WEBF,

I find myself in agreement with you. The UK needs its carriers AND ALL THE STUFF THAT GOES WITH THEM. So we need the manning, the right aircraft and the right warships to go with them.

Would you argue that the it should be the very best aircraft available? So, -C. Build up the manning in good time to build the new fleet. Keep the build going for the Ds and Fs, counter mine, AEW, various helos, etc, etc.

Most of that is not my territory, obviously. But for God's sake, get the right air on those decks.

...

I never thought I would hear those words..

Has your account been hijacked?

Has Commander Ward spiked your drink? :ouch::ok:;)

I stand by your right hand side and also am in full agreement..

Stop paying the EU their £50m per day and we can EASILY finance both carriers..

I thought I read somewhere that if we get both carriers they will be expected to be operational for over 400 days per year!! If that is the case then how do we plan to man these ships along with the rest of the fleet? Taking sailors from other ships does not work as we only have a limited numbers and I doubt VERY much if there is any slack within their manning levels?

"operational for over 400 days per year"????

time to ease off on those meds glojo

Shhhh.

Two ships Milo..... two ships :)

Two ships at 365 days per year EACH equates to...... ahhhhhhh ummmmmmm

Okay, okay I got it = 730days IF they were both operational for the full period :):ok: ;)

Why drink and drive,
When I can take Pils
And fly

Pils ... pills .. Get it :O:O

some pils for you

http://www.visit4ads.com/sitecontent...0890-813-1.jpg

Shame that 1SL didin't argue the point made to Pompey News a bit stronger sooner...

Seems to me like an early heads up for the 2015 reiew that the Navy could do with an increase in manpower. The cuts have been made too deep and we now need more people to get the capability the politicians want.

Not sure it'll happen but it seems like a good strategy to me!

An on-going issue for all the UK armed forces is their inability to recruit - no-one yet has said where the 1600 plus sailors are going to come from for each of the new carriers for example

The army recruits Commonwealth soldiers on a large scale - some of the Scots regiments have appalling recruiting records- only the RAF seesm to be able to more or less balance leavers and joiners

Have seen a lot of Commonwealth sailors and marines in recent years, although the recruiting hasn't seemed to pay off in recent Army Fijians vs Navy Fijians rugby match at Twickers!:}

If recruiting is an issue then more effort needs to be made on retention. With the pension overhaul in 2015 though I can't see that happening :*

Just been reading some old political 'jaw, jaw' and I see that on the 30th November 2011 the US Senate Armed Services Committee approved the exchange of the third British F-35B for the F-35C. The airframe which was an early build was designated for the US Navy but instead the Americans kindly allowed it to be transferred across to the UK.

The UK government agreed to cover the costs of our F-35B being modified to the specifications required by the US Marine Corps????

This begs a few questions, firstly how much money, time and of course 'face' was wasted on this 'W' turn (W = two U's)

Did we exchange this 'B' way back in November? Rome was not built in a day and it could be that this agreement even though 'agreed' was actually torn up and we kept this aircraft.

Did we pay any money for any aircraft to be converted to Marine Corps specifications even though I am guessing we might not have made this exchange?? We seem to be giving the Marine Corps our 'Crown Jewels, so why not give them some money as well?

what are the differences between the Marine Corps 35B and the UK aircraft?

There is talk of our Fleet Air Arm pilots undergoing all their training in the USA... Even all their fixed wing training and are any current Navy pilots undergoing LSO training on the large super carriers and if so should we now be looking at putting our Navy pilots onto Marine carriers operating the harrier? Did we once operate this aircraft? :mad::mad:

We are all hearing dates when we should have an operational carrier but I find it interesting to read the words of Rear Admiral Hussain the Controller of the Navy and Senior Responsible Owner (SRO) in charge of the carrier programme confirm how the Royal Navy expects to be fully operational by 2031. It could be sooner or it might be later... Do we believe it will be sooner?

When asked to comment about each carrier only being at sea for 200 days per year, he stated it was an operational imperative for each carrier would stay at sea for 300 days a year Words are copied from his meeting with the Public Accounts Committee Meeting. My thoughts here are.... Is someone is being confused with 'sea time' as opposed to operational time? (question) for Milo that is 600 days per year for both carriers :ok:;) I don't see how we could take sailors away from the rest of the fleet for this manning, but if we can, then we can.

Glojo,

Armed Forces Committee were approving request made in 2010 post SDSR, took that long to be approved, just in time for us to change our mind again and want the 3rd STOVL jet back.:ugh:

If this appeared in a 'Yes Prime Minister' episode we would think they were being silly and nothing like that would ever really take place.

I used to be indecisive, but now I'm not so sure and I might be getting better at making decisions, what do you think?

To 'B' or not to 'B'

Would the 'C'... 'B' the aircraft to go to 'C'

:8:8Surprising what a bit of medication does to the old brain box.

"This begs a few questions, firstly how much money, time and of course 'face' was wasted on this 'W' turn (W = two U's) "

I read somewhere that it all cost nothing.

another question - was this ICAALS system ever evaluated - see Launch-Systems.com - Home

I found a report which shows the Americans were looking at an earlier version of it, but dropped it for the new carrier in favour of EMALS

I very much look forward to hearing where the extra people are coming from and how the pension reform coupled with 200 - 300 days of the year away from the wall is going to retain them. Sounds like a brilliant plan.

glojo - LSO progress is being made if not exactly 'in hand'.

Everyone will have their own opinion on which is closer to F-35B and QEC, a CVN deck or a USMC VSTOL deck. Given the complete change in vertical thrust philosophy and ease of handling one could argue that pilots' motor skills are irrelevant either way. As the deck will be big on QEC perhaps the deck choreography needs to be learnt on a CVN not a Wasp class. Then again I'm sure there is a counter argument that my long deceased grandmother could manage a deck the size of QEC with only a handful of jets on it!

Carrier strike is what we are buying the jet for which will be more akin to USN ops than USMC. But again, we could debate that into the night as well.

Long and the short of it is we've made a complete pig's ear of this so clarity of thought is no longer a privelege we enjoy. It's a goat.

I don't understand the issue of man power? At the moment the RN is manning both Lusty and Ocean. Both these ships will be replaced by the QE class, of which only one will be operational at any time.

Type 42s continue to be replaced by the less head count hungry 45s, and in the next decade the 23s will in turn be replaced by 26s - which will no doubt also show head count efficiencies. But the 1SL has already said, while he has enough to man 1 active CVF, if the UK decided to run them concurrently, he would need an increase. It ain't going to happen though. The reality will be that 1 CV and 1 LPD will be held in deep reserve, and rotated out to cover long refit periods. This should extend the lives of both classes of ships. I believe that CVF is built to last 50 years, so they might be still showing the flag beyond your children's lives. Not bad for £6bn!

UK swap F-35B for F-35C Details (not relevant now?)
 

'glojo' asked: "...Did we pay any money for any aircraft to be converted to Marine Corps specifications even though I am guessing we might not have made this exchange?? We seem to be giving the Marine Corps our 'Crown Jewels, so why not give them some money as well?

what are the differences between the Marine Corps 35B and the UK aircraft?..."


Vagaries Continue To Cloud U.K. F-35 Agenda Aug 15, 2011 By Robert Wall

Vagaries Continue To Cloud U.K. F-35 Agenda

“...Also still in process is an effort by the U.K. to switch one of three F-35s bought for the JSF test program from the “B” to the “C” model. The U.S. Congress must approve the move, as the U.S. would swap an F-35C to be bought in the sixth low-rate initial production (LRIP) lot for an F-35B the U.K. funded in LRIP 4.

The Pentagon says, “The proposed exchange would benefit both participants — the exchange would provide the U.S. with a Stovl aircraft 24 months earlier than planned to support maturity assessments and training needs; it would allow the U.K. to avoid the costs of a CV aircraft for operational test, and it would increase operational test capacity through the use of an instrumented CV aircraft in the LRIP 6 time frame.”

The move should come with no financial penalty to U.S. taxpayers. “The U.K. would bear the costs of upgrading and modifying the LRIP 4 Stovl aircraft to the more advanced LRIP 6 configuration. In addition, the U.K. would be responsible for bearing the costs of incorporating flight-test instrumentation of the CV aircraft as well as any other U.K.-unique CV aircraft requirements,” says the Pentagon. A U.K. defense official insists any costs associated with the change are already budgeted....”

We are always in a hurry to criticise this amazing aircraft and no doubt the doom and gloom merchants will dismiss this latest piece of information

F-35 Flight Test Progress

It's easy to be cynical...

... it says the -B will be flown by the USMC and the Italian Navy; do they know something we don't? :E

Willard, feel free to be cynical but those are all facts. Testing has improved significantly but still has a long way to go. (For info I don't work for LM!)

Interesting that LM have put out a statement of where the programme is that is relatively positive but only a tiny local newspaper publishes them..thank goodness for the internet.

Spaz - Wall's article was correct in Aug 11, if the UK wanted some special test wiring put in it would have had to pay for it. If we want to change anything we pay to be different. In this case the Pentagon were probably hinting at buddy refueling capability which would involve significant work.