The kind of F-35 that the U.K. purchases as a Joint Strike Fighter partner nation might not be the one most think it will be.
While we have heard tales of woe over the last few years of the U.K. running into money problems with the 2 aircraft carriers being built and the aircraft that go on them, the following could indicate a serious change in course.
In a move that could put hundreds of British manufacturing jobs at risk, defence chiefs are ready to abandon plans to buy a vertical-landing fighter jet for the Royal Navy.
Instead, a cheaper conventional-landing warplane will replace the Navy’s Harriers when they retire.
Or is it just more uncertain posturing and leaking? Interesting too is this (with an MOD caution on the quality of the information).
A source said: “Labour chose the wrong type of aircraft and the wrong configuration of carrier, and they wasted a lot of money doing it. What’s going on now is about trying to fix that mess.”
An MoD spokesman said: “The Defence Secretary has made clear that tough decisions will need to be made but the complex process of a Strategic Defence and Security Review will be concluded in the Autumn and speculation at this stage about its outcome is entirely unfounded.”
H/T- DesScorp
Just when you think that the pentagon is the most f-ed up defense establishment in the world….
In defense of the military-industrial complex and politicians, some of the problems in procurement are a reflection of the rise of new threats and the new world we live in. Do you just worry about the top tier military (Russia/China) or put more money in COIN(Iraq/Afghanistan)?
In this case of the Navy what do you do? Again just worry about ABMs (hi-tech)or do we go back to policing the lanes( pirates,low-tech)? These problems face all the services. The problem also is compounded by tradition, well, we have been building carriers forever, nobody asks if we still need them? Do we need them that big? What about jobs lost if we don’t build them? The Brits and USA will face the same problem when it comes to replacing SSBN’s.
Last but not least, few politicians today have military experience, knowledge of history and/or technical expertise. Just listen to them on TV. Compounding the problem in Europe compared to the USA, politicians and especially the public want very little to do with the military,except cut it.
My experience of Europe is that most people there are at best neutral when it comes to the military/defense procurement when they aren’t downright pacifist.
Having read articles on the net and Jane’s about these 2 carriers, you really wonder if the politicians understood what they were getting into.
Nico: You hit the nail on the head with the line ”you really wonder if the politicians understood what they were getting into”. In these days of coalition ops (and we have tied ourselves to the US) what was the sense in building a carrier that was meant solely for STOVL aircraft, the F-35B and denying our deck to conventional take off carrier fighters. In addition the F-35B has a shorter range and lesser warload in comparison to the F-35C. If we go that route with the F-35B we will only be able to support USMC F-35B’s which seems very limiting when considering the broad implications of coalition ops. This rumour has been circulating for a couple of years now with even Harrier pilots questioning the reasoning behind the purchase of the F-35B.
Our defence purchases are a fudge sometimes, poor decision making, expensive changes of mind and never clearly thought out are the themes that are characteristic of British defence policy.
As for being pacifists I guess a lot of the younger generation don’t think of defence at all, there has been no war in Europe for 65 years, the closest was the Balkans in the 90′s, but the older generation do think of defence and many of us are concerned about it, there seems to be no clear path as to what we want to achieve, hence the forthcoming defence white paper, and about time to.
I think it’s a certainty that we will have a much smaller Air Force and Navy, but will we go about it in the right way, that remains to be seen.
Eric, FWIW, the scuttlebutt I’m seeing on the web isn’t that they’ll buy C’s instead of B’s, but that they’ll cut JSF for the Royal Navy altogether, and either buy Super Hornets, or shockingly, get into some kind of carrier sharing deal with the French where they both use Rafales. Since cost seems to be the overwhelming driver on these decisions (sub-$50 million a pop for Super Bugs vs. God-knows-how-much for JSF’S, and $90 million plus for Rafale M’s), coupled with the fact that the Royal Navy is sending their pilots on a “learning tour” with USN units in Super Bugs… right now it looks to me like the RN is preparing to buy Supers. But I increasingly have my doubts that they’ll build the ships at all. If they do a carrier-sharing deal with the French, then Supers would operate on the French carrier, and vice-versa for Rafales. Same USN-style gear.
Since we are having so much fun with the rumors, the latest I saw was the Brits were going to buy one of the American carriers being decommissioned. Training pilots on the SH right now so they could be ready and up to speed pretty fast. Wonder how much an old carrier and a wing of SH goes for?
That might make some sense… and the RN might actually want to do that… but there are too many jobs pressures right now in the UK to completely kill the carrier project. It’s looking more and more like the Brits will build only one flattop, and then share it with the French as the need arises (and vice-versa for the de Gaulle).
Me, I thought they could solve some budget problems by building a few sea control ship-type small carriers (similar to Spain’s Asturias), and partnering with Boeing an building updated Harriers, which the Marines would need if their B’s get axed. Politically, that takes care of your jobs issue while still putting flattop air assets back in the RN’s fleet. And at a much lower price tag. Either that or build a few conventional de Gaulle type ships and just buy Supers at bargain basement prices. The cost of French labor and a nuclear plant (not to mention the very expensive Rafales) is why France could only afford one. Displacement-wise, de Gaulle is basically a nuclear Essex. It could have been done much, much cheaper.
Great rumor Nico, I like that one!
I actually proposed this as well about a year ago half joking. But someone pointed out that crew demands for a US CVN (5,000 crew?) as well as annual operating costs simply couldn’t be realistic for a navy and military budget the size of UK MoDs. No doubt..
How about a wild quid pro compromise however? India selects Typhoon under their Medium multi role competition and RN would in kind select the naval Tejas variant being developed, equipped with thrust vectoring EJ2000??
Retain the ski jump therefore saving costs and time… and get a cheaper jet with much better range and higher performance? Logistics of course would be more streamlined sharing Typhoon hub center. Heck, build the 2nd boat in india!?! Shocked.
The interesting part are the implications. Put a catapult on the carrier, and you can trade in helicopter-based AEW for E-2Ds. Maybe even do a British fixed-wing ASW/tanker aircraft.
Power in technology … the real truth…