http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9253377/About-turn-on-new-variant-of-carriers-fighter-plane.html

“Army units are not the only sacred cows likely to fall under Mr Hammond’s knife. Next week, he will ask the National Security Council to approve his decision to kill Dr Fox’s plan to put catapult-launched F35 fighters on the Royal Navy’s new aircraft carriers. Instead, the Coalition will opt for jump-jets, removing the costs of the catapult gear.

“The decision will be controversial, not least because military analysis suggests that catapult-launched planes pack more punch than jump-jets.

“So which is the better aircraft? ‘It depends on what you want to do. Different aircraft do different things. It’s about thinking about the military effect we want to deliver then working out the most cost-effective way to deliver it.’

“And what does it say about Dr Fox’s Strategic Defence and Security Review that, barely 18 months after publication, Mr Hammond is considering reversing one of its biggest decisions? ‘It says the facts have changed,’ he says, a tacit admission that the cost of the catapults was woefully underestimated in review.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9250879/Defence-Secretary-Philip-Hammond-a-business-brain-to-reshape-our-Forces.html

Have you got a link to that? Would make interesting reading I think.

Telegraph:
‘Two British carriers are being built, but one will be mothballed following the SDSR. Reverting to jump jets for both of them would not help American military planners, who want to be able to base a squadron of their own jets on a British carrier.
Separate accommodation is being built on board HMS Prince of Wales with communications facilities that would be for “US Eyes Only”.’

‘US Eyes only’

Is this where spending huge sums on the forces gets you nowadays? If it is, then more cuts are needed and that is something I thought I would never say. If we’re going to be this pathetic then we can surely be just as pathetic while spending less

Agreed,” Two operational European carriers in the Eastern Atlantic/Med might fit in rather well with the US desire to move its assets to the Pacific/Indian Oceans.”

And should that not be agreed to, there is strong pressure from Congress on Obama that Europe should pay for its own missile shield
- missiles in Poland are dummies for several years to come (appeasing Russia?)
- funnily enough, the site in Romania is becoming operational, and Turkey recently agreed to take a related radar station
- the 4 ABM ships that will be rotated out of Rota, starting 2015, are more a shield for Israel than for Europe

So it would only take one small adjustment, and the message basically would be “do your own”

1. The Australian defence minister has apparently decided to delay for atleast 12 months any decision to order F-35A’s for the RAAF beyond the 2 trials aircraft currently on firm order.

2. This produced quite a response from Tom Babbage of Lockheed warning of higher costs and calling on us to ‘stay the course’. Just how purchasing more aircrat from full production rather than LRIP slots would increase costs was unexplained.

P.S. On the matter of the US buying into your F-35B versus C decision. Maybe in its heart of hearts the US knows that it will be unable to sustain 11 carriers into the future. This would make 2 European cat and trap equipped carriers more inportant, even if it was one French one and one from the UK. Two operational European carriers in the Eastern Atlantic/Med might fit in rather well with the US desire to move its assets to the Pacific/Indian Oceans.

Labour may criticise the government for flip-flopping, but the error started with Labour by allowing the risk in the first place.

Have just tucked into some rather nice ice cream and finished a rant a thon on CVF and JCA.

Not going to have time to post it for another half day or so but just thought I would let you know its coming

But if the “B” is built only in low numbers and mostly for export then how much future development are the Americans going to give it?

Agree that continuing to develop Typhoon is a good insurance. It should continue because we will never afford enough F35 (of any kind) for FAA and RAF to do all the tasks they both want, so Typhoons will end up having to fill in.

100% the f35b is the a/c we should have always been buying and the one that we should be buying. The a/c is a massive jump from Harrier it range is actually very long not as long as the other two variants sure but plenty long enough for us it’s fuel/weapons capacity is actually close to that of tornado and I will add the kpps in range ect are actually very stressing for a fast jet far more so than typhoons was and the b in particular is following a short take-off in tropical area with engine due for overhaul. also the work that went into the supt and maintenance design of this a/c was very extensive. Itf we really wanted true long range them I’m going to say we should have kept nimrod. If you want to keep a tornado like range fast jet land based capability then in my view it’s quite simple but conformal and asea radar on typhoon. These 2 a/c will be entirely complementary and offer a capabilty weve never had hopefully the politics of a change don’t get in the way of the right choice

“CATOBAR not only means F35C but non-heli UAVs such as impressive looking Predator C.”

You are quite correct. There are about 9 sea harriers in storage and from the photos they look in good condition

http://www.demobbed.org.uk/aircraft.php?type=963

(btw good website with all out of service, stored aircraft in the UK)

Key issue here is future proof, Tefal Heads at BAE in Lancashire have been working on nothing but UAV systems since Typhoon was signed off years ago. STOVL CVF would be ok for now with F35B but couldn’t operate Predator or it’s replacements. Given that Predator is our most active and accurate CAS, stats aren’t available but probably launched more strikes over the past 12 months than any other UK aircraft/system. CATOBAR not only means F35C but non-heli UAVs such as impressive looking Predator C.

I highly disagree, boss!

Apart from that the Telegraph being unable to understand that USMC F-35Bs can also land on a STOVL-carrier, which basically is the singlemost ‘pathetic’ point in the post.

The whole story strenghtens signs, that the cancellation of the F-35B becomes evident. If this materializes, we should actually thank the USN for informing us, instead of reverting to F-35B and then having no suitable carrier.

If that is the case, the USN needs a medium carrier design quickly, as the LHAs are not F-35C-capable. The upcoming new school of officers is also less inclined to buy CVN-only. I say it once again: CVF is a major export success just to happen.

The main loser would be RR, but as they are a partner in the F-35-program, they will press for other work themselves. Maybe the second engine comes back on the table, which will be a major cost-reducer medium term.

From a cross-service standpoint, a CATOBAR-CVF is better capable to handling RAF-aircraft. F-35C will be the eventual Tornado-replacement, which in turn means, we get a lot more carrier-capable aircraft through “Joint Force Lightning” than we could otherwise afford.

The army-navy cooperation will get more problematic, at least if the CATOBAR-CVF is in carrier-mode.

Overall, I wonder if it will not be possible to just install arrester-wires and retain the sky-jump. Then we could operate F-35C or maybe even hook-equipped F-35A in STOBAR-mode.

I say hire out 30 AV8BPlus until 2022 when hopefully the C has matured. It’s quite good enough for third world carrier bashing and it re-builds our skills base. Trouble is of course, since the USMC might be looking at F35B cancellation, they might not be amenable

If strike missions are needed, a non-organic air wing, British, French or American, can be “tacked on” as support units, nothing says that all missions must be from the carrier’s own aircraft. I think the design purpose of the carrier actually got sidetracked when they slapped the F-35 program together with it. It came to be seen as a single system instead of 2 different systems entirely (one is a weapon, the other is support for the weapon or similar types of weapon).