Massive, major league hat tip to Think Defence.
This would be too good if true.
The Brits, who switched from the B model to the C model are now thinking about switching back to the B! From the Guardian...
Britain's troubled and increasingly expensive plan to equip the navy with new aircraft carriers has been plunged into fresh turmoil as ministers consider reversing their earlier decision to change the type of plane that should fly from them, it has emerged.Wow.
The government announced in last autumn's strategic defence review that it had decided to buy the "cats and flaps" (catapults and arrester gear) version of the US joint strike fighter. This would have a "longer range and greater payload ... the critical requirement for precision-strike operations in the future", the government stated.
Moreover, the government added, it will be cheaper. It would also enable French planes to land on British carriers, and vice versa, inkeeping with the new UK-French defence spirit of co-operation.
Now, in an extraordinary volte-face, the Ministry of Defence says the "cats and flaps" planes may well be cheaper but it would be too expensive to redesign a carrier – more than £1bn – to accommodate them. The ministry is thus faced with the prospect of renegotiating a deal with the US, reverting to its original plan – namely buying the short take-off and vertical landing version of the aircraft, even though it is acknowledged to be less effective and more expensive .
The latest chapter in the troubled saga of Britain's future aircraft carriers – whose own estimated costs have soared – was raised on Thursday in a letter to the defence secretary, Philip Hammond, from Jim Murphy, his Labour opposite number.
Murphy referred to "worrying suggestions" that the government was about to change its mind about the kind of aircraft to buy from the US. "It is vital that there is now clarity on the government's plans for this vital area of the defence equipment programme," he wrote.
Murphy said the decision in the defence review to scrap the Harrier fleet meant the UK would have no carrier aircraft capability until 2020 – and then only one carrier would be operational.
Defence officials said that the government was "re-assessing" its earlier decision because, they indicated, of pressures on the defence budget.
HMS Queen Elizabeth, the first carrier, will be mothballed immediately it is launched in 2016, according to existing plans. The second, HMS Prince of Wales, will be able to put to sea by 2020, but it is not known how many planes will be able to fly from it – nor what kind.
The two carriers, originally priced at £3.5bn, are now estimated to cost £6.2bn. According to the Commons public accounts committee, the cost is likely to icrease to as much as £12bn.
The government, which originally said it wanted more than 100 joint strike fighters, says that it will have just six operational ones by 2020. The unit cost of the joint strike fighter, made by Lockheed Martin, has soared because of production problems and delays caused by US defence budget cuts. Britain's BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce have big stakes in a future deal adapting the joint strike fighter for British forces.
A spokesperson for the MoD said: "We are currently finalising the 2012-13 budget and balancing the equipment plan. As part of this process, we are reviewing all programmes, including elements of the carrier strike programme, to validate costs and ensure risks are properly managed. The defence secretary expects to announce the outcome of this process to parliament before Easter."
Just freaking wow. But before I get too happy I wonder if we're not seeing a bit of interservice politics. With the B model the Joint Forces setup established with the Harrier would continue and you would see Royal Air Force pilots flying off the Navy's flat top.
With the C model it would likely be too expensive to have Royal Air Force pilots trained to fly off and land on these conventional carriers.
It appears on second thought that there is more to this than meets the eye.
Just for the fact alone the "C" variant could land on French and American decks (think Lybya) it would be worth it for them to stick with the "C" variant and buck up a billion pounds for the redesign of their 2 new "Elizabeth Class" carriers. They already have excellent training methods which would be backed probably by carrier training in the US, they can adapt, they'll have to and quickly. I love the F-35B, but I think having an ally with 2 carriers with greater range and lethality to match our 10 carriers, wouldn't hurt. We can still sell the "B" variant to the Italians, Australians etc., they're heavily vested in amphibious ships, just like our beloved Marine Corps The Brits are lucky that even we don't know what we're doing with F-35 program right now, they probably do have a window to waffle back and forth.
ReplyDeleteIt's just stunning that when they did the original analysis they didn't have a firm grip on what the conversion would cost and that now they're balking at the price.
ReplyDeleteIn my view the entire matter was a smokescreen for only making one of the two carriers operational and then also cutting the total F-35 buy. Now with plans firmly in place for the first carrier to go into storage when completed someone figured out they can save even more pounds by just going with the B and forgetting the conversion.
It would probably wasn't also lost on them that going CATOBAR meant they'd look foolish not going with the E-2 as well but going back to the B means they can just stick with the AEW helicopters.
Frankly the moment they decided they can't afford to operate two carriers but they had to finish building both the entire program became a bit surreal. As someone who's been a very long time admirer of the RN the whole matter just fits into the continual decline of the RN. One could see the writing on the wall when Sea Harrier was retired for FAA but the decline in submarines and surface combatants has been painful to witness.
Lane:
ReplyDeletetotally agree.
Keither:
the problem with the idea of so many training opportunities with the C model is the sad fact that only two western navies operate big deck catapult carriers. the US and French. the USMC has big deck amphibs and so do the Italians, Spain, Australia, S. Korea, Japan and soon Singapore.
want to talk about opportunities. there you have it. additionally the USN has as many big deck amphibs as they do carriers.
Cant take any article seriously which calls C model "cats and flaps" and not "cats and traps". Poor effort Guardian, shows a lack of expertise and research.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't get too excited about this.
ReplyDeleteFirstly; the Guardian is the flag-waver for the Liberal Left, and exists to make trouble for any government that is even mildly right of centre. It pounces on anything that may paint the government as incompetent or indecisive. This is a particularly hypocritical stance on defence matters, as the God-awful Guardian and its readers would happily see our entire armed forces consigned to the dustbin of history and, replaced by kind words and an elite team of fucking interpretative dancers!
Secondly; I have spent many years learning to interpret British Government announcements and the press reaction to them. What the MoD said was 'we are currently finalising the 2012-13 budget and balancing the equipment plan. As part of this process, we are reviewing all programmes, including elements of the carrier strike programme'. This is absolutely standard 'neither confirm nor deny' government speak. The deliberately vague nature of these communications allows the press to make of it what they will, and they do, and they are usually wrong.
I would bet a beer to a kick in the arse that there is nothing to this story. In reviewing spending, all programmes are included, just as senior commanders model even vanishingly unlikely scenarios - to be prepared. This absolutely stinks of a Guardian red-herring allowing Labour to make trouble in the House. I would remind all that EMALS and AAG have been ordered for Prince of Wales.
Off topic question...
ReplyDeleteI had always assumed that the cannon pod for the F-35B/C would incorporate some of the same low-observable technology as the airframe. When you first posted pictures with the pod and pylons I was surprised.
I know that carrying any external stores negates (or at least reduces) the stealth characteristics of the aircraft, but for something as straightforward as a cannon pod, why use a 4th generation fighter shape instead of a low-observable shape?
external stores automatically cancels any thoughts at stealth. if the gun is carried it automatically loses its stealth but the shape of the pod indicates that it might have low observable characteristics.
ReplyDelete