# Brits Dump F-35B STOVL for Naval F-35C



## Matt308 (Oct 27, 2010)

Another nail in the coffin for the STOVL F-35B. Now only the US Marines are interested in this version.

UK has announced HUGE MoD cuts recently that include elimination of the F-35B in favor of the more "leggy" F-35C with greater ordnance capability. This coupled with scrapping naval carriers and landing ships is seen as a huge reduction in defensive margins for our UK allies.

DailyTech - UK to Move from F-35B (STOVL) to F-35C Fighters

I wish I had access to my Aviation Week article that provided more detailed information, but unfortunately I only have a hard copy subscription.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 27, 2010)

Well, can't say that's not too surprising.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 27, 2010)

I know the 35B test program has had some issues, the A seems to be going well, but in light of the UK's monetary problems, this doesn't surprise me.


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 28, 2010)

I'm all in favour of this decision. The vacillation between CTOL and STOVL versions of the F-35, and the associated faffing with a "convertible" carrier design has been a collossal waste of taxpayers' money. CTOL has longer range/endurance, better payload and less complexity. These are all good things when you have limited resources and are sitting on a flat-top in the middle of the oggin (ocean for those who don't speak my version of English).


----------



## Glider (Oct 28, 2010)

Would this be the article you are interested in?

ANALYSIS: Winners and losers of the UK defence review


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 28, 2010)

Nope. But interesting. I read the original article in my personal subscription to the old school hardcopy AvWeek. I'm sure I have an electronic version available to me, but have not taken advantage of it nor know how.


----------



## Glider (Oct 28, 2010)

Try this one from Aviation Week
Spending Reviews Stir Fighter Market | AVIATION WEEK


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 28, 2010)

That's the one. Thanks buddy.


----------



## Maximowitz (Oct 28, 2010)

That's nothing. In 2015 the UK will be replacing their entire armed forces with a large white flag.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 28, 2010)

Perhaps the scrapping of the Sea Harrier was a tad premature


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 28, 2010)

Perhaps. Scrapping the GR7s certainly is premature.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Oct 28, 2010)

It seems they are aiming to put in service an steam catapult carrier again.


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 28, 2010)

Apparently. According to AvWeek the UK will now field 1 conventional carrier with F-35Cs.


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 29, 2010)

I think the wording of the official announcement is unclear. There will be a transition period as the F-35 enters service and the 2 carriers migrate from being entirely helicopter-equipped to true mixed-platform multi-role vessels. In that case, one carrier will re-equip ahead of the second based on operational commitments, refit cycles etc. However, I do not believe the announcement is intended to mean that only one carrier will be fitted with catapults and F-35s because that's not a sustainable capability. The UK would lose it's afloat F-35 capability when that one vessel was in refit and the whole rationale for 2 carriers was to sustain operational effectiveness taking account of periods when the vessels need to be in port.


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 29, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> I think the wording of the official announcement is unclear. There will be a transition period as the F-35 enters service and the 2 carriers migrate from being entirely helicopter-equipped to true mixed-platform multi-role vessels. In that case, one carrier will re-equip ahead of the second based on operational commitments, refit cycles etc. However, I do not believe the announcement is intended to mean that only one carrier will be fitted with catapults and F-35s because that's not a sustainable capability. The UK would lose it's afloat F-35 capability when that one vessel was in refit and the whole rationale for 2 carriers was to sustain operational effectiveness taking account of periods when the vessels need to be in port.



I cannot conceive any situation where these would be needed or used, one carrier wouldnt make any substantial difference to a joint force with the USA, one carrier alone could achieve very little. Perhaps as part of a European force it makes sense but then you need to get over a dozen nations to agree on a major issue when they rarely agree on a minor one.

35 aircraft is just too small and the total cost of ships and planes means they are unlikely to be risked


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 29, 2010)

The UK's military doesn't make a substantial contribution to US military deployments today - witness the relative ease with which the US moved into areas of Afghanistan that had previously been the bailiwick of the British Army. The purpose of a carrier is force projection without the need to rely on host-nation support, and there are lots of use-cases for that type of operation - non-combatant evacuation operations, special forces (eg Sierra Leone in recent history), anti-piracy or counter-drug ops etc.


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 29, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> The UK's military doesn't make a substantial contribution to US military deployments today - witness the relative ease with which the US moved into areas of Afghanistan that had previously been the bailiwick of the British Army. The purpose of a carrier is force projection without the need to rely on host-nation support, and there are lots of use-cases for that type of operation - non-combatant evacuation operations, special forces (eg Sierra Leone in recent history), anti-piracy or counter-drug ops etc.



That was the point I was making. Small submarines are becoming ever more capamle and available even for the tourist industry. One suicide bomber in a midget sub could sink or disable a carrier. 

Force projection is a political theory that seems to forget disasters like Suez, Germany gets on just fine without projecting force anywhere.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Oct 29, 2010)

A carrier quite useful unfortunately is not made for economical purposes, I think sometimes the people who said the aircraft carriers are white elephants is just to feel good about the fact we/they dont have any.

A video for the nostalgic britons:

Selected Original - HMS EAGLE - British Pathe


----------



## BombTaxi (Oct 29, 2010)

Matt308 said:


> Apparently. According to AvWeek the UK will now field 1 conventional carrier with F-35Cs.



I suppose the second one will be flogged to India or used as a gate guardian at Portsmouth...


----------



## Glider (Oct 29, 2010)

I am half expecting a country to make a bid for the ones we have. They are up to date with regular upgrades and we have a bunch of recently enhanced Harriers going for a good price.


----------



## Colin1 (Oct 29, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> One suicide bomber in a midget sub could sink or disable a carrier.
> 
> Force projection is a political theory that seems to forget disasters like Suez, Germany gets on just fine without projecting force anywhere.


Walking into a crowded market with explosives strapped to your torso under a raincoat is one thing, getting close to a carrier in a submersible is quite another; no unscheduled blip on a sonar is going to be waved off as nothing out of the ordinary.

Force projection is a military reality, some prosecute it better than others. I'm not sure what your point is about Germany - so does Belgium.


----------



## Colin1 (Oct 29, 2010)

They're not our allies, they're very naughty boys

We can fly our fighters from Britain's carriers, say French

_The Daily Telegraph_ 29 October 2010

*By James Kirkup
in Brussels*

French warplanes could be stationed on Britain's new aircraft carriers as the two nations' navies become interdependent, France's defence minister said yesterday.

Herve Morin told a European defence industry conference in Paris that French Rafale jets could fly from Britain's new Queen Elizabeth-class carriers. The prospect of French planes flying from British carriers is likely to increase the Royal Navy's anger over David Cameron's decision to scrap Harrier jump jets.

Plans for extensive Anglo-French military cooperation will be discussed by the Prime Minister and Nicolas Sarkozy next week in London. The government's SDR last week made cuts that will leave Britain without a fully functioning aircraft carrier until 2020.

The review also said that, in future, Britain would normally only fight wars alongside allies like France and the US. Britain's first QE-class carrier will enter service in 2016. Scrapping the Harriers means there will be no British combat jets able to fly from its deck until 2020, when the JSF is due delivery.

Trying to bridge that capability gap, ministers have said the new carriers would be redesigned to have catapults to launch aircraft which would allow them to carry planes like the Rafale. Mr Morin told the Euronaval conference "I've asked our military command to consider the feasibility of stationing British aircraft on our aircraft carrier and vice versa".

He added "The idea is an exchange of capacity and an interdependence. It's a new approach". The plan would give France a permanent presence at sea even when its single aircraft carrier, the Charles de Gaulle, was in dock for maintenance, he said.

The SDR cut Britain's surface fleet to only 19 ships and some analysts have questioned whether the RN will have enough vessels to support the new carriers. Mr Morin suggested that Britain and France could agree to deploy frigates to escort each other's aircraft carrier, effectively making up an Anglo-French naval unit.

Mr Cameron is painfully aware of the potential for political controversy over his defence plans. The Anglo-French summit was originally to be held in Portsmouth, home of the RN but then shifted to London after the SDR. Other cooperation plans to be discussed next week could include French spy planes flying over Britain and scanning the North Sea for Russian submarines.

France made the offer after the SDR announced the scrapping of the new Nimrod MRA4 for the RAF.

The two countries could also share refuelling aircraft while the British and French armies will hold a joint exercise in Flanders this year. The MoD said "The UK and France are facing the realities of the tough financial climate and it is in our best interests to work together to deliver the capabilities that both our nations need".

*A Rafale fighter taking off from the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier. The French jets could operate from the UK's new Queen Elizabeth-class carrier.*


----------



## BombTaxi (Oct 29, 2010)

Oh dear, the Mail will be fulminating over that for decades. Don't you know that we only finished fighting the Frogs 195 years ago? Never mind we have been allied to them more times than we fought against them! They are The Enemy! 

Seriously though, why don't we buy Rafales if the new carrier is capable of flying them? Or would that be like admitting that they were right to pull out of Eurofighter? I personally think that French planes on British carriers is a better deal than American planes controlled by American commanders on British carriers, which was suggested as part of the F-35 deal, or American nukes under American control on British subs, which is what we have with Trident. So I'm all for it if it means we can actually use the carriers we've blown £5bn on...


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 29, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> Walking into a crowded market with explosives strapped to your torso under a raincoat is one thing, getting close to a carrier in a submersible is quite another; no unscheduled blip on a sonar is going to be waved off as nothing out of the ordinary.
> 
> Force projection is a military reality, some prosecute it better than others. I'm not sure what your point is about Germany - so does Belgium.



Colin

Iran for example has acquired some very high speed boats. There have been successful attcks on battleships in the past using midget subs human torpedos, I doubt whether a small submarine or diver would make any sonar trace if it is near the sea bed.

My point about Germany could apply equally to Japan and many other countries. Belgium has always been neutral since it was founded basically as a buffer state, you dont have to "project" to get on with life.


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 29, 2010)

BombTaxi said:


> I personally think that French planes on British carriers is a better deal than American planes controlled by American commanders on British carriers, which was suggested as part of the F-35 deal, *or American nukes under American control on British subs, which is what we have with Trident.* So I'm all for it if it means we can actually use the carriers we've blown £5bn on...



That's fact? I didn't know that.  Or are you being facetious?


----------



## Colin1 (Oct 29, 2010)

Matt308 said:


> That's fact? I didn't know that.  Or are you being facetious?


Fact
We can't fire them without US permission. Outside of the vastly different threat profile it's now facing to the one it was designed for, it's largely why I don't think we need them, we might as well give them back to the people who CAN fire them.


----------



## BombTaxi (Oct 29, 2010)

'Tis true. We lease the weapons from the US and the US would have a definitive say on firing them. It was widely reported in certain parts of the UK press during the debate over Trident replacement.


----------



## BombTaxi (Oct 29, 2010)

Great minds think alike Colin...







And so do we


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 29, 2010)

From BBC

BBC News - Q&A: Trident replacement

Former Prime Minister Gordon Brown has stressed Trident's independence, saying its firing does not require the permission, the satellites or the codes of any other country (ie the United States). 

However, critics argue that Britain is technically so dependent on the US that in effect Trident is not an independent system. For example, the British Trident missiles are serviced at a port in the state of Georgia and warhead components are also made in the US.


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 29, 2010)

BombTaxi said:


> Oh dear, the Mail will be fulminating over that for decades. Don't you know that we only finished fighting the Frogs 195 years ago? Never mind we have been allied to them more times than we fought against them! They are The Enemy!
> 
> Seriously though, why don't we buy Rafales if the new carrier is capable of flying them? Or would that be like admitting that they were right to pull out of Eurofighter? I personally think that French planes on British carriers is a better deal than American planes controlled by American commanders on British carriers, which was suggested as part of the F-35 deal, or American nukes under American control on British subs, which is what we have with Trident. So I'm all for it if it means we can actually use the carriers we've blown £5bn on...



I agree, the design for the carriers was kicked off by Thales which is a French company, so what is the problem with french planes? At least, in the limit, france is in the same part of the world . If these things are to be used against pirates which are just people with sub machine guns in speed boats we are using the most expensive plane in history to counter a " weapons system" that can be bought for 2 thousand pounds/dollars.


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 29, 2010)

Matt308 said:


> From BBC
> 
> BBC News - Q&A: Trident replacement
> 
> Former Prime Minister Gordon Brown has stressed Trident's independence, saying its firing does not require the permission, the satellites or the codes of any other country (ie the United States).



This must be fantasy, the idea that anyone could fire a US designed nuclear weapon without them having a say is unrealistic. For those who remember French exocets being fired on the RN in the Falklands imagine a nuke being used.

Gordon Brown still believes he saved the world from a financial meltdown and that he brought an end to boom and bust


nuff politics


----------



## parsifal (Oct 31, 2010)

Shifting the debate slightly, Ive also read recently that the Poms are scrapping their Nimrod MR1 fleet, ahead of schedule, notwithstanding the bad delays being experienced with the MR2 replacement. In the meantime the Brits will make do Hercs and "merlin" choppers (what is a merlin chopper anyway?) in the ASW role. huh? Hercs in the ASW role?


----------



## Colin1 (Oct 31, 2010)

parsifal said:


> (what is a merlin chopper anyway?)


Agusta-Westland Merlin
Probably lowers a sonobuoy in the water or something


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 31, 2010)

Yeah they are going to use the existing Nimrods until Afghanistan violence ceases. That should make the Nimrod the longest serving aircraft in the history of mankind. 

Ultimately they are purchasing RC-135 Rivet Joints as replacement.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 31, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> Agusta-Westland Merlin
> Probably lowers a sonobuoy in the water or something



Thanks for the image....looks like a jazzed up Sea King. A very handsome looking chooper I guess, but hardly a replacement for the Nimrod


----------



## Arsenal VG-33 (Oct 31, 2010)

A bit unsure why the RN is choosing an aircraft in the first place, as this article states the carriers will not only _not_ carry aircraft, but will be sold after only a few years.

Navy aircraft carrier will be sold after three years - and never carry jets - Telegraph

The co-operation between the RN and French navy reflects the dire economic realities of the present day, and two countries will have no other choice but to consider such a program. All of the major powers are facing huge military cutbacks, there is no denying it. 

The real question then should be: given their harsh budgetary contraints, should countries simply mothball/deactivate large swaths of their respective militaries? Or should they find a way to downsize and yet still maintain a force powerful enough to ensure effective projection towards conflicts in the world and defend their mutual interests via co-operation? I don't think the present budget situation gives much room for anything else other than military co-operation of this order.

In other news, the CdG, after some sea trials to work out the kinks from recent repairs, is to be headed to the Suez canal in the next week. It will be accompanied by frigates _Forbin_ (Horizon-class) and the older_Tourville_ )Tourville-class), an un-named nuclear attack sub, and supply ship _Meuse_ (Durance-class). They are destined for the Persian Gulf.

http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=114408


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 31, 2010)

Arsenal, the UK should question on why it needs a carrier at all. The times are a changing. Put your resources into frigates and destroyers that will be needed to help the USN.


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 31, 2010)

syscom3 said:


> Arsenal, the UK should question on why it needs a carrier at all. The times are a changing. Put your resources into frigates and destroyers that will be needed to help the USN.



That is political dynamite, no comment.


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 31, 2010)

Especially the "follow us" comment.  Not sure that I as a free and proud country would advertise following anybody. Doing it via treaties and secret agreements is one thing, but the impression should be of independence to your enemies as well as your allies.


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 31, 2010)

syscom3 said:


> Arsenal, the UK should question on why it needs a carrier at all. The times are a changing. Put your resources into frigates and destroyers that will be needed to help the USN.



Short answer - because there is little chance of quid pro quo. While the destroyers and frigates would be of use to the USN (interoperability and command/control issues aside), I don't see any chance of the USN providing one of its huge carriers to support the UK or France national agendas.


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 31, 2010)

buffnut453 said:


> Short answer - because there is little chance of quid pro quo. While the destroyers and frigates would be of use to the USN (interoperability and command/control issues aside), I don't see any chance of the USN providing one of its huge carriers to support the UK or France national agendas.



Really? You must mean like territorial issues like Malvinas. But national security? I would be embarrassed as an American if we did not respond with absolute power in support of the UK.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 31, 2010)

A-Fricken-Men


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 31, 2010)

Matt308 said:


> Really? You must mean like territorial issues like Malvinas. But national security? I would be embarrassed as an American if we did not respond with absolute power in support of the UK.



It all depends how national security is defined and caveated. For the Falklands, British citizens were attacked by a foreign country. That is an issue of national security but it would be very ticklish for the US to become involved in a similar situation. And how would command and control work? There's no way on this earth the USN would cede command of a US vessel (of any size) to a foreign power, which brings us back to my original point - the US would not be supporting a UK national issue, it would still be calling the shots and would have veto over missions/activities. In short, it's impractical.


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 31, 2010)

Yeah but we gave you latest Sidewinders during that conflict, so don't dismiss us so cavalierly. Nukes are different, I understand but then again if you "untrustful bastards" were so suspicious, we would not have "given" you these weapons platforms to begin with. And please read my sarcasm into my last statement literally... we trust you with OUR lives. Otherwise why would we ever give you nukes guarded by a few single individual on a boat of hundreds!!!!!


----------



## buffnut453 (Oct 31, 2010)

Matt,

I fully appreciate the breadth and extent of the Special Relationship, nor am I being dismissive of the assistance given during the Falklands War, but there's a world of difference between selling the latest AAMs to be fitted to existing UK aircraft and providing a US capital ship to support UK national interests. It's a simple matter of political control. On the assumption that the UK needs a power projection capability (a statement with which many will argue), then the UK must have its own carriers because there simply isn't a practical alternative. 

For my part, I'd ditch the nuclear deterrent and invest in the carriers...but that's just me.


----------



## Matt308 (Oct 31, 2010)

Fair enough. But I suspect that your govt has more capability than either your nor I imagine.


----------



## BombTaxi (Nov 1, 2010)

Without going political, I don't know if the future of the British armed forces necessarily lies in being an adjunct to American forces. As some members have already said, there will be times (like the Falklands) where we cannot count on direct support from the US. And as controversial as it is, there seems to be a case for closer co-operation with the EU. As a nation we need to keep our options open. Our relationship with the US is nearly seven decades old, and while we have benefited much from it, that is a long time in geopolitics and the world now is very different to the world in 1945. We must remember that and be ready for what may come, whether that means new alliances or simply maintaining the old ones. I forget who said, but there is a quote that sums this up brilliantly for both sides; 

"Nations have no friends, only interests"


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 1, 2010)

Nations also have interests wherein they can establish social commonality such as language, cuisine, and values. I doubt that the modern EU would have lent the UK a single iota with respect to the Falklands.


----------



## BombTaxi (Nov 1, 2010)

I would agree, and perhaps the Falklands is not an issue to get hung up on - it seems we would have to deal with it alone, whatever alliance we were part of. My broader point is that the assumption that British interests will be best served by a military relationship with the US is no longer one that can be taken for granted. 

I would also agree that linguistic and social community is a valuable tool in building global relationships. But I think the UK is on a fence. Linguistically and culturally, we are closer to the US than to Europe. But in terms of our position as a welfare state with big government, we are (for the time being) much closer to Europe than the US. I think we need to balance our ties with both Europe and the US, and acknowledge that we can and should have both, rather than approaching the issue in an 'either/or' fashion, which seems to have been our approach since the birth of the EC/EU.

And now I'll pipe down before we really get political...


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 1, 2010)

BombTaxi said:


> And now I'll pipe down before we really get political...


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 1, 2010)

BombTaxi,

You neatly outline the vital strategic conundrum that successive British Governments, and the hierarchy within the MOD, have failed to resolve - do we pursue the higher-tech, linguistic and historical ties with the US (ie spend more on defence) or do we side more with the European NATO nations and accept that we'll be little more than a Belgium with a navy.

I think recent developments in Afghanistan are closing the technological gap between US-only and NATO operations which, combined with reducing defence budgets, pretty much forces the UK towards interoperability with European nations. That said, I don't see the UK pulling back from its traditional role of providing a veneer of coalition acceptability for US foreign policy actions, and we're certainly a long way from the position of France. However, it's going to be an interesting decade for those who track the evolution of UK defence strategy.


----------

