This project was supposed to deliver 2 carriers that would launch and recover F-35 STOVL aircraft. Now, Parliament and the MOD dither. They cannot determine to go with the F-35B or the carrier version F-35C.
The first thing to consider is why did they go with the F-35C two years ago? The reason is that the F-35B STOVL was riddled with techical problems. So much so, that they thought it would be cancelled.
Things haven't changed much. The F-35B is still at high risk of never being operationally capable.
The U.K. now claims that converting the carriers to a conventional conviguration with catipults and wires to take the F-35C (or other carrier aircraft) will be too expensive. Well, duh. There was no way to have zero cost increase on the carriers when adding additional appliances that were not in the original plan.
After making their decision to go with the F-35C, a potential show stopper appeared. A rolling hook and wire test in 2011 with the F-35C failed. Unless this is solved, the F-35C will not be able to land on ships. The U.K. will not have full confirmation of this until the F-35C does cat-shots and traps on a real carrier.
One of the major problems with the F-35 program is that the STOVL variant is the driver in the whole project.
For example, The F-35A and F-35C carry around 2000 pounds in dead weight in the F135 motor. The goal of the program is to have one motor design with three sub-variants; One for the A, B and C. So the priority is to design a STOVL motor that can be stripped to run in conventional aircraft. Extra, dead weight is the result for the A and C.
And how much does the STOVL motor with all of its lift fan appliances weight?
About this much.
A STOVL design is also very different on its center-of-gravity requirements to safely fly. Different enough as to cause issues with the F-35A and C.
Other airframe compromises in the F-35 program have left the design with paper-thin weight margins for all variants.
The F-35 program is in serious trouble.
So, along with mothballing one of the carriers as soon as it is built, the Royal Navy will end up with a very nice helicopter carrier.
For a defense budget that is in dire trouble, this is about all the country can afford. They are not in the league of defense budgets that can pay to run carrier ops.
UPDATE-
Secret correspondence seen by The Mail on Sunday shows that senior defence officials knew the move was likely to prove controversial, and they urged officials to stonewall awkward questions from the media.
3 comments:
They will end up as prison hulks.
UKplc, the world's premier RICO state, could not project manage a soup kitchen.
Just watch.
Jump jets on a carrier is a farce. They can never perform the requirements of a blue water carrier. They consume to much fuel for the limited range and can't carry enough payload. Watching the Brits fumble around on the jets and carriers decision shows just how far the Royal Navy has sunk since it's hay day a century ago.
A catobar carrier would be interoperable with other navies as well as have many choices for aircraft.
These guys that are flip flopping on the C vs B issue are the same clowns who retrofitted the Harrier force for 600M then sold them to the US for just over a 100M.
From the get go, I thought the 'plan' was fundamentally flawed as for one thing, as Eric suggests, there simply wouldn't be the actual operational cash and additional surface/sub assets required to form the actual battle group in the first place! The counter argument was always equally flawed but was always used over and over: simply, no worries, the UK would always deploy along side coalition naval forces so no need for additional escort (surface and sub) assets and regarding the operational costs... again no worries, there will be plenty of funds available as UK needs these super Carriers to protect her vital sea lanes around the world! What a joke. Very tragic planning and decision making.
The RN in my longstanding opinion should have opted instead for an extra Destroyer, a corvette AND an attack sub for the cost of ONE carrier! With the savings in ship building, the RN could have picked up an additional 100 or so Tomahawks as spare and with the savings from substituting other land-based fighters instead of F-35B/C procurement, the UK could afford all the expensive stand-off weapons she could dream of adding to inventory, in addition to actually manning a credible tactical force structure.
Post a Comment