Cameron set for U-turn on jump jets

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/cameron-set-u-tur...-091353039.html

David Cameron is set for an embarrassing U-turn over the fighter aircraft for the Royal Navy's new carriers, it has been reported.

The Prime Minister has finally signed off a decision to revert to the jump jet variant of the US-built F-35 Joint Strike Fighter - as planned by the former Labour government - according to the Daily Telegraph.

A Government source confirmed that the issue had been discussed at Tuesday's meeting of the National Security Council. An announcement was said to be "imminent".

Under the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR), the coalition had planned to switch to the carrier variant - the F-35C - arguing that it was a more capable aircraft and, unlike the F-35B jump jet, would be inter-operable with the US and French navies.

However the costs of fitting the necessary catapults and arrester gear - "cats and traps" - to one of the carriers while the other ship was mothballed is reported to have spiralled from an estimated £400 million to almost £2 billion.

In an interview with the Telegraph this week, Defence Secretary Philip Hammond confirmed that "the facts have changed" on the choice of aircraft since the time of the SDSR.

Nevertheless the decision will be an embarrassment for Mr Cameron who strongly criticised the original decision by Labour to opt for the jump jet.

~ ~ ~

GOD DAMN FUCKING MUG!!!!

That is all I have to say on the matter.

At last.

BAE are building the carriers. BAE have a larger stake in the B than the C. Therefore, when asked how much it would be to convert to cats and traps, it wasn't too hard to come up with a figure that was just a bit too high for Cameron and co.

Or maybe I'm just cynical.

It doesn't quite matter. Cats and traps means changing British carrier doctrine and forcing a redesign of the ships, and changing over to a variant of the aircraft that even the Yanks themselves have doubts about over its ability to actually land.

The B variant suits existing carrier doctrines, doesn't mean a carrier redesign, and no engineering worries about landing capabilities.

It's appalling that France is more organised

It's a worse plane that leaves the carriers uselessly hamstrung in any serious operation since, among other things, they can't operate AWACS or tankers.

But it is a bit cheaper! The scandal is the government was too stupid to realise it was cheaper.

Well V-22 tankers/AWACs could still put in appearance.

Assuming the V-22 works properly for once.

wat




Also, just ask Grumman what it would've cost to make the carriers CATOBAR. If BAE gives a bad number, Gumman would have no problem giving the right one. But that would be surrendering to the Yanks I guess.

Don't see what Grumman would have to do with it when its BAE who's actually building the carriers.

Only the second one was planned to be CATOBAR anyway.

I guarantee you Grumman would give you a better price tag for CATOBAR conversion.

Don't see what Grumman would have to do with it when its BAE who's actually building the carriers.

Only the second one was planned to be CATOBAR anyway.

After-market cat&trap, bought by the lowest bidder.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/may/09/g...rn-fighter-jets

Apparently (not mentioned in the article) the RN has had a squadron of pilots gaining cat and trap experience on F18s with the USN. Oops.

How long to transfer to the Spanish Navy to relearn how to use a V/STOL?

I guarantee you that the British government would just back BAE.

Politics you see.

I think the basic problem is they thought this would be free or at least negligable. Hence they could compare just the price of the aircraft and save money by taking the more capable design. I'm not sure why they thought that wasn't done to start with, if it were true.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18034535

Lots of nice CTOL experience wasted.

How many of these pilots will still be serving by the time the carriers finally come into service?