HMS Queen Elizabeth.. disaster carrier programme?

[153jam]

Hi this is my first post here. I have been following the HMS QE carriers since the day the building started.

The QE class is likely to come under even more cost spiraling than first thought but it should hopefully pull through and I believe it is likely to be completed.

I have been reading a lot of US defence news about the F-35 and the pentagon has been considering binning the project altogether. The price tag of these aircraft has shot up and sequestration has caused the fighters to become almost unaffordable to push mass production. (This is obviously theoretical and as it stands, production will go ahead once the problems have been solved).

If the F-35 is cancelled, how will it be possible for the UK to procure STOVL aircraft available for it's carriers? We sold off the rest of our harriers to the US, and if the F-35 truly is cancelled, they would be extremely unlikely to think about selling them back to us.

Many people argue that the government should have gone ahead with the cats and traps "u-turn" when construction first began on the QE. Mostly due to the argument of better capabilities available from the F-35C and joint operations with US carriers. However, with the possibility of losing the F-35, there may have been a vital reason for this U-turn to have been made.

The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is an extremely capable 4.5 gen multi-role fighter. More than perfect for the UK's requirements. Would it be possible for the ole Royal Navy to procure a force of super hornets for it's new carriers? If possible, acquiring a fleet of 100 of these from the US would have been the right choice in the first place in my opinion.

The estimated cost of the QE cats and traps U-turn was at around $2 billion. With airframe and maintenance costs in mind, surely it would have been a SAVING to purchase the hornets and convert the carriers to conventional use. On top of this, the UK may have been able to acquire a much larger fleet of aircraft to do it's business with.

In conclusion, would this idea be practical? affordable? feasible in any way? I understand it may be too late for the HMS QE but what about the Prince of Whales? The loss of our investment into the F-35 may be tragic, but not as tragic as two 65000 tonne British helicopter LHD's which end up being sold to India.

I am no expert on hardware procurement or ship construction and am interested in other opinions on this topic.

(I couldn't tell whether to post this in aviation or naval so I went for the one I felt like, thanks for reading).

 

[swerve]

Please, please . .

Do some reading. This has been discussed at length, here & elsewhere.

For example, you're quoting incorrect prices in your comparison - & that has been pointed out, at length, all over the web. Your numbers aren't even internally consistent. You are quoting an estimate of total project cost of F-35, including R&D & projected future inflation, & then quoting a 'fly-away' unit price which is higher than the project cost per unit implied by that estimate. You then compare that price with a historical fly-away unit price for F-18E, including no part of R&D or other fixed costs. The meanglessness of the comparison should be obvious.

So please, before jumping in head first, try to find out a little about the topic.

 

[John Fedup]

Hi this is my first post here. I have been following the HMS QE carriers since the day the building started.

The QE class is likely to come under even more cost spiraling than first thought but it should hopefully pull through and I believe it is likely to be completed.

I have been reading a lot of US defence news about the F-35 and the pentagon has been considering binning the project altogether. The price tag of these aircraft has shot up to $400 billion and sequestration has caused the fighters to become almost unaffordable to push mass production. (This is obviously theoretical and as it stands, production will go ahead once the problems have been solved).

If the F-35 is cancelled, how will it be possible for the UK to procure STOVL aircraft available for it's carriers? We sold off the rest of our harriers to the US, and if the F-35 truly is cancelled, they would be extremely unlikely to think about selling them back to us.

Many people argue that the government should have gone ahead with the cats and traps "u-turn" when construction first began on the QE. Mostly due to the argument of better capabilities available from the F-35C and joint operations with US carriers. However, with the possibility of losing the F-35, there may have been a vital reason for this U-turn to have been made.

The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is an extremely capable 4.5 gen multi-role fighter. More than perfect for the UK's requirements. Would it be possible for the ole Royal Navy to procure a force of super hornets for it's new carriers? If possible, acquiring a fleet of 100 of these from the US would have been the right choice in the first place in my opinion.

The $65 million flyaway cost of the superhornets (which are still in production) is dwarfed by the $200 million of the F-35B. The estimated cost of the QE cats and traps U-turn was at around $2 billion. With airframe and maintenance costs in mind, surely it would have been a SAVING to purchase the hornets and convert the carriers to conventional use. On top of this, the UK may have been able to acquire a much larger fleet of aircraft to do it's business with.

In conclusion, would this idea be practical? affordable? feasible in any way? I understand it may be too late for the HMS QE but what about the Prince of Whales? The loss of our investment into the F-35 may be tragic, but not as tragic as two 65000 tonne British helicopter LHD's which end up being sold to India.

I am no expert on hardware procurement or ship construction and am interested in other opinions on this topic.

(I couldn't tell whether to post this in aviation or naval so I went for the one I felt like, thanks for reading).

Sticking with the cat and trap version for these carriers would have been expensive but as you point out, if the F-35 gets cancelled (or more unlikely the F-35B), Britain with end up with two carriers and no available STOVL jets. With cat and trap, the F-35C, Superhornet (and Growler version), and the naval version of the Rafale are on the table.

 

[153jam]

Thanks for reading my post. The prices I quoted are fairly unrelated to the point i'm trying to get at with this, and as you may have noticed, I wasn't actually doing any number crunching, just guesstimates on the scenario of what could happen if the F-35 is cancelled.

I did point out that I'm no expert on it, if you fully read my post. I'm not particularly interested in the exact procurement costs anyway, only the capability and whether procurement is possible at all.

Regardless, I apologise for my ignorance and incompetence.

(I did try to do some reading, obviously just don't have the best sources... I didn't make those numbers up you know [Mod edit: But a member of the Mod Team has just pointed out that you are using numbers without sources and context. If you cannot read pinned threads providing basic facts, and cannot accept that your made-up numbers are wrong, there is no point in having further discussion on the topic. You are regurgitating numbers, without understanding the context, which has been provided in the earlier reply to you.

There are seven different definitions for 'cost' that are in common use within the US DoD and mainstream news organisations are not clear about the 'cost' yardstick used. The above seven common terms used are used to describe the cost of a fighter platform. To help you search for the appropriate language used on costs, below is a list:-

(1) recurring flyaway cost (or URF which includes non-recurring costs and ancillary equipment);

(2) total flyaway cost (which includes (1) above + tech data, publications, contract services, training equipment & factory training);

(3) weapons systems cost (which includes (1) & (2) of the above + initial spares);

(4) procurement cost (or APUC, which includes (1) to (3) of the above + other additional costs);

(5) acquisition cost (or PAUC, which includes (1) to (4) of the above + operations & support costs);

(6) life-cycle cost (which includes (1) to (5) of the above + common spares, infrastructure costs & linked indirect costs); and

(7) total ownership cost (which includes (1) to (6) of the above).​

What Swerve is telling you is that the numbers you use may not be an apple to apple comparison (before factoring in inflation). Half-informed readers of mainstream press will not know about the difference between flyaway cost, weapon system cost, or life cycle cost. On the other hand, Lockheed Martin rightly deserves criticism for the delays, cost overruns and some other teething problems with the JSF program.

The Mod Team's approach is to help forum members who are confused by directing them to additional information and links to help fill gaps in their knowledge, which led to their confusion. On the other hand, we will be strict with people want to continue spewing misinformation.

Do not mistake kindness shown to a first time poster as chronic tolerance of nonsensical threads. As a warning to others in this thread, the Mod Team has banned Aetrius for failure and refusal to observe decorum and forum rules. ] )

 

[RobWilliams]

The F-35 will not be cancelled, this is a fact

In a hypothetical universe it does get cancelled we most probably get zero fixed wing capability at sea. There's a reason the Tories backtracked on CATOBAR in May 2012 about it costing £2billion to convert a single ship, with implications that the second would be mothballed giving us a similar model as the French which isn't that great.

So CATOBAR isn't reasonable, no way, no how, neither financially nor politically (both big parties would suffer out of it) so no real point in discussion about the F/A-18 being a good replacement. It's generally the refuge of people who have the mistaken belief that such an endeavour would be properly funded and it wouldn't, CV carrier ops can't be done on the cheap. Would I prefer a pair of 2 CV carriers? Sure i would, but I know it wouldn't be funded properly to have a proper air group with proper allocated assets for the proper number of vessels, that just wouldn't happen.

Right choice? Depends on the budget, if the budget was increased in a crazy world then go for CATOBAR. With the budget we've got right now? F35B all the way. Perfectly fine for our requirements, huge improvement over the Harrier (an aircraft people believe to have been critical for the UK apparently) and 2 carriers is a damn sight better than a half assed air group* and a carrier for 'most of the time', not all the time. The F35B isn't a cheap aircraft, but factor in all the other up front costs for a CV carrier and it's not so clear cut.

IMO the right decision given the nature of the budget.

*People think CATOBAR means we will get E-2D, we will get proper COD aircraft, we will get F/A-18 for buddy-buddy tanking, and that is not even close to being a reality. I'd rather get the B and spend all that money that it would cost for all that extra stuff into various other projects.

Side note, I suggest reading the RN thread, preferably post May 2012 after the U-turn, for more info about it. This is a relatively small post about such a big topic, bear in mind that the media like to overblow stories about our carriers

Yeah, I can talk for a while about how great the QEC is for the UK, mainly because I honestly think it's great.

 

[StobieWan]

I would *not* want to strap on an F18 and go into contested air space right now, let alone in ten or fifteen years time. The Super Hornet seems to have been a hobby horse of the Phoenix Think Tank for some time and I've no idea why.

I don't believe F35 is at risk of cancellation - the hard part is done with, and killing it now would just mean the money spent so far would go down the drain. That'd leave the USMC in the toilet to the tune of several hundred aircraft, with no STOVL replacement, the USN would be faced with running on SuperHornet for decades to come and the USAF would be looking either at more Strike Eagles (priced a little above the F35 last I looked) or later block F16's - does that sound reasonable? Going to war in a design that's thirty years old?

And there's no possibility of the Indians buying either carrier - they want a native build to grow their shipping industry.

 

[RobWilliams]

Indeed. Often see France/India/Brazil thrown in as the destinations our carriers will go, despite each not wanting the thing for various reasons. Be it financial/doctrine/industrial or whatever.

Small pedantic detail to the OP too, they wouldn't be LHD's. The D means Dock, which the carriers won't have. They'd be more like the LHA's of the USN America Class in operation.

 

[153jam]

The F-35 will not be cancelled, this is a fact...

Surely the French model is better than zero fixed wing at all? We don't have the capability to enforce air power anywhere where there is not runway available to us, as it stands now.
[Mod edit: Hypothetical discussions are allowed but making-up and repeating fake facts is another matter all together. Members are allowed to make source challenges. Failure to respond to source challenges will lead to a ban. When posting facts to support your comment/opinion, cite your source(s) (by typing the article title, publication, author and page number), if you want to avoid a source challenge from the Mod Team. Further, the Mod Team is aware that you cannot post links in the first 10 posts.

Learn to come with facts and change your current posting behaviour. In the alternate, leave. You choose. ]

 

[ADMk2]

The F-35 will not be cancelled, this is a fact

In a hypothetical universe it does get cancelled we most probably get zero fixed wing capability at sea. There's a reason the Tories backtracked on CATOBAR in May 2012 about it costing £2billion to convert a single ship, with implications that the second would be mothballed giving us a similar model as the French which isn't that great.

So CATOBAR isn't reasonable, no way, no how, neither financially nor politically (both big parties would suffer out of it) so no real point in discussion about the F/A-18 being a good replacement. It's generally the refuge of people who have the mistaken belief that such an endeavour would be properly funded and it wouldn't, CV carrier ops can't be done on the cheap. Would I prefer a pair of 2 CV carriers? Sure i would, but I know it wouldn't be funded properly to have a proper air group with proper allocated assets for the proper number of vessels, that just wouldn't happen.

Right choice? Depends on the budget, if the budget was increased in a crazy world then go for CATOBAR. With the budget we've got right now? F35B all the way. Perfectly fine for our requirements, huge improvement over the Harrier (an aircraft people believe to have been critical for the UK apparently) and 2 carriers is a damn sight better than a half assed air group* and a carrier for 'most of the time', not all the time. The F35B isn't a cheap aircraft, but factor in all the other up front costs for a CV carrier and it's not so clear cut.

IMO the right decision given the nature of the budget.

*People think CATOBAR means we will get E-2D, we will get proper COD aircraft, we will get F/A-18 for buddy-buddy tanking, and that is not even close to being a reality. I'd rather get the B and spend all that money that it would cost for all that extra stuff into various other projects.

Side note, I suggest reading the RN thread, preferably post May 2012 after the U-turn, for more info about it. This is a relatively small post about such a big topic, bear in mind that the media like to overblow stories about our carriers

Yeah, I can talk for a while about how great the QEC is for the UK, mainly because I honestly think it's great.

Agreed and if the UK has all this money to spend, speeding up funding of an ASaC.7 AEW&C replacement, adding Co-operative Engagement Capability and providing an increased weapons holding (and launching capability) for standoff weapon systems such as Tomahwak and Storm Shadow, as well as a new heavy anti-ship weapon for your major surface combatants and F-35B's is going to provide far greater bang for buck than switching back to CATOBAR carriers and Super Hornets...

A UK taskforce with HMS QE at the centre, with 24-36 F-35B fighters, 2-4 AEW&C assets, a strong complement of T-45 and T-26 escorts, Astute Class subs, Merlin anti-sub and WAH-64 Apache helicopters and a large amount of available Tomahawk, Storm Shadow and new ASM's, all networked and linked via CEC is going to provide a strike force, very few countries will be able to match and one able to greatly contribute in any operational environment on the planet and in fact lead in most of them.

 

[Preceptor]

My first post too, but i had to sign up and say this. After reading your reply it seems your some what a keyboard warrior. This is the guys first post and you slap him in the face with that, perhaps he could not find related info on this and would it not of been decent to point in the right direction?.

Grow up. fftopic

Keyboard warrior? Not, not so much. Super Moderator and therefore someone (like myself and a few other posters in this thread) responsible for policing the forum for quality and adherence to the forum rules? Yes.

As Swerve pointed out, with even just a little basic research either here on DT or elsewhere on the internet, facts and arguments can be found relating to the concerns raised by the OP. We have an active thread dedicated to the Royal Navy, as well as three different active F-35 threads to discuss various aspects of the program. All of which have content relevant to this thread.

Also given the history of those who quote the wrong, inflated price for the F-35 and the various axes many who do so have to grind... We, the Mod team as well as a number of the more active members tend to pick up and point out to people who are throwing around figures which are wildly off.

If you have a problem with that happening, then perhaps DT and other areas interested in accurate discussions might not be for you.
-Preceptor

 

[colay]

...

A UK taskforce with HMS QE at the centre, with 24-36 F-35B fighters, 2-4 AEW&C assets, a strong complement of T-45 and T-26 escorts, Astute Class subs, Merlin anti-sub and WAH-64 Apache helicopters and a large amount of available Tomahawk, Storm Shadow and new ASM's, all networked and linked via CEC is going to provide a strike force, very few countries will be able to match and one able to greatly contribute in any operational environment on the planet and in fact lead in most of them.

Second only to a USN CBG IMHO... and likely superior if the CVN was limited to SHs.

 

[OPSSG]

Thread re-opened, subject to new members who contribute, to confirm that they have read the contents of the five links provided below:-

(i) F-35 Program - General Discussion (covering all common platform issues, like the helmet system, program office news, GAO reports, and weapons integration);

(ii) F-35B/C - Naval Air Discussions (covering all aircraft news specific to the USMC and the USN);

(iii) F-35 - International Participation (Partners, SCP and FMS Sales Discussions);

(iv) Air Power 101 for New Members; and

(v) the Forum Rules.​

This forum caters to adults with a real interest in learning and possessing the willingness to learn from others in the forum. There is no need to rush in and try to increase post count, at the cost of personal credibility to other members of the forum.

 

[153jam]

Thanks for reading my post. The prices I quoted are fairly unrelated to the point i'm trying to get at with this, and as you may have noticed, I wasn't actually doing any number crunching, just guesstimates on the scenario of what could happen if the F-35 is cancelled.

I did point out that I'm no expert on it, if you fully read my post. I'm not particularly interested in the exact procurement costs anyway, only the capability and whether procurement is possible at all.

Regardless, I apologise for my ignorance and incompetence.

(I did try to do some reading, obviously just don't have the best sources... I didn't make those numbers up you know [Mod edit: But a member of the Mod Team has just pointed out that you are using numbers without sources and context. If you cannot read pinned threads providing basic facts, and cannot accept that your made-up numbers are wrong, there is no point in having further discussion on the topic. You are regurgitating numbers, without understanding the context, which has been provided in the earlier reply to you.

There are seven different definitions for 'cost' that are in common use within the US DoD and mainstream news organisations are not clear about the 'cost' yardstick used. The above seven common terms used are used to describe the cost of a fighter platform. To help you search for the appropriate language used on costs, below is a list:-

(1) recurring flyaway cost (or URF which includes non-recurring costs and ancillary equipment);

(2) total flyaway cost (which includes (1) above + tech data, publications, contract services, training equipment & factory training);

(3) weapons systems cost (which includes (1) & (2) of the above + initial spares);

(4) procurement cost (or APUC, which includes (1) to (3) of the above + other additional costs);

(5) acquisition cost (or PAUC, which includes (1) to (4) of the above + operations & support costs);

(6) life-cycle cost (which includes (1) to (5) of the above + common spares, infrastructure costs & linked indirect costs); and

(7) total ownership cost (which includes (1) to (6) of the above).​

What Swerve is telling you is that the numbers you use may not be an apple to apple comparison (before factoring in inflation). Half-informed readers of mainstream press will not know about the difference between flyaway cost, weapon system cost, or life cycle cost. On the other hand, Lockheed Martin rightly deserves criticism for the delays, cost overruns and some other teething problems with the JSF program.

The Mod Team's approach is to help forum members who are confused by directing them to additional information and links to help fill gaps in their knowledge, which led to their confusion. On the other hand, we will be strict with people want to continue spewing misinformation.

Do not mistake kindness shown to a first time poster as chronic tolerance of nonsensical threads. As a warning to others in this thread, the Mod Team has banned Aetrius for failure and refusal to observe decorum and forum rules. ] )

I think you misunderstood me, I in no way disputed that the numbers are inaccurate, I was pointing out that I didn't literally guess them, I took them from Wikipedia which is obviously a bad source. I did not realise it would cause such an issue at the time and I apologise again... I have edited the numbers out now.

Thanks for the links posted, I am in the process of reading them on my work comp.

 

[OPSSG]

Thanks for the links posted, I am in the process of reading them on my work comp.

1. No worries, we understand that it can be confusing. There is a new video on Creating the 5th Generation Force: with former Secretary of the Air Force Wynne and Lt. Col. Berke. This video is published by SldInfo.com :-

[ame=http://vimeo.com/73913274]Creating the 5th Generation Force: Secretary Wynne and Lt. Col. Berke Meet and Discuss on Vimeo[/ame]

2. Lt. Col. Berke is a US Marine that has flown the teen series, the F-22 and now commands a F-35B squadron. He offers an unique perspective that is worth watching. Kindly also note that there are 3 IOC dates for the 3 variants and I enclose comments from the respective heads of services that are worth noting:-

(i) The latest IOC date for the F-35B is scheduled to be December 2015 (or earlier). As USMC Commandant, Gen. James Amos, in testimony to the House Armed Services Committee said on 7 May 2013:-

"As we modernize Marine fixed-wing aviation assets for the future, the continued development and fielding of the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) F-35B Joint Strike Fighter remains the centerpiece of our effort. The capability inherent in a STOVL jet allows the Marine Corps to operate in harsh conditions and from remote locations where few airfields are available for conventional aircraft. It is also specifically designed to operate from amphibious ships – a capability that no other tactical fifth-generation aircraft possesses. The ability to employ a fifth-generation aircraft from 11 big-deck amphibious ships doubles the number of “aircraft carriers” from which the United States can employ this game-changing capability. The expanded flexibility of STOVL capabilities operating both at-sea and from austere land bases is essential, especially in the Pacific. Once fully fielded, the F-35B will replace three legacy aircraft – F/A-18, EA-6B, and AV-8B. Training continues for our F-35B pilots. In 2012, we flew more than 500 hours and trained 15 pilots. Just recently, in November 2012, we established our first operational squadron, VMFA-121, at MCAS Yuma. Continued funding and support from Congress for this program is of utmost importance for the Marine Corps as we continue with a plan to “sundown” three different legacy platforms."​

(ii) The latest IOC date for the F-35A is scheduled to be December 2016 (or earlier). As General Mark Welsh, Chief of Staff of the Air Force said:-

“Whether you are competing against a single airplane or competing against a system on the ground, [the F-35] allows us to operate in places we could not before and complete the mission we’ve been assigned.”​

(iii) The latest IOC date for the F-35C is scheduled to be February 2019 (or earlier). As Admiral Jonathan Greenert, Chief of Naval Operations said:-

“We need its stealth, we need the advanced electronic warfare sensors, the weapons and perhaps more importantly, the command and control capability that this aircraft brings.”​

3. It is no exaggeration that the future of American air power — and American military pre-eminence in the Pacific — rests on the successful progress of the Joint Strike Fighter program (with the Japanese to acquire 42 F-35As), and the incremental improvements made to the AEGIS system and the standard missile weapon system (which is being used by the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force, the Republic of Korea Navy and the Royal Australian Navy).

4. In the case of the UK, the future of British Naval power and relevance to the Five Power Defence Arrangements (FPDA) partners, namely, Australia, Malaysia, New Zealand and Singapore, also rests on the successful induction of the F-35B. Failure to do so will render the British naval air power much less relevant to Australia (well down the road to acquire the F-35A and currently hosting a rotation of US Marines in Darwin) and to Singapore (with future plans to acquire F-35B and currently hosting USN's first LCS operating from Changi Naval Base). See this post by Tim Huxley on 'The future of the Five Power Defence Arrangements,' for background.

5. RUSI has published a 40 page paper in September 2013, namely, "Leveraging UK Carrier Capability: A Study into the Preparation for and Use of the Queen Elizabeth-Class Carriers." To continue to be relevant, as a global power, UK needs to fund and operate two carriers and not just rely on a single carrier. Any decision to mothball or sell one of two carriers being built in UK would hasten the decline of British naval power, from a first rate power, to a power of only regional aspirations. Committing to two operational carriers, with a powerful F-35B air wing, sends a message of intent to potential adversaries (state and non-state) and also to UK allies, particularly the US, allowing Britain in turn to employ greater leverage on American decision-making. Further, the limited availability of a single carrier strike would fail to justify the investment in forty-eight F-35Bs. The ship’s crew and the full complement of pilots would struggle to complete the obligatory (day and night) flying required to remain safe and current.

6. While the above RUSI paper provides the basics, UK ability to project and sustain power from the sea needs logistics support. This topic is aptly covered by a blog post on 'Thinking about MARS Solid Support Ship'. The MARS SSS needs to harmonize the requirements of a stores replenishment ship, optimized for the support of aircraft carrier operations, with the requirements connected with the support of ground forces in action ashore. It is hoped that the links provided are a good jumping off point for further discussions on the topic.

Cheers

 

[swerve]

I think you misunderstood me, I in no way disputed that the numbers are inaccurate, I was pointing out that I didn't literally guess them, I took them from Wikipedia which is obviously a bad source. I did not realise it would cause such an issue at the time and I apologise again... I have edited the numbers out now.

Thanks for the links posted, I am in the process of reading them on my work comp.

Don't worry, I wasn't trying to suggest that you made them up. I know they're both floating around. For what it's worth, I think both are prices that have actually been paid - but IIRC the F-35 price is for some of the test aircraft, built while some details were still in flux, & not at all representative of series production cost, & the F-18E is the bare minimum flyaway cost & a few years old, not what an F-18E would actually cost to buy now. Hence my plea to you to read more. The relative prices of the two aircraft have been argued about a lot, including on this site, & if you search you'll find. Same with the rest of what you ask about.

Good luck..

 

[RobWilliams]

Our MARS tankers will be perfectly capable of supporting them with wet stores as they've been designed with supporting carrier ops from the start. The key element with MARS SSS also has this into account, the newer Heavy Replenishment At Sea (H-RAS) system that the RN/RFA wants to bring in can transfer 5 tons of stores compared to the current 2 tons

https://navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/3911

The aim of the new complex is to transfer 25 five-tonne loads every hour for five hours across a 55-metre (180ft) gap separating two – that’s one pallet every two minutes and 24 seconds, or 625 tonnes of stores in all. Even with fully-honed teams on both ships, the best you could hope for presently would be 200-250 tonnes.

Vital capability & IIRC this means that F135 engines for our F35B's can be crated up and shipped across via RAS rather than being flown over. We need the current supply ships to be replaced ASAP, if we're expecting the QEC to be 'combat ready' from 2020 then we need to have the capability to supply them adequately at that time.

EDIT: Cheers for the PDF about the QEC OPSSG, reading it now.

So far, great read. I REALLY like this bit

The US and UK are operating under a Statement of Intent for Enhanced Carrier Cooperation and Maritime Power Projection. Signed by the US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Secretary of State for Defence Philip Hammond on 6 January 2012, this broad-ranging agreement has a top-level aspiration to integrate a Marine Corps squadron of F-35B onto the Queen Elizabeth class carriers and a UK F-35B squadron onto US
L -class carriers. This must include the mutual development and integration of procedures, vital mission systems infrastructure and weapons stowage.

Side note, what is a US L-class ship? I expect some people will think i'm mental for not knowing it but I really don't know which one is counted as an L-class? Might be lumping in the LHA's and LHD's together maybe?

 

[t68]

I would *not* want to strap on an F18 and go into contested air space right now, let alone in ten or fifteen years time. The Super Hornet seems to have been a hobby horse of the Phoenix Think Tank for some time and I've no idea why.
.

That's a very interesting veiw you hold there StobieWan.

If for arguments sake the the U turn back to STOVL did not happen and the RN was to receive a CATOAR equipped CV and you were to equip the CV with in production aircraft and F35 was cancelled what air wing do you propose and working in context of a Joint Combat Aircraft for both RN and RAF.

 

[StobieWan]

If F35 weren't on the table, I'd go for Super Hornets all round - the aircraft has a large user pool compared to anything else that does CATOBAR and is a good aircraft. I just wouldn't trade F35 out for SuperHornet.

 

[t68]

If F35 weren't on the table, I'd go for Super Hornets all round - the aircraft has a large user pool compared to anything else that does CATOBAR and is a good aircraft. I just wouldn't trade F35 out for SuperHornet.

Thanks for the reply, I thought that might be the case once F35 program reaches FOC it wil be second to none in its designed role. I am not knocking the Rafale M just curious which way you would go and why.

 

[StobieWan]

Rafale is really pretty, which given my lack of technical insight is king

But, accounting head on, SH gets universal armaments interface either now, or very soon so any weapon which is cleared for any UAI system is automatically system cleared for that weapon - that leaves mating and separation tests, greatly cuts costs.

SH also has a pretty good AESA radar, plus from a UK perspective, tanking clearance, job's a good 'un..jamming platform? Yeah, done. It's also got that prospective engine upgrade which comes free of research costs as the manufacturer will do it for the USN.

Rafale on the other hand, none of the above - no confirmed, signed, actually delivered export orders. What else to pick from? Gripen NG(N) There's a spot of UK content there but honestly..nah... it's an imaginary jet as far as I'm concerned. What else? Mig-29K? STOBAR..

Seriously, there's not a lot of CATOBAR qualified jets out there - and I'd pick SH every day of the week and twice on Sunday if F35 were somehow deleted from the list in a heart beat.

But if F35C were an option, and we were still a Tier 1 partner, and all the advantages of F35 were still true, I'd drive south of where I am for about forty minutes on a clear traffic day and shoot the politician who decided differently.