Senior Downing Street sources say Mr Cameron has decided to follow the advice of military chiefs by abandoning plans to buy the conventional F-35C Joint Strike Fighter after costs soared by £1.8billion.
Instead, the Government will revert to the F-35B version which take off and land like the Harrier jump jet - a move they controversially axed in 2010.
No 10 officials said the rising cost of the aircraft and the fact that the conventional version of the aircraft is now badly delayed has forced the change of heart.
Pressing on with the refit could delay the £6.2billion HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales by another seven years - until 2027. This was considered ‘untenable, militarily and politically’, said one source.
The existing programme would also provide only one operable carrier, rather than two, because of the huge cost of installing an electromagnetic catapult system and arrester wires.
The F-35C warplanes are also too heavy to land on the deck of France’s Charles de Gaulle carrier. Compatibility with the French vessel was a key reason for ministers switching aircraft in the first place.
ThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1115 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (1 year 2 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 10760 times:
Not surprising. The switch to the F-35C by the UK was a political one not a military decision. The military only found out about the decision when the PMO announced it in the media.
Buying the C would have been much more expensive for the UK in the long run, and the UK government knew this. However, in the SDSR, converting to the C gave a convenient excuse to kick the can down the road and delay the CVFs, which suited the powers that be just fine. They didn't expect the extra costs to convert the CVF's to cat and trap to show up so fast and so soon.
ebj1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 2 Reply 3, posted (1 year 2 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 10603 times:
Quoting chuchoteur (Thread starter): The F-35C warplanes are also too heavy to land on the deck of France’s Charles de Gaulle carrier. Compatibility with the French vessel was a key reason for ministers switching aircraft in the first place.
chuchoteur From France, joined Sep 2006, 700 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (1 year 2 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 10585 times:
Quoting ebj1248650 (Reply 3): Quoting chuchoteur (Thread starter):
The F-35C warplanes are also too heavy to land on the deck of France’s Charles de Gaulle carrier. Compatibility with the French vessel was a key reason for ministers switching aircraft in the first place.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11742 posts, RR: 51 Reply 5, posted (1 year 2 months 3 days ago) and read 10553 times:
Quoting chuchoteur (Thread starter): The F-35C warplanes are also too heavy to land on the deck of France’s Charles de Gaulle carrier. Compatibility with the French vessel was a key reason for ministers switching aircraft in the first place.
That doesn't make any sense. The F-35C weighs less than the F/A-18E/F, which occasionally does operate from the deck of the Charles de Gaule during exercises with the USN.
moo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3615 posts, RR: 4 Reply 6, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 10486 times:
A little birdy has just told me that the UK is under tremendously massive pressure from the US to buy the F-35B over the C, and any decision will be on that basis rather than costs considerations.
There's no way the B is going to enter service and meet targets at current promises, it's not a great aircraft at all.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12735 posts, RR: 79 Reply 7, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 10392 times:
In 2010 the idea was to scrap Naval fast air for a decade, mothball one carrier building, convert the other during construction for the EM catapult - which was unproven, on a brand new vessel, with a complex new aircraft. Thus giving the RN a capability they last had in 1978.
Whatever could go wrong?
So the EM Cat conversion now looks more difficult, technically uncertain, much more risky and much more expensive. Along with at best, an IOC now at least in the middle of the next decade.
For all the difficulties of the F-35B, the UK knows VSTOL, the carriers building are ready for it, BOTH of them.
Even with the limitations, VSTOL at sea is by default simpler, safer, requires less crew, than CTOL.
F-35B has now done some successful sea trials, something some years away with the F-35C.
F-35C is no more certain than F-35B.
Both will most likely arrive, however, with F-35B some years before the other version.
The joint carrier idea with France was a political fix to justify the decisions in 2010 which angered many, bemused the rest.
I have seen F-35, that is one of the X-35B's, at the museum in Washington way back in 2004.
It was rather larger than I expected, perhaps you think that way with a single engined type.
How much of that crosses to the production F-35C I do not know, so I'm only a bit surprised about this issue with the French carrier.
All this mess could have been predicted 18 months ago.
Many did just that.
Cameron wanted to axe the CVF's, however he was angered to find out the contracts meant no money would be saved, quite the opposite.
Presumably it was OK for his party to do the exact same thing when they ordered Trident in the 1980's?
As quite a few exchanges in the House Of Commons has shown, for all his general ease at being PM, Cameron can turn very nasty when challenged/caught out. Not just by members of the opposition either.
Hence I think that the axing of the Harriers and Ark Royal was an act of pure political spite when he could not get his way with CVF. It was a last minute decision too.
Had both required significant expenditure to reach their planned out of service dates and still be viable, it would have been perhaps from a pure budgetary view, understandable. But they did not.
I still think F-35C has a place, not least as a partial Tornado GR-4 replacement. It makes more sense for the RAF than F-35B does.
Once the EM cats have been proven, by the USN, there is a case for refitting one of the CVF's to operate it.
LM have publicly stated that they do not have any problem with the UK switching from F-35B to C, presumably they'll be equally relaxed if they revert back again!
After that though, they'd probably want that to be an end to it.
F-35B is much better than any Harrier could be, from a ship where, for perhaps the first time in RN history post WW2, space will not be at a premium! And steel is cheap, air is free.
It's way better than nothing at all, which is where the EM Cat/F-35C was headed.
(I've been watching the classic, beautifully filmed BBC series 'Sailor' with followed HMS Ark Royal - the one before last - on a deployment to the US in 1976. You are struck by just how small that 50,000 carrier still was to operate F-4K's. Buccaneers too, though this aircraft was designed to be able to operate from smaller 30-35,000 ton Carriers like Victorious and Hermes .
The F-4 was not because as designed for the USN, it did not have to!)
It might be that the Government will still press ahead with the F-35C, since a return to the CVF plan they so mocked in 2010, will be very embarrassing.
RaginMav From United States of America, joined May 2004, 372 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 10330 times:
Quoting GDB (Reply 7): I still think F-35C has a place, not least as a partial Tornado GR-4 replacement. It makes more sense for the RAF than F-35B does.
Someone please educate me, why would the RAF not opt for the F-35A, ala USAF?
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12735 posts, RR: 79 Reply 9, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 10297 times:
Quoting RaginMav (Reply 8): Someone please educate me, why would the RAF not opt for the F-35A, ala USAF?
Different in flight refuelling system - boom receptacle. Though I think a probe could also be fitted.
F-35C has the longest range, so as a premier strike aircraft makes more sense for the RAF.
There is a larger UK industrial stake in F-35C compared to the -A, though neither has as much as with F-35B.
Plus, as stated, if in time a CVF was to be converted to EM Cats - once the vastly bigger provisioned and CTOL experienced USN has proved them - having F-35C already makes sense.
Rather than adapting F-35A for the RAF, then also getting the -C, with, as it seems is possible now, also having the F-35B in the fleet as well.
ThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1115 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 10124 times:
Quoting moo (Reply 6): A little birdy has just told me that the UK is under tremendously massive pressure from the US to buy the F-35B over the C, and any decision will be on that basis rather than costs considerations.
There's no way the B is going to enter service and meet targets at current promises, it's not a great aircraft at all.
The problem was redesigning and the costs of the EMALS. Instead of the expected £400m, it is believed the conversion would cost about £1.8bn, excluding any other design changes that are required to change from STOVL to CATOBAR. Not to mention the major developmental risks involved with EMALS; the UK would be the first nation to implement EMALS on a carrier, with all of the resulting technical issues.
I could see why EMALS was so attractive over a more traditional steam catapult design from a capabilities standpoint; EMALS is an incredibly powerful system that could theoretically launch a fully laden F-35C with the ship standing still and with no headwinds.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
That doesn't make any sense. The F-35C weighs less than the F/A-18E/F, which occasionally does operate from the deck of the Charles de Gaule during exercises with the USN.
The issue from my understanding has to do with CdG's design issues. CdG cannot launch a fully laden Rafale under a number of conditions, and since F-35C weights more than Rafale, this will pose a problem. CdG C-13 catapult isn't as capable as the USN versions are in terms of launch power and it will pose problems for F-35C operations. It is very likely that because too many compromises were made in CdG's design (such as propulsion, etc), she might be retired early and a replacement carrier sought.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12735 posts, RR: 79 Reply 12, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 10103 times:
Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 11): CdG C-13 catapult isn't as capable as the USN versions are in terms of launch power and it will pose problems for F-35C operations.
Maybe that vessel should get EMALS, at mid life refit?
Eagleboy From Niue, joined Dec 2009, 1634 posts, RR: 2 Reply 13, posted (1 year 2 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 10060 times:
Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 11): The issue from my understanding has to do with CdG's design issues................................................It is very likely that because too many compromises were made in CdG's design (such as propulsion, etc), she might be retired early and a replacement carrier sought.
Quoting GDB (Reply 12): Maybe that vessel should get EMALS, at mid life refit?
It had been planned that the French would take a carrier with the same design as the 2 UK CVF's. This wou;ld have reduced overall unit costs and helped interoperability. However the French didn't sign up in the end.
connies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 3892 posts, RR: 13 Reply 14, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 9945 times:
Quoting chuchoteur (Thread starter): Pressing on with the refit could delay the £6.2billion HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales by another seven years - until 2027. This was considered ‘untenable, militarily and politically’, said one source.
Have read recently that the program cost has risen well above GBP $10B. In fact I think that's in my latest AIR Internatioonal.
Quoting GDB (Reply 7): So the EM Cat conversion now looks more difficult, technically uncertain, much more risky and much more expensive. Along with at best, an IOC now at least in the middle of the next decade.
But was all demo'd at Pax River in the last decade. ??
Quoting GDB (Reply 7): All this mess could have been predicted 18 months ago.
Many did just that.
Zkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4740 posts, RR: 10 Reply 16, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 9810 times:
My understanding of the situation is that BAE did a lot of pressuring of the UK govt to go with the B model. This was not because it would personally make much difference to its income directly, but more a case of deferring the F-35 as a catapult capable aircraft carrier could take F-18 or Rafale (either likely loaned/leased on very generous terms) for the next 10 years. Having a more capable carrier (as a catapult carrier would be) also would mean less need for other warships potentially damaging sales for BAE. The reason being that a catapult allows for AWACS (E-2C etc) aircraft and the F-35C is a much more capable aircraft overall (except the vertical side of things). It has greater range, greater payload, and better performance overall not too mention costing less and requiring less maintenance downtime/costs.
I found this article (whilst a bit tongue and cheek) to be quite an interesting read: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04.../f35_carriers_plot_by_bae_and_raf/
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12735 posts, RR: 79 Reply 19, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 9733 times:
Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 16): My understanding of the situation is that BAE did a lot of pressuring of the UK govt to go with the B model. This was not because it would personally make much difference to its income directly, but more a case of deferring the F-35 as a catapult capable aircraft carrier could take F-18 or Rafale (either likely loaned/leased on very generous terms) for the next 10 years.
Reports here say it's being driven by the service chiefs concerned at the costs and technical risks, they are angry and never thought the revised CVF and move to F-35C was as easy and quick as the government seemed to make out. Now they are getting more evidence to support this. The extra costs just cannot be absorbed in the current and likely future budgets without even more cuts elsewhere.
In any case, other types from a CTOL carrier is just out of the question.
EMALS is unproved, F-35C is some years behind the F-35B, a report by a Commons Defence Committee not long ago raised serious concerns about just when CTOL CVF and F-35C would actually become operational.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12735 posts, RR: 79 Reply 20, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 9732 times:
Quoting Max Q (Reply 18): Typical British military cock up.
Despite everything, who would want to have the hugely dysfunctional procurements - or attempted procurements, the US, in particular the USAF has got now?
CASR, the 'Tanker Wars', now they cannot even get just 20 armed trainers for someone else without it all going wrong.
ThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1115 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 9704 times:
Quoting GDB (Reply 20): Reports here say it's being driven by the service chiefs concerned at the costs and technical risks, they are angry and never thought the revised CVF and move to F-35C was as easy and quick as the government seemed to make out. Now they are getting more evidence to support this. The extra costs just cannot be absorbed in the current and likely future budgets without even more cuts elsewhere.
Agreed. It was going to be cost prohibitive to alter the 2nd CV - let alone altering the 1st CVF. And even if they were going to convert PoW, that would leave Queen Elizabeth out, and since there would be no fighter aircraft to operate off QE, she would be in fact the world's biggest LPH. Absolute and complete lunacy.
Quoting Max Q (Reply 18):
What is the point of having a large deck Carrier with this compromised F35 ?
F-35B is more capable than the aircraft it replaces and has the performance that is comparable to the F-16 or the F/A-18. In fact, many experts have argued it is the F-35C that is more compromised than the F-35B for a variety of technical reasons.
Furthermore, steel is cheap. A larger carrier allows for more aircraft to be carried, and allows for a higher sortie generation rate.
Quoting GDB (Reply 12): Maybe that vessel should get EMALS, at mid life refit?
The problem lies within the length of the catapult. It's too short to launch fully laden Rafale's (I believe CdG's C13 catapult is shorter than the USN's catapult by 15m). EMALS would require extensive modifications, and I'm not certain that CdE has the electrical power available for EMALS. EMALS is also much longer; it's 103m, 28m longer than the CdG's catapults. It really shows how compromised the CdG is.
Max Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 3326 posts, RR: 19 Reply 22, posted (1 year 2 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 9627 times:
Quoting GDB (Reply 20):
Despite everything, who would want to have the hugely dysfunctional procurements - or attempted procurements, the US, in particular the USAF has got now?
CASR, the 'Tanker Wars', now they cannot even get just 20 armed trainers for someone else without it all going wr
No argument there, it's the same on this side of the pond.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12735 posts, RR: 79 Reply 23, posted (1 year 2 months 18 hours ago) and read 9515 times:
Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 21): hat would leave Queen Elizabeth out, and since there would be no fighter aircraft to operate off QE, she would be in fact the world's biggest LPH. Absolute and complete lunacy.
Not even in service as a LPH, just mothballed!
I don't mind the CVF's having a secondary LPH role, that was always an intention. Though you could have a flight of F-35B's and still do that. The USN does with their Harriers, later F-35B's on LHD's not as large as the CVF'
I think there has long been an impression that the RN, with CVF, with the F-35B, was trying to replicate a USN Carrier Battle Group.
But that was not the case, it was always seen as being more flexible than that.
If this combination saw active operations, much more likely to be a littoral style mission, rather than a 21st Century Battle Of Midway.
Is the range of the F-35B really THAT critical? Set against the costs and risks of F-35C/CTOL EMCAT?
Even so, a CVF with an air-group of F-35B's, Merlins carrying the 'Cerebus' system now in Sea King AEW's, ASW/SAR Merlins, maybe also Lynx Wildcats and WAH-64D's, with a couple of Type 45 Destroyers and 2 or 3 Frigates as escorts, along with a Astute Class sub or two (with up to 38 Tomahawks in each) , will be a very formidable package indeed.
KiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 5424 posts, RR: 3 Reply 24, posted (1 year 2 months 18 hours ago) and read 9506 times:
Quoting Eagleboy (Reply 13): It had been planned that the French would take a carrier with the same design as the 2 UK CVF's. This wou;ld have reduced overall unit costs and helped interoperability. However the French didn't sign up in the end.
The French PA2 was a CTOL carrier not STOVL, she was also going to be slightly bigger. The French also wanted to build all the carriers in Toulouse, this was not politically acceptable to the British.
25 chuchoteur: A bit big for the Garonne river no?
26 KiwiRob: woops I meant Toulon, there are two massive drydocks which would have been used for construction.
27 chuchoteur: As I recall, the plan was for the french to build the hulls and for the british to equip them, which always seemed a bit strange to me... a bit of a
28 GDB: A fair deal might have been France has one CTOL CVF - built in France, equipped with standard French Navy equipment/systems, though not a huge change
29 ThePointblank: With the size of CVF, mission planners and the military realized that they could get a much more capable ship if they allowed the design to grow to i
30 gingersnap: Here we go again... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17795126
31 GDB: If true, they should make their minds up! Since they have also been the ones pushing to abandon the current plan for CVF CTOL/F-35C due to the cost a
32 GDB: Official; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18013638 Defence Secretary - an improvement on his ousted predecessor - who drove this and had to get it past h
33 connies4ever: . What a balls up, GDB. But the biggest berk might be Cameron himself. I'm starting to get the impression that the coalition is not long for the world
34 ThePointblank: Realistically, everyone knew that the UK was going to switch back to the B since last year. There were major issues with the original switch to the C
35 bennett123: Miliband as PM really would be wacky. At present the labour approach, (just like Greece it seems) is stop nasty spending cuts, back to Whisky Galore.
36 sweair: How much would a Gerald Ford class carrier cost and would US sell it? Being nuke powered only a few nations would take it, like the French. Would it e
37 scouseflyer: Quite, imagine Red Ed and Balls up in charge of the nation's coffers - they'd order a whole pile of stuff and just keep putting it on the credit card
38 GDB: Well that might be what the Daily Mail etc say, from they've actually said it seems to be more like stretching out the deficit reduction a year or tw
39 scouseflyer: Well at least they've had the balls to make a u-turn. It's interesting that it's being reported as UK gov has spent £100m on changing the flavour of
40 GDB: Yes, at least £2B but also the sheer technical risk. If EMCats were operational now on USN carriers this would not be the case, it's one thing to do
41 ThePointblank: Not surprising: the original decision to switch to F-35C was a rush job and ill-conceived: http://defencereport.com/uk-mod-admi...-overturned-f-35-rec
42 sweair: So what will France do, their carrier seems to be a bit unsuccessful? Will they go and build 1 on their own or get close to the Americans? Maybe the A
43 scouseflyer: I don't think that the US has current capacity to build more than one super large carrier at a time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._Ford_clas
44 GDB: Given the budgetary situation in France, the idea of a French CVF, with stream plant and cata, is dead. They are not going to do a CDG version 2 eithe
45 Aesma: Steel is cheap, but oil isn't, and the UK boats run on oil, right ? With the current economic situation, no French government is going to order anyth
46 ThePointblank: Cheaper than running 3-4 smaller aircraft carriers in terms of manpower, support, and operations cost. Smaller isn't always better.
47 GDB: Do you mean the nuclear alternative? Both with the abortive CVA program of the 1960's and in the initial planning for what became CVF, nuclear propul
48 KiwiRob: They have never intended to build a second CDG, the French do have a design for PA2, which is essentially the CAT and TRAP version of CVF, the one th
49 ThePointblank: Back to this topic: Remember when I said this? Well, the UK's National Accounting Office came out with a report on the flip-flop, and pretty much conf
50 connies4ever: That assumes a lot:| - the political will is there (depends on the stripe of the government); - the economy rebounds from recent softening (it may);
51 ThePointblank: Brazil issued a RfP in 2012 for design of a new carrier. DCNS is pretty much the only game in town for buying a new carrier, and second-hand opportun
52 Max Q: Didn't the French build their latest Carrier with a Flight Deck that was too short ?!
53 connies4ever: It's lie RfP isn't a commitment to buy. More like a date to have a date. Your other observations I agree with. Not sure if CdG is a little short or t
54 jouy31: IIRC, the extension was necessary for the landing of the E-2C Hawkeyes under degraded conditions. This resulted in a cost overrun of 0,025% of the pro
55 kiwirob: I'm pretty sure the Aircraft Carrier Alliance wouldn't turn down an opportunity to build a third CVF for Brazil if given the chance.
56 ThePointblank: A RfP (Request for Proposal) is almost a prerequisite for procurement. It helps the buyer identify bidders and solicit bids for a new product. It als
57 kiwirob: No problem there is a cat and trap version of CVF. From my knowledge of Brazilian shipbuilding (based on projects the company I work for has delivere
58 kiwirob: No problem there is a cat and trap version of CVF. The UK had really gone to far along to change the design, which is why it was going to cost so muc
59 connies4ever: I know an RfP is a prerequisite. I also know it amounts to SFA unless there is current and on-going budgetary support, which may, unfortunately for c
60 connies4ever: In case people have missed it, there actually is a true multi-role aircraft around right now, a resurrected DH Mosquito. www.airspacemag.com/military-
Sponsor Message: 
From France, joined Sep 2006, 700 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12735 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1115 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, 
From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3615 posts, 
From Niue, joined Dec 2009, 1634 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4740 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
