
but most remarkable

... they did!

http://www.bisbos.com/rocketscience/...-Tychon-2m.jpg

P1154...cancelled in 1965 :ugh:

Cool what-if art... Sadly, though, the PCB (front nozzle reheat) on landing would have been a bit of a sodder in terms of ground environment. Even worse than the Bs back end!

True LowObs, but they'd have had 47 years to sort it out ....... :ugh:

And IIRC was to have been a single-seater for the crabs, and a tandem for the WAFUs.

Supersonic vertical lander.
 

Many people have asked me why we never did a supersonic Harrier. My answer to them all was that the Harrier layout did not allow it. To fly supersonically requires an engine specifically designed to produce a very high speed exhaust. In other words the nature of the thrust is important, not just the amount of it.

The physics behind this are remarkably simple. The thrust of a jet engine is calculated by multiplying together just two numbers M and V. M is the mass or amount of air passing through the engine in a given time (pounds per second using the units I was taught at school) while V is the speed increase that the engine imparts to the air as it passes through the engine (feet per second in my day).

With both the Harrier (a typical subsonic fighter) and the F-16 (a typical supersonic fighter) the product of M x V is about 20,000. However the difference between the two aircraft is that the Harrier engine gets its 20,000 by using a big value of M and a modest value of V while the F-16 engine uses a modest value of M but gives it a bigger V.

While 20,000 lb of thrust is plenty to get a small fighter supersonic, it will only do so if the V component of that 20,000 is big enough.

The Harrier engine deliberately uses a small V because a big V would have the ability to damage the surface below it during a VTO and, if not the surface then the under-surfaces of the aircraft itself. Additionally and very importantly, an engine that produces a big V can only do this by making the exhaust very hot. Immersing the bottom of a Harrier and its rubber tyres in such a hot environment would clearly not work.

Helicopters are subject to the same physics regarding thrust so, in the case of a large 20,000 lb helicopter, it uses a huge M (captured by the rotor) and gives it a very small V (the downwash we can feel or see blowing stuff about under a helicopter) but the product is still 20,000.

All this means that you need a different configuration of aircraft from that of the Harrier if you want to produce a practical supersonic vertical landing aircraft.

Finally, any succesful jet lift vertical landing design MUST as in ABSOLUTELY MUST keep efflux that has had fuel burned in it out of the intake during VTO or VL. The Harrier does this by having a front nozzle efflux that splashes reawards and stops the hot air coming forwards. The B does the same thing using the fan efflux.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...JSFexhaust.jpg

So true. Hot gas ingestion is bad. HGI into the lift fan would be doubleplus ugly.

John,

Thanks for your response.

Do you know if research was carried out on variable pitch stators with variable pitch rotors, an infinitely variable gearbox and a variable inlet with respect to the Harrier?

I know that Pegasus 5 onwards had variable inlet guides.

I do know GE had variable pitch stators on the J-79

I am thinking about if the whole lot were looked at together.

Isn't there enough 'bring back the Harrier that did make it into service' without starting on one that didn't? :cool:

Anyway, the RN version was going to be two seat, so would never have been acceptable to that Ward bloke. I guess, in a way, it lost out to the Phantom. Oh, well.

At the end of the day, none of this will change the F-35 at this stage.

Indeed not. There was an opportunity to change when the B was put on probation, which I thought had effectively decoupled it from the other two versions. Reading more here of the technical complexities of STVOL, in a supersonic format to boot, it seems that developing this version separately from the A & C has a lot of merit. Admittedly the original concept of high commonality between all the versions would have been knocked sideways, but the whole programme is being knocked in every direction (barring fast-forward) anyway so what the heck?

Maybe the B would have to lose some Lo capability and perhaps even it's supersonic capability too, but that must be pretty limited already. Bit of a bugger that STOVL requirements had already complicated the conventional variants, but we are where we are.

Lowe Flieger is a bear of very limited technical brain, so if this is either hokum, or has already been commented by someone with greater knowledge, apologies for the interruption. And to Mr Farley, thank you for a very clear, concise explanation which even I could follow.

If you want to go down the route of alternative Harrier developments, take a look at this list of "what might have beens"
Kingston Projects

These two look interesting
http://www.harrier.org.uk/history/images/p1214.jpghttp://www.harrier.org.uk/history/images/1216-2a.jpg

Engines, I'll concede that it may not cripple the Defence budget but it will take a significant portion from a dwindling pot. What neither of us knows is what the through life cost will actually be for running them for 30 or 40 years,
- refit every 2 - 3 years?
- Compatible aircraft and crews (Many Ppruners stressing how much training is needed to keep carrier current and how you can't have a break in it)
- Ships crew and other FAA staff
- thorough training to make it
- facilities large enough to dock and refit
- Escort ships, support ships and a sub (This will be target number 1 for any naval adversary)
- Additional maintenance of operating near salt water?
- Rescue helicopters
- Attrition is a hazardous environment
- etc.

£5.1 billion is the new starting figure, not the final cost.

I am a strong supporter of the RN and understand the value of deployed ships and the capabilities they can provide, but I think the new carriers will create an unbalanced force and divert money from where the RN should be spending it, we have only really needed the capability once in the last 50 or 60 years. Especially as the Carriers look rather weak in some areas of defence due no doubt to deleting items due to cost overruns.

Back to the F-35, IF we assume the B and C will work (given a blank cheque) the only reason for going B is because there is not enough deck to fly C from? The B compromises payload and performance and is for smaller Assault Carriers or those "Helicopter" Carriers you have just sneaked past your parliament :ok:

Why pay all that money to keep that much floating real estate where you want it and not provide the best bang for buck? If you have a day one strike aircraft surely you want to be able to reach all those day one targets which may well be further away, or move the ship closer to the threat :\

The company and various interested parties promise comic book capabilities and ignore any facts that don't suit the program, e.g: It will be a quantum leap in ISTAR and do the job of x, y and z. Question, what will do it for the other 23 hours of the day? It relies on LO to survive against emerging threats which will out speed, range, payload and manoeuvre it already. Question, to be useful after day 1 it needs an external fit increasing signature and further restricting speed and manoeuvre? (If the LO survives embarked Ops). The single pilot will have massive amounts of information, but it is fine the computer will do everything. Question, really? data fusion is never simple but always looks good on the sales video and in the Sim.
If they were at all realistic in what it was and where it fitted in I might trust them, but it seems the answer is F-35 we just need to write the requirement.

is this a PR campaign to prepare the ground for cancellation of the B and large curbacks in orders?

Pentagon: Trillion-Dollar Jet on Brink of Budgetary Disaster

Hmm, doesn't look good, does it? I do like the use of the term, 'Safety Woes'. I can definitely see a military application as in:

ORAC - Looks like a hatchet job to me :8.

CM - American journos are trained to write like that, as well as using terms like "beleaguered", "troubled" or "embattled". I have often attempted to gauge whether those denote different degrees of severity. I did see a reference to "embattled golfer Tiger Woods", suggesting that the word is also a synonym for "horny".

Milo - The aft-swept twin-boom design is the P.1216, which has become an icon among fighter-tech geeks:



LF - A few people (myself included) dragged up the idea of an "Airbus concept" for JSF, at a point when both X-planes were in trouble: that is, a lot of common subsystems, materials and processes, and a shared supply chain, but with airframes tailored to what was needed.

It was never considered with any seriousness because (1) the UK and Marines were agin it, because it would reveal how much STOVL would really cost, and (2) LockMart and the JPO were telling sweet, sweet porky-pies about how cheap and easy the whole thing would be to develop. build and operate.

I am the first to accept the age of the Harrier is over... It is gone, it is deceased, It is an ex aircraft but by God there should be a serious, and honest inquiry into its removal from service. The biggest order for the F-35B is the US Marine Corps, and that organisation clearly saw issues with that aircraft and decided it is not going to arrive anytime soon so what do they do? They BUY our Harrier fleet at an embarrassing give away price. This was done just so they could keep an air presence. WHO IS ADVISING OUR GOVERNMENT MINISTERS regarding this fiasco???

Last year I stated I could not see us having an OPERATIONAL carrier complete with air wing before the early 2030's. that was said very much tongue in cheek but by crikey it is looking a more realistic date by the hour and I also ask do we still believe we will get ANY type of fast fixed wing jets for these carriers? I am just hoping all this hype, the journalistic frenzy is just hot air but if just 25% of what we read is true, then this is a huge cluster mistake... I do not believe for one milli-second that the software issue is only applicable to one model.

There will be no buyback of Harrier, or Harrier replacement. Given yesterday's budget, it would be the pensioners who seem to want it who will be asked to pay for it. Careful what you wish for. Mind you, that might be better than pensioners paying for George's mates' next bottle of bubbly.
Frankly, what happens to the B model is as likely to depend on US election PR as anything else this year - Obama has just pushed building half the XL pipeline whilst visiting Oklahoma having cancelled all of it to keep the Montana treehuggers happy. Given the state of US finances, I think the B model is dead.

QUOTE]but I think the new carriers will create an unbalanced force and divert money from where the RN should be spending it, we have only really needed the capability once in the last 50 or 60 years. [/QUOTE]

Ivan Rogov,

I am afraid you are twisting the truth a bit here. The reason that the RN (FAA) have not been in more action since 1979, when HMS Ark Royal was de-commisioned, was due to the compromised capability of CVS.

Falklands Conflict - FAA heavily involved
First Gulf War - FAA contribution compromised due to performance of SHAR operating in hot weather conditions off a short deck
OP Deny Flight Bosnia - FAA Heavily involved including SHAR where the aircraft flew CAP, RECCE, CAS - Compromised operation due to capacity of the CVF (numbers of aircraft it could carry). FAA fully contributed to the NATO effort, particularly when shorebased assets were cancelled due to fog.
Sierra Leone - FAA haevily involved
Second Gulf War - FAA heavily involved in assault on Al-Faw. HMS Ark Royal spent 190 days at sea. Harrier Force limited involvement due, once again compromise of capability when operating off a short deck, in hot conditions with limited numbers.
Afghanistan - FAA heavily involved but as land bases were available, quite rightly operated ashore. USN regularly provided support from a Carrier stationed west of Pakistan (up to 30%). CVS capability compromised.
Libya - FAA involved except for fixed wing as capability had been removed thereby removing the ability to CONTRIBUTE to the combined effort.

There are other examples. The RN has, learnt over the last 30 years the cost of not having a large enough deck to operate aircraft off. Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales are attempts to correct that situation. Whilst the Invincible class through deck cruisers were a good attempt to make the best of a bad job, they were and are, compromised because of their size. Those who argue that replacement of these assets with something of a similar size are missing the point.

If the RN is, in the future, to contribute towards the UK's strategic and operational objectives, it has to have the tools to exert influence, which does not just include boots on the ground or the Red Arrows.

QE and POW, with whatever jet (plus MASC and lift) will be able to:

Exert Defence Diplomacy
Provide the UK with the ability to exert pressure without actually setting foot in a country and exert that influence over a long period of time.
Promote UK trade and Business
Make a full contribution to NATO and our other allies
Improve interoperability particularly with the French
Protect those little bits of rock we still have around the world that are surrounded with Oil/Gas/Fish etc.
Protect troops on the ground
Provide a platform for future UAV operations
Conduct Ship to objective manouvre (over long distances)
Provide engineering, medical and support facilities
Support the RAF ashore
Help retain the UK's claim to British Antarctic Territory
Provide disaster relief
Provide non combatant evacuation
Support other nations with whom we have strategic agreements.

Etc Etc Etc

No other UK asset will be able to fulfill all these tasks, some can individually but, QE and POW will be a huge asset for the UK in both peace and war. When all that is considered, those ships will be very much well worth the investment. The only question is:

WHAT AIRCRAFT CAN WE AFFORD TO OPERATE?

I've just been watching the Politics show and Tim Collins and Andy Murphy have both been on speaking admirably of the need for aircraft carriers and with the original B variant JSF; because, as Jim Murphy says, the Harrier is seen as a traditional carrier design and then spoke disparagingly about the SDSR move toward, a he sees it, Top Gun American style conventional carrier operated F35Cs. Colonel Collins, a strong believer in an Expeditionary Army being maintained and seemingly forever more in Afghanistan, also thinks that carriers are indispensible. This is the same Tim Collins, who back in 2006 called for the disbandment of the R.A.F.:*

FB:)

Widger,

You have extolled the virtues of a UK carrier capability. I would love for us to be able to return to the days of my youth when we had proper fighters launched from proper carriers, capable of doing the things you've expounded.

The question is, can we afford to do carrier capability and do it justice? There is already comment in this thread about the supporting capabilities and assets necessary to screen and protect your carrier from all the venom that will be focused on it in a hostile situation: from aircraft, missiles, ships large and small, submarines and everything else the bad guys have available. So even if the capital and sustainment costs of the carrier are manageable when spread over 40+ years, what about the MPA, AEW, EW, destroyers, frigates, submarines, support ships, crews and so on? Can we afford enough, capable, offensive and defensive airframes (estimated 12 F35s by 2025 e&oe)?

If we have the money and political will to fund the full suite of carrier capabilities, I'm with you all the way.

If we don't (which is the miserable reality) let's not risk valuable lives and expensive kit by sending them into danger with half the capability needed to effectively project and self-protect. We may get away with it if acting in concert with someone who can fill the gaps, but if we're on our own, any missing capabilities could be disastrous.

Right now, we are at very real risk of a carrier (singular) with no fighters, or none in the foreseeable future, that can do the job that is a carrier's primary reason for being there.

Since the carriers were first a twinkle in Gordon's (electorate-focussed) eye, I have held the view that I will turn up my toes long before I am in any danger of stubbing them on a fully capable, full-sized, fixed-wing, operational British aircraft carrier. 14 years on, and I am closer to one of these eventualities. It is with a heavy heart and a deep sigh that I am not considering buying protective footwear, so I am being totally truthful when I say I want to be very, very wrong, very, very much.

A. The size of a carrier is driven by the required daily sortie generation rate. The higher the SG rate the bigger the carrier and more catapults are needed, vv is true. SG rate drives deck size (for parking, launch and recovery), hangar size for re-generation, magazine size and lift etc etc. There is no special reason for the QE class being 65000 tons excepting the planned SGR.

B. What is the point in having a ship the size of QE if you can't operate allied a/c as well as your own?

C. If we revert to Dave B there is no Plan B. Stick with Dave C and Plan B can be Rafale, F-18 etc etc.

D. Vulnerability of QE is a red herring espoused usually by non-naval types.

E. The alternative of shore based FW is at least as great and expensive - assuming you have permission to operate in the first place, it is also unlikely to be a day 1 capability unless weeks/months of preparation have happened. QE will offer day 1 capability without the politics. Why else does the USN see the CVN as the most important capability in their arsenal.

I always liked the looks of the P103.

http://prototypes.free.fr/vtol/tilt-jet/BaeP.103_03.jpg

http://prototypes.free.fr/vtol/nouv1/baeP.103_01.jpg

Until I start to think.....

I suspect its "here wego again" with the F35 (whichever variant you choose). Here's hoping my memory doesn't fail me. Back in the very early 60s when I was a veryyoung SAC air radar mechanic (E) skill, (anyone remember them?) on a days dutytrip to the manufacturers airfield recovering black boxes from a Mk1 Vulcan thatwas going to be upgraded to a Mk1A. By sheercoincidence the then leader of the opposition ( well known for the "poundin your pocket" statement some years later) assured the workers at therally that was being held at the same time and same airfield (I was lurking inthe background with the rest of the team) that the then, under development,TSR2 (much enhanced and capable Canberra replacement I believe) would not becancelled should the electorate vote his party into power at the up and comingelection. Indeed he added "Thecancellation of the TSR2 has not been discussed by my party and there are noplans to terminate its development". Well we all know what happened next.:confused:

As an alternative to the now scrapped TSR2 the new governmentpromised that as a replacement the RAF would get the American F111 which, when,entering squadron service would be cheaper and more capable than the defunctTSR2. The F111 was under development inthe US. It was the first major swing wing aircraft tobe developed and the Americans werehaving problems with it, a couple had crashed and costs were escalating. The pound in your pocket government then gota severe attack of cold feet, cancelled the F111 and bought the Phantom. Incidentally, a surviving TSR2 is on displayat the museum at Cosford (and a beautiful mean machine she looks to). The F111 proved a most capable multi roleaircraft and is still in service with the USAF 40/50 years later having seenactive service from the Vietnam war onwards . The Phantom is long gone.

Fast forward to the next century and son of pound in yourpockets government announces that the RN is to get two 60,000 aircraft carriers(I looked across my desk at a serving wing commander, shook my head, andmuttered well that will never happen, he agreed). We then go through a period of costescalations, timescale amendments, one carrier or two questions, cats and trapsand VTOL/STOL? All very predictable andtrue to form. Then just when I thought I'd seen it, done it and heard it allthe successor of pound in your pocket government (lets call it "grandsonof never had it so good government") withdraws the Harriers and sells themto the USMC who I now suspect have an insurance policy should the F35B programmego the same way as the TSR2.

Predictions:-

a. Should the RN receive the two 60,000 aircraft carriers (which I very much doubt) they will be without cats & traps.

b. The F35B will be cancelled.

c. The USMC having further upgraded the ex British harriers refuses a lend lease agreement unless the British acknowledge that it was the US alone that broke the Enigma code and manned Bletchley Park.

d. The two carriers will (thanks to the miracle of politics) overnight become the long awaited and planned helicopter/commando carriers.

Alternative Prediction:-

The Indian and Spanish navies will each acquire a new Harrier capable flagship.

The auto-eject on that design would have been on a hair-trigger.

Which is, I guess, why Warton's STOVL dreams moved on to the pretty but more conventional looking P.112 and P.116

http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l2...988_12784L.jpg

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/3087/p112116yu9.jpg

When the price the US Marines were paying for these aircraft was announced I was amazed at this so called deal but was told we could only get what the buyer was prepared to pay! Now to my simple way of thinking, if there were going to be ANY delays in the F-35B those nations that are still operating the harrier are going to require more spares to keep their aircraft flying plus replacement aircraft for those that are no longer serviceable. Can I suggest that the stocks we had would therefore not devalue and the speed of disposal was not the best option?

I am NOT using hind sight when I make this comment, the F-35B was having problems LONG before we sold these aircraft the B was on probation because of problems but we sold those Harriers at a give away bargain basement price!! Hence my comment to perhaps have a re-look at this sale :O

Hi Course_profile
I have tried to keep my answer on topic regarding issues with the F-35 program as I am in TOTAL agreement with these wise words.
From a solely fiscal position could it be suggested that these assets were a gold mine whose value might only RAPIDLY increase? We get fobbed off with claims that these aircraft were old, or they were only going to be used as spares but the reality is:

Compare the UK version of the sale to the US version

UK
Compared to the US who purchased this major source of spares for the US Marine Corps
The reported price we got for those SEVENTY TWO (72) aircraft plus alleged hangers full of spare parts varies from between £34m to £116m and is that a good return or any type of value for money?

Yes I do have views on keeping those aircraft but as I say that has been flogged to death and is over....

APOLOGIES for the thread drift and back to the F-35B