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

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Matt308

Glock Perfection
18,961
94
Apr 12, 2005
Washington State
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.
 
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.
 
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).
 
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.
 
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 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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back