JFKvsNixon Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 They've got another 30 years in those airframes, and as a 10 year stopgap, since we rather short sightedly sold off our existing carrier planes they would have been perfect. They'd certainly have been better than the nothing that we have at the moment. The F-18s couldn't fly off our current carriers anyway so that idea is a non starter. The carrier fighters were scrapped years ago, what the Tories sold off was the carrier based ground attack aircraft. It's telling that the Australians and the Canadians want to replace their F-18s with F-35s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 The carrier fighters were scrapped within the last couple of years. We have nothing to fly of Illustrius anyway except Helicopters and if she's decommissioned in 2014 we won't have an aircraft carrier at all for a decade. So forcing BAE to fit the catapult system as originally designed for and then flying F-18's or F35B's is still the most sensible option. There is no good argument for the F35C except the profiteering from BAE which should see them in court on breach of contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 The carrier fighters were scrapped within the last couple of years. The Sea Harriers were scrapped in 2006, as I said earlier the version of Harrier that the Tories sold off was the ground attack version which was pretty in effectual as a fighter. We have nothing to fly of Illustrius anyway except Helicopters and if she's decommissioned in 2014 we won't have an aircraft carrier at all for a decade. So forcing BAE to fit the catapult system as originally designed for and then flying F-18's or F35B's is still the most sensible option. There is no good argument for the F35C except the profiteering from BAE which should see them in court on breach of contract. I don't really think that your suggestion really holds water that the basis of the carriers decision rests on profiteering by BAe, so maybe you can run that theory by me again. We're also going to have to disagree about the F-18 as I feel that purchasing second hand airframes that has had 30 years of carrier operations, many of them seeing active service, which does put them under extra stress, for use on a carrier that won't be ready for 5-10 years as being the way forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 The reason I'm suggesting that the carrier decision is based on BAE profiteering is that the original design of the carriers included the capability to fit a catapult. The cost to do that was supposed to be in the several hundred million area. After they were asked to go ahead and do it the cost suddenly ballooned to over 2 billion. That's either a breach of contract or profiteering or both. And this is the reason that the decision has been reversed, because in the short term it will cost more (not in the long term though, given the increased cost of buying and maintaining F35Cs). The F18's were just an option to save cash in the short term, the decision could as easily be to go straight for the F35C if the catapult install went ahead, but either way there are more options open for CATOBAR capable planes than for ST/VL variants, and invariably they are cheaper to buy and cheaper to run and more capable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 The reason I'm suggesting that the carrier decision is based on BAE profiteering is that the original design of the carriers included the capability to fit a catapult. The cost to do that was supposed to be in the several hundred million area. After they were asked to go ahead and do it the cost suddenly ballooned to over 2 billion. That's either a breach of contract or profiteering or both. And this is the reason that the decision has been reversed, because in the short term it will cost more (not in the long term though, given the increased cost of buying and maintaining F35Cs). OK I get it now you're suggesting that BAe are profiteering by charging a stupid amount for the changing the carriers to a CATOBAR system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 OK I get it now you're suggesting that BAe are profiteering by charging a stupid amount for the changing the carriers to a CATOBAR system. Exactly, and they're doing that to either a) make a stupid profit at the tax payers expense, or b) force a change to use F35C instead of B and subsequently make a stupid profit at the tax payers expense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Graham Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 There are some very knowledgable folk on this thread so I would like to ask a simple question. Perhaps a separate thread but here goes. Why do we need such a sophisticated defence capability? What is the threat and from whom? (Yes, pedants, that's two questions.) It seems to me we have spent a fortune on nuclear subs. Now another fortune on aircraft carriers. Potentially another fortune on Trident replacement. And another fortune in Afghanistan/Iraq. I thought the threat was terrorism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 There are many potential threats, you don't develop your armed forces just for the threat you face today, it has to be ready to face the potential threats from tomorrow. The nuclear deterrent is mainly a product of the cold war, but there are several unstable countries that are actively pursuing nuclear weapons and countries with the existing capability that don't see the future of the world in the same way we do. Maintaining the deterrent is therefore necessary as a balance against both these types of country. The aircraft carriers are merely replacing the existing old carriers that we have, they've been used in every conflict we've been involved in for 30 years, so it seems likely that they will continue to prove their value going forwards. One example might be the Falklands islands, without a credible way of retaking it who's to say that the Argentinians wouldn't risk an effort to capture it again. And there are ongoing operations in the middle east, the massive pirate problem off the coast of Somalia and who knows what else will spring up in the future where a mobile airbase is a very useful thing to have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted May 14, 2012 Share Posted May 14, 2012 There are some very knowledgable folk on this thread so I would like to ask a simple question. Perhaps a separate thread but here goes. Why do we need such a sophisticated defence capability? What is the threat and from whom? (Yes, pedants, that's two questions.) It seems to me we have spent a fortune on nuclear subs. Now another fortune on aircraft carriers. Potentially another fortune on Trident replacement. And another fortune in Afghanistan/Iraq. I thought the threat was terrorism. Terrorism is the current threat, but in this world nothing is certain, so we always need to be ready to face the next threat as it takes time, effort and money to develop the equipment that may be needed. If I had to speculate as to where a potential threat may come from I'd say not much has changed. Russia is now rich in oil and gas which it may try to take advantage of, it's worth remembering that it still has a capability to destroy us several times over. The next century may well belong to China, and it will be interesting to see how the USA handles that challenge. As to why build an aircraft carrier. A carrier gives us the opportunity of having a mobile military air base anywhere that the carrier can go, this then not only gives us the ability to carry out air-strikes, we can also project power which would help us achieve our goals without resorting to military action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 It's now looking likely that the STOVL version of the F-35 will now be cancelled, so there will have to be yet another change in the configuration of the carriers to CATOBAR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.