Citing carrier mod costs, UK switches back to F-35B

Citing carrier mod costs, UK switches back to F-35B

Britain’s defence secretary said Thursday it’s switching back to its onetime plan to buy the F-35B Lightning II, instead of the C, to save the cost of modifying its new aircraft carriers with catapults and arresting wires to handle the naval version of Lockheed Martin’s super-jet.

Ministry of Defence chief Philip Hammond laid it all out: Modifying the Royal Navy’s carriers to accommodate the C would delay Britain’s “carrier strike” capability until 2023; cost double the initial estimate — from £1 billion to £2 billion, or about $3.2 billion — and let the UK fly fast jets from both its ships, instead of just one.

“Carrier strike with ‘cats and traps’ using the carrier variant jet no longer represents the best way of delivering carrier strike and I am not prepared to tolerate a three-year further delay to reintroducing our carrier strike capability,” Hammond said in a statement. The new timeline, per MoD, goes as follows:


The STOVL aircraft has made significant progress … and the US Marine Corps has conducted successful STOVL flights from their ships. The UK will receive the first STOVL aircraft this summer and, as HMS Queen Elizabeth is due to arrive for sea trials in early 2017, UK STOVL flight trials will begin off the carrier from 2018.

Critics in the opposition Labour party blasted what they called the expensive dithering by Prime Minister David Cameron’s government. The ongoing indecision about the ships and the jets had “squandered” £250 million, said Jim Murphy, the “shadow” defence secretary, per the Financial Times. Still more criticism could come from Britain’s frenemy France, which liked the idea of the Royal Navy flying Cs because it meant British and French aircraft could cross-deck between their carriers. Now, although the UK’s F-35Bs will probably be able to take off and land on France’s carrier in a pinch, the French navy’s Dassault Rafale won’t be able to do the same with Britain’s CVFs.

But Lockheed and the U.S. Marine Corps have got to be breathing quiet sighs of relief over Hammond’s announcement. The Royal Navy makes three customers for the B, along with the Marines and the Italian navy, and more airplanes could theoretically mean lower costs, theoretically lower odds for cancellation, and theoretically more opportunities for cross-training. The jury is still out about whether any of that theory could be come reality.

Join the Conversation

It could “theoretically lower costs.” It won’t. It *could.* But it won’t.

I hope this leads to more countries buying the F-35B. For several countries including Taiwan and Japan, I think it makes sense to have some if not an all F-35B air force. In addition to helping assure survivability,it will provide commonality with the USMC forces that will be operating in the area if there is a fight.
I wonder how much it will reduce the cost of the F-35B?

They should look beyond the flavor of strike fighter aircraft that they are planning to acquire. CATOBAR adds a lot of capability for launch and recovery of other types of aircraft. Both CVs in the Elizabeth class should include the EMALS CATOBAR similar to that developed for PCU Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78). Not including CATOBAR on a CV is as shortsighted as not including VLS on a new cruiser.

Not good for the Britain or the US… Short term bandaide that will have long term negative impacts…
1. Higher Risk Aircraft that still could get cancelled.
2. Significant Range reduction.
3. Significanly Reduced Weapons Bay.
4. Higher Aircraft Acquisition Cost
5. Higher O& S cost.
6. Stuck with F-35B with no alternatives.
7. Less viable in a big war — UK more reliant on US to project power, US less total force cabability than if C model bought.

This is a bad choice to put all of their eggs in the F-35B like the USMC. This also makes the F-35C the ideal model to cancel since its only customer is the US Navy. The US Navy would be better off with Super Hornets anyway.

Let me get this straight one country(France) wants to dictate how another Country outfits and equips its carrier force??????

Let me get this straight one country(France) wants to dictate how another Country outfits and equips its carrier force?????? Also more F-18 Super Hornets is much smarter.

An awful lot of Naval Aviators do not agree that an all-Hornet airgroup is optimal. The overwhelming sentiment at Tailhook for the past several years has been to get the “C” out to the fleet and deployed as soon as possible.

The French overbearing? Never… :) On the other hand, however, the British government did toy with the idea of “time-sharing” carriers with the French. (Canceling one Queen Elizabeth class CV and using a French CV while the QE was in refit), so maybe the French got the idea into their heads that they had more of a say.

Less range? Do you know the combat radius of the F18 given CATOBAR needs large reserves of fuel for aborted traps. The f35b is ideal for the Royal Navy, USMC and anyone who has a LHD. as for the higher operational costs everyone forgets the C has a substantially reduced fatigue life than the B. What’s more the RN pioneered the rolling vertical landing that extends range while giving aircraft the ability to retun with unused ordinance. EMALS is still in development and it would have been suicidal for the RN to be the USN’s guinea pig. 2 billion pounds would have become 4 billion easily. Right now this means the RN is more likely to get both ships. Initially one in commission with the other at extended readiness. I’d take two ships with the B over one ship with the C ‘eventually, perhaps, maybe’ anyday. On Brit forums some are excited by STOBAR. That would give even less range and payload than a B for aircraft that don’t even exist!

I should add the F35C was too heavily to land let alone launch from the French CDG. That French joint working was a chimera and would have been a one way street; the French would have got a second carrier while the Brits would have discovered what ‘non’ means when they needed the CDG. Does anyone think President Hollande wil be pro-Brit as Sarko was? Yip, thought so.

Overall Bad decision. The B has numerous problems in testing and carries less munitions and fuel overall inferior to the F-35C. Like always this is going to go back and forth because of British politics on what there navy should look like. Hope they reverse this and go with Cs again.

Landing reserves are included in the combat radius numbers. B radius is about 450 NM, C is 600NM. That may not be a big deal if the Brit’s fight Falklands War II but it will be critical in an AA/AD environment.

Most likely — UK will drop both the JSF and their carriers.

The ironic thing? The B model is the only model that really was so nessesary.

They can grab more F-22’s or F-15SE for a short term replacment for the F-35A. F-18’s for the F-35C.

But there is NOTHING to replace the Harrier.

Sorry marines but you bought into the A-12 dorrito of the 21st century.

It’s risky for any fighter pilots to say anything bad about the F-35. They have the potential to lose their careers for it. Many Super Hornet pilots that I asked about the F-35C gave me the most politically correct answer about it that they could which was: “The F-35 will be a great plane it can do what Lockheed says it can.”

“The F-35 will be a great plane IF it can do what Lockheed says it can.”*

By the time the UK Carriers are ready the Saab Sea Gripen ( Being Co-Developed in Britain ) will ready ( 2015 ), and at around $60 Million a pop.

There was a lot of risk, but EMALS now seems to be headed toward successful delivery.
http://​www​.youtube​.com/​w​a​t​c​h​?​v​=​C​S​Z​r​5​8​h​H​_cI

“On Nov. 18, 2011, Navy test pilot Lt. Chris Tabert takes off in F-35C test aircraft CF-3, the first launch of the carrier variant of the Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter from the Navy’s new electromagnetic aircraft launch system, set to install on future USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78). The F-35C carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter … is undergoing test and evaluation at NAS Patuxent River and Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst before delivery to the fleet.”

No, they are Co — Developing the Sea Gripen NG with Saab, Which started in Sept. of 2011. They want their Carriers Desperately. Does anyone really think that their involvement with getting the Sea Gripen ready by 2015 is “Just a Coincidence ” :-)

By the time the sea gripen is ready they could already have bought F-18SH which have better performance in all area’s and are the same price.

By the time you bulk up the frame and strengthen the landing gear etc you will end up with a far smaller payload and t/w factor. The Sea Gripen will likely cost around 70–90 mil after all is said and done.

Add in all the battle tested experience the SH has and the extra’s Growler etc.….well.

I think the Brits should go for EMALs or something to make the carriers CATOBAR.

Some people are forgetting that UK operated a JOINT harrier force (RN and RAF combined unit). This will almost certainly be the model for the F35 too which will be operated by RAF and RN.

In emergencies the RAF F35B can be operated much closer to the front line than conventional aircraft so when operating from land bases the range isn’t so much of an issue.

STOVL carrier planes can be flown off/landed onto decks much more quickly than catapults allow which means much less loitering (wasted fuel burn) while others land or takeoff. This means they need much lower reserves before heading back to a carrier. A harrier once returned to HMS Invincible with one minute of fuel left.

The only other plus point I’ll mention is the B model can be operated off of merchant ships which means many more “aircraft carriers” are available.

Plenty of other people have mentioned the many bad points of this decision so I’ll not go into them. Oh and don’t think I’m pro B model by what I’ve written.

Sir, I respectfully suggest you are looking at this as a step-down for the UK.

1. Modern airframes with more lifetime hours available than remaining Harrier Gr9 fleet
2. Longer range than Harrier Gr9, longer time on station
3. Increased weapons load and bring back capacity compared to Harrier Gr9
4. Cheaper than developing a Harrier III that would be sold in smaller number (look at Typhoon)
5. Lower O&S costs than the Harrier Fleet
6. Indeed there are fewer alternatives than with CATOBAR however there are still many Ski-Jump capable aircraft around. Sea Gripen stands out as UK-friendly, as does the Tejas.
7. More viable than Harrier Gr9 in a big war as Gr9 was a Ground Attack aircraft (the “Gr” bit). The Sea Harrier with it’s superior AA load-out and intercept radar was retired some time ago. As a result, less reliant on US than while operating CVS and Harrier fleet.

And just to bring the point home;

8. 100% year-round capacity with the F-35B capability (superior to Harrier Gr9) compared to 60% year-round capacity with the F-35C capability. I’d rather 100% availability, I certainly do not want to be without Carrier Strike capability for 5 months of the year.

The move means that the F-35B looks likely to allow the UK to operate two Carriers in rotation with the outlandish option of embarking the STOVL jets from the LPH and LSD ships (Ocean, Albion class, Bay class) if problems arise.

The QE class of CVF’s also have greater range, endurance, stores and facilities than the Invincible class and are a more stable sea platform. Combined with the STOVL variants ability to operate in rougher sea states it means that F-35B can operate in most locations and weather conditions that the carrier can venture into. e.g. the middle of a stormy South Atlantic…

Having said this, I too would have preferred two CATOBAR capable carriers flying on-loan F-18’s until the F-35C became available, with E-2’s providing AEW. However that was just not a possibility even if money was found to convert both carriers.

The UK is definitely getting a step-change in capability for the better, of that there is no doubt. The different style of capability (almost a blend of US Marine and USN capabilities) may even provide more tactical and strategic options to Allied commanders.

The JSF B will never be combat ready due to many technical issues. It is unaffordable. If the Brits can’t afford to modify their carrier, they will never be able to build a carrier group. A carrier by itself is just a great target. You have to have all the ships that go with a carrier for a carrier Group to be effective.
The Sea Gripen is not STOVL? So the carriers would still have to be modified.

Really? they’re going to wreck someone’s careers because they said something not nice about an aircraft?

It has and will continue to happen all the time. If the Brass says it’s the greatest thing since sliced bread, the rank & file had better be in lock step with that assessment. Sad but true and the F-35 is FAR from the only program where this has happened. Of course, it will never be uttered in the light of day that this was the reason for said officer’s suddenly dim career prospects.

Makes me wonder if this system will be a cross-over function for Rail Gun equipped carriers? Some things I read said the Navy was “reluctant” to give up on the RG; especially after the successful firing.

Perhaps not Career-ending, but certainly a notation mark on your personnel jacket. I remember an episode where COMNAVAIR was doing a wardroom visit on a CV, and he pings one of the LTJGs visiting the deck (our unnamed aviator was assigned to a small-boy flying helos as par of the BG), and the flag turns to him and asks how he likes the Romeo (SH-60R). Unfortunately for our flyboy, instead of nodding enthusiastically “It’s great sir!” he blurts out that he was still flying an old Bravo — three years after the projected time his Air Wing was supposed to have received both Romeos and Sierras. The ever present aide-de-camp sees the Almighty frown, tut-tuts under his breath as only dog robbers can, and makes note of the unfortunate pilot’s name. Suffice it to say he got a bit of counseling from the squadron CO on how JOs should be seen and not heard…

“Joint Force Harrier” did away with the RN’s Sea Harriers (which had just been modernized too, what a waste of money!) and was all RAF Harriers, with just *pilots* drawn from both services. Unfortunately, that effectively handed the RN’s air force to the RAF, just like the government did in 1918. For much of the last few years of JFH, the RAF sent ALL the Harriers to land bases in Afghanistan, and the carriers had to deploy with all-helicopter air groups. So, really, the RN’s been “carrier-less” for quite some time already. The pilots just got a little refresher training on a carriers once every few years.

The STOVL jets on merchant ships = many more carriers idea has been floating around since the Harrier entered service. Trouble is, there were never enough Harriers to actually DO that, and merchant ships are notoriously vulnerable in combat. Just look at the M/V Atlantic Conveyor in the Falklands. Similarly, I imagine that there would never be enough F-35Bs to carry out the merchant ship idea, either. It IS a great theory, but it’ll never be proven in practice.

Obviously, you have never been to Tailhook. The active pilots, especially LTs and below are pretty free with their observations and often give pretty frank criticisms in the sessions. Having observed this for over 10 years, I have personally seen some notable critics get promoted and do very well.

Sea Gripen is Ski-jump launch capable and has a tremendously short landing run.

At least we *hope* it will never be proven in practice!

If the carriers were knocked out of action, there’s always a possibility in a conflict.

Check out a leaked copy of the Sea Gripen PDF as proposed to India.
http://​www​.the​-desert​-fox​.com

I think the RN buying those would be pretty cool. Maybe the Sea Gripen won’t bankrupt the MoD in the process.

Looks good but its not the performance which believe me looks good for now its that there is already a better aircraft for basicly the same price.

I figure if the Indians pick one it will probably be based on technology sharing. We are less willing to share we’ve been bitten to many times by doing so.

normally if GB make the good choice, they need buy f-18 or rafale

If they go with the GE 414 and the “Thrust Vectoring” that will change the dynamics in favor of the Sea Gripen over the F-18 SH. Which will make it very appealing to the Spanish & Italians as well.

France and Brazil will build the RXX CVA by 2018. 2 for Brazil, 1 for France and (rumored) 1 for Argentina. The 2 South American nations are bouyed by new oil/natural gas money. France sees a opening by courting newly financialy open clients, while moving away from its almost bankrupt European allies. RXX is a 295 Meter, 75,000 ton, CATOBAR ship capable of embarking 50–60 aircraft. French design and Cheap South American raw materials & labor. After Obama’s total disrespect for President Rousseff, brazil is going French. He dispatched SECDEF to Brazil to beg for a Hornet sale. Brazil also plans for 2 Mistral class Assault ships, and 4 Nuke attack subs by 2022. The $100 Billion Obama gave Brazil for offshore oil production will most assuredly go to purchase Rafale for the BAF and Rafale M for their Navy. They are getting more than enough private oil investment from China and Russia. $20 says the New Brazilian CVF launches a Rafale M before the UK & USMC have deployable F-35B squadrons.

Riddle me this Mr. Tee. A small light fighter such as the Gripen could take off the Spanish Juan Carlos or the Italian Cavour for sure. How would this aircraft be recovered? There is no arresting gear on these ships. To re-engineer these ships to arrest landing aircraft, well you might as well go ahead install EMALs cats and for the same price run a Rafale M. Those Euro Carries are the same size as the Forrestal class and could physically handle it. I love Super Bugs too, but they are a good bomb truck at best. F-18 Fans love to quote $5–60 million for a F/A-18SH, but that was years ago, not todays prices. India is also looking at the French RXX design.

Yeah, many country who will purchase the rafale, waiting to see who was the new president of france.Now we know india take the rafale, brazil have immédiately take info about that.
You have UAE who waiting election for buy 60 rafale, koweit and qatar wait UAE decision and follow it.

And f-35?

The Brazilian economy has slowed down recently, all their big talk a decade ago about building a blue water fleet has come to nothing. It is pure fantasy to think Brazil will build a 75,000 ton carrier by 2020 when the first QE class carrier will be in service. Brazil will be lucky if it has a new light carrier of 30,000 tons by 2030.
QE will be finished by next summer & in the water by 2014, then on sea trials by 2017–2018, PoW will be assembled by 2014 and floated in 2016. It’s worth noting that Brazil cannot even build five OPVs, they are having to order them from BAE. With the new French President it is also unlikely that France will even build a new carrier. Brazil is a long long way away from being able to build super carriers, even with French help,
and as for Argentina? A British expression comes to mind “are you having a laugh?”.

What good will having an aircraft that cannot effectively operate from their helicopter carriers do them? It’s either Harriers (out of production and room for growth) or F-35Bs for those ships. Same for the British carriers unless they do decide to fit them with the proper catapults and traps.

For the capabilities provided (including possible AWACS support), they should really go with EMALS.

The Brazilian Air Force wants the Gripen NG, and I would think the Navy would have to go along with the Air Force because they are buying the bulk of their new fighters.
http://​www​.flightglobal​.com/​n​e​w​s​/​a​r​t​i​c​l​e​s​/​l​e​a​ked–

The leader of the UAE said the Rafale was “Yesterdays Technology” and that the latest Rafale Proposal was “Un-Workable “
http://​www​.reuters​.com/​a​r​t​i​c​l​e​/​2​0​1​0​/​1​1​/​3​0​/​w​i​k​i​lea
http://​uk​.reuters​.com/​a​r​t​i​c​l​e​/​2​0​1​1​/​1​1​/​1​6​/​u​k​-​u​a​e-w

Or maybe just not replace the Harrier at all?

After all, the spares from Britain will keep them going a long time in the States. While the new America Class can take EMALs which means in the future, they could use F35C or Super Hornets which would be a huge step up for the USMC. This decision to revert to F35B is actually a disaster as the UK will spend a lot of money for short range air groups that will increasingly struggle to do more than defend themselves, against increasingly longer range and stealthier adversaries over their 50 year lifespan — let alone project power or deterrence. The question to be asked here is; The Royal Navy won the Falklands War but the RAF made only a cameo appearance — so why has the RN lost every battle against the RAF since 1945?

Unfortunately the grippen NG is still hypothetical, even the model E/F is not ready yet. The gripen that the switzerland ordered are far from ready.

From 98 modification requested by Switzerland (i.e. drop tank, more powerful engine), only 7 were done on the prototype having flight last week…
(original article in french) <a href=“http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2 Fwww.lematin.ch%2Fsuisse%2FLe-Gripen-un-avion-ou-tout-reste-a-faire%2Fstory%2F25116550” target=“_blank”>http://​translate​.google​.com/​t​r​a​n​s​l​a​t​e​?​s​l​=​a​u​t​o​&​a​m​p​;​amp…” target=“_blank”>Fwww.lematin.ch%2Fsuisse%2FLe-Gripen-un-avion-ou-tout-reste-a-faire%2Fstory%2F25116550

The yesterdays Tech remark was last October. On 26 April 2012 that same Sheik said they were ironing out the details on the deal finalization. He was waiting for the outcome of the Indian MRCA, which Rafale won, to up series production, in turn lowering costs(quoting pfcem on F-35 costs). The Same with Brazil. With current proposed production numbers, the improved UAE spec Rafale F4 will come in at the same price a the top model Hornet.

Its saves fictional money… in the sense that if they had gone with F35-C’s they’d have spent more than going with F35-B’s… regardless of which option they’re still spending alot and certainly more than they originally intended.

The F35B is still a significant improvement over the Harrier, so which ever way they went its better than what they have. Its easy enough to tell the UK to spend £2 billion more… but they’re a country with 1/7th our economy yet they do manage to maintain a comissioned fleet of 79 ships, despite being 7 times larger our fleet is only 4 times theirs. Admittedly we have disproportionatelry more of the bigger ships, but I think of all the European nations, they most meet expectations.

If the Europeans are more dependent on the US it only speaks to the success of our American economic imperialism.

I seem to recall about 4 months ago that you were done touting the F-18 over the F-35. 35 (no relation intended) posts later, here we are again.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Become a fan on and follow us on
© 2013 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.