SoS Confirms Reversion To the F-35B In The House Of Commons

Discussion in 'The Fleet Air Arm' started by soleil, May 10, 2012.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. SoS Defence has just announced that the Cat and Trap system would have come in too late and that the decision has been made to switch back to the F-35B.

    Fitting EMALS would have been problematic. Estimated cost had doubled in the last 17 months. There was judged to be a technical risk in the STOVL option but this has now been reviewed.

    "The responsible thing to do is to examine the decisions you have made", he says, "however inconvenient".

    Previous decisions were right but the facts have changed and so to avoid a delay and cost rises, the National Security Council has reverted to the STOVL option.

    He has now finished his statement and the Shadow Defence Minister, Jim Murphy, has spoken in reply.
    Last edited: May 10, 2012
  2. wal

    wal Badgeman

    On the bus, Off the bus, on the bu......................
  3. Anyone want to buy a bunch of used Harriers??? Oh Sorry ... we need 'em back!
  4. They're just using a blindfold and a pin to choose policy.

    I'm dizzy...
  5. Just listened to it . No decision on the second carrier until 2015 regards being made operational, or being kept mothballed. 12 aircraft by 2020. Sea trials finished in 2018 aircraft deployed F35 B Chinooks Merlin, Lynx...... His words not mine
  6. Whistles away, happily thinking about 'good old days' and all that.
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Just listened to it . No decision on the second carrier until 2015 regards being made operational, or being kept mothballed. 12 aircraft by 2020. Sea trials finished in 2018 aircraft deployed Chinooks Merlin Lynx Apache...... My words not his.

    Apology to Scouse
  8. This is a very complex series of buy decisions. The Carrier fit is dependent on either of 2 aeroplanes with development problems and the choice of aeroplane is dependent upon the Carrier fit. Unfortunately, the Carrier fit options have their own development problems (eg. an electromagnetic catapult without a nuclear reactor powering it, a steam catapult without a simple means of raising steam).

    I see this rather like a horse race regarding the funding. In this case, the bookies stay open right until the end of the race and which horse do you bet on at each stage of the race? Also, you can't withdraw your bet once you've made it and your winnings have to exceed your losses. I can't think of another interlinked buy quite like this one.

    Glad I'm out of it.
  9. They would be better off playing this debarcle out on an 'uckers' board!!!!! (WAFU rules with suck backs and blow backs of course!!!!!).
  10. No way the LibDems would up end the board at the first "snake eyes"
  11. Labour would be right timber shifting twats if they were playing uckers, there again, so would the Cons.
  12. " Carriers are expensive – there is no way around that. But they offer a capability that few can match: an independent, flexible, sovereign base, not tied to other countries’ wishes, that can operate around the world."

    Wonder how that works with asset sharing.
  13. I dont think we can asset share with the French now can we? Dont they use cat and traps?
  14. janner

    janner War Hero Book Reviewer

    Does anyone know what they are going to escort them with? From the sidelines it would appear that we have insufficient FF and DD to carry out whats required now. Don't even mention Boats.
  15. Seaweed

    Seaweed War Hero Book Reviewer

    Telegraph: "Our new fighter jets will give Britain an outstanding military capability much sooner." And no capability at all much later.
  16. An interesting article in today's DT from the Chief of Defence Staff. He's toeing the party line which is understandable of course but he does seem pretty positive about the change and especially the fact that the UK will again have a carrier at sea and by 2017/18 all being well. I'm prepared to cut him some slack because I reckon he plays a pretty straight bat and is an all-round good guy. I just don't understand his logic here:

    Where does he think the refueling aircraft are going to be flying from then? If we take the Falklands for example, if we had to send one of these new carriers down there in the worst case scenario, where would a thirsty F35B jock get a few thousand gallons of 4 Star should he run short, given the nearest airstrip that can take a refuelling aircraft is at Ascension Island and well out or range? Is this not the case?

    Any thoughts?
  17. "But now we can't land US or French planes on our carriers!" And why the **** would we want to? Being that they were so much help during the Falklands....

Share This Page