UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C

Astonishing quarter billion pounds to undo 'work already done'... OMG!

David Cameron is advised to ditch jet fighter plan By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent 19 Mar 2012
"David Cameron is to decide whether to approve one of the biggest policy reversals of the coalition, as he is asked to abandon a new generation [misleading] of fighter jets that formed the cornerstone of the defence review."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... -plan.html

"Defence ministers are recommending that the Government scrap its previous decision to back a conventional aircraft carrier and jets - in favour of a Labour plan for jump-jet fighters and ships.

The Prime Minister is being asked to act after the costs of converting the carrier to carry [F-35C instead of F-35B] Joint Strike Fighters trebled to £1.8billion.

Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, requested an an emergency meeting with Mr Cameron today to seek final decision.

It will cost more than £250 million to reverse the work already done, according to defence industry sources....

...A MoD spokesman said: “The intention to move to a conventional carrier was always subject to a detailed piece of work to asses [sic] the costs and risks involved in converting a Queen Elizabeth class carrier. That work is ongoing.”

While an embarrassing U-turn, this is substantially less than it would cost to push ahead with the conversions, which could also delay the carrier programme until as late as 2027."

If they do make it official and buy the B, they can use BA 2012 as a fig leaf citing the versatility inherent with operating the carriers in the ESG model rather than the traditional strike carrier mode.

popcorn said: "...versatility inherent with operating the carriers in the ESG model rather than the traditional strike carrier mode." This was the idea at least before the 2010 SDSR about face. I guess it was not a big enough role for the new government. It seems ludicrous to make the changes at least without knowing the cost but that's the UK for ya.

On another note the ADF/RAN have bought another small offshore support vessel for our amphibious fleet 'Skandi Bergen'. [I wonder how all the plans go?] At least the Oz changes go in a positive direction. Why? Because we have money to do so. Makes all the difference to meet perceived need.

popcorn, this is the new UK buzzword to get around the ESG/carrier strike acronyms. UK is good for new acronyms - probably like most armed forces I guess. 'Carrier Enabled Power Projection' CEPP. Not the same as CEP (Circular Error Probable)

Indeed, the CEPP concept as originally conceived seems destined to be resurrected.. at least now the politicians can spin it up for all it's worth in the context of where amphibious/littoral warfare appears to be headed on the other side of the pond. A 65K ton LHA offers a lot of interesting possibilities, double the fun if they use both.

Another WTF moment....

Rethink defence cuts, US tells govt London Evening Standard/London 21 March 2012

http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/a ... rent_id=20

"Barack Obama’s officials raised concerns over Britain’s defence capability during David Cameron’s visit to Washington, the Standard revealed....

...With the spiralling cost of the catapult apparatus, the [UK] Navy switched back to the Stovl or “jump jet version” — grandson of the Harrier — for the new plane. Although the plane is very limited in range and payload, it might enable the Navy to afford both carriers to be fully equipped.

This was to be explained to President Obama. However, voices from Washington suggest that the president said this was no option at all, and he wants the British to reconsider and go with the more powerful “C” version of the F-35.

It is being circulated that the US is now likely to order only four squadrons of the jump-jet “B” version for the US Marine Corps. Since this would be a maximum of about 65 planes, it is now thought in Washington that this is all a preliminary to cancelling the “B” version altogether.

The defence ministry was expected to announce that the Navy would buy F-35 jump jets sometime this week. This was heavily leaked in the press, led by the Guardian, at the weekend. But Defence Secretary Philip Hammond appears to have been asked by Cameron “to go through the figures again” with a view to buying the more expensive “B” F-35 and more expensive carrier with “cats and traps” for the aircraft. No announcement is expected before Easter...."

This report is a bit garbled so best to read entire thingo at above URL.

indeed.
However, it's not unheard of for heads of state to be a little behind or ill-informed regarding specific weapons systems, especially when they don't have any military background. As for the 65 plane order and threat of cancellation, it may be possible that this mid-east publication has gotten one North American nation mixed up with another; reporters aren't known for their acumen on military programs. Given the "garbled" nature of the article, I'm guessing some wires got crossed somewhere... I hope.

Yep, had that Canadian thought also. Weird huh. Reporters - but that is all we have as well as press releases.... Sorry.... then we have the people who don't just mix things up but MAKE THINGS UP!

Another WTF moment....

This was to be explained to President Obama. However, voices from Washington suggest that the president said this was no option at all, and he wants the British to reconsider and go with the more powerful “C” version of the F-35.

Did he actually understand what was being explained to him? If so, that would be the first time for an administration that seems hopeless in the defense arena.

I think you should be more 'worried' about the reporter's understanding but I guess that matters less. President Obama's understanding at least will be corrected (by all and sundry) unlike the reporter's understanding. Dumb as - most likely.

I think you should be more 'worried' about the reporter's understanding but I guess that matters less. President Obama's understanding at least will be corrected (by all and sundry) unlike the reporter's understanding. Dumb as - most likely.

Sad but true. The mainstream media just doesn't have the knowledge to report accurately on this kind of thing.

I'm not sure where this £250 million wasted effort comes from - the ACA has been tossed £80 million to perform a study as to what's what, and has spent about half that. Unless they're counting the long lead items for the EMALS buy?

I dunno, I suppose we get an announcement shortly but this is getting depressing. We'll have to go back to Lockmart and ask them nicely if that C model we said we'd be buying can be swapped out for a B like we ordered in the first place etc etc.

Just imagine, if we'd ordered for CATOBAR in the first place and never tinkered with the schedule, we could have had both carriers done and dusted and saved enough to pay for about forty aircraft.

I doubt that Obama would involve himself in the UK's F-35 strategy, much more express a preference for a particular variant.

I doubt that Obama would involve himself in the UK's F-35 strategy, much more express a preference for a particular variant.

Well, all outside factors aside, I think most of us (including Obama) would *like* to see the British operating 2 full-on CATOBAR carriers with all the trimmings. My criticism of the original switch to the F-35C stemmed from:

* the MoD's claim that it would lower costs,

* the shear lack of thought that went into that decision making process, and

* the fact that the Queen Elizabeth was already too far along in its build to be changed over (leaving the UK with a 60,000 ton paperweight).

The President may have just simply spoken his mind on the matter (CATOBAR is better), and there's no way he's as well informed on the CVF project as us fanboys off the top of his head (though he could learn a lot more than us if he wanted to).

RE: Budding Tanking:
Is buddy tanking really that effective compared to developing an aircraft specifically designed for the task?
There are some examples out there I suppose but it always seemed like if you need a fleet tanker you would be better off designing an aircraft that is fit for that purpose rather than drag along all the extra gear needed for a fullup attack aircraft.
Wouldn't such a craft be far cheaper and effective than committing one of your attack aircraft to that purpose?