MASSIVE HAT TIP TO R. CRICHTON7 (otherwise known as my source in the UK).
via the TIMES.
David Cameron is due to be presented with what officials believe is an overwhelming case for a change of policy on Britain’s troubled aircraft carrier programme. The Times has learnt that Forces chiefs will unanimously advocate that the Government should abandon plans to buy the conventional carrier version of the American Joint Strike Fighter — the F35C. Instead, a reassessment of the carrier programme will advise…Just plain. WOW.
The Brits are confusing me. This is inexplicable. Totally surprising. Semi-insane.
Suffice it to say. I Don't Get It.
Why is this inexplicable or surprising, we have been discussing it for weeks?
ReplyDeletebecause i chalked it all up to just being talk. idol talk at that. i still find it hard to believe that after a defense review that showed that the C model would be cheaper...after the US Navy provided documentation that showed that the Emals system was indeed affordable and after all the talk about how embarrassing it would be to her majestys govt to reverse course, that they actually would do just that. reverse course.
DeleteThink Defence, that is true, but I have to say that this Times article is considerably more emphatic in tone. Like us all in the UK, who take an interest, I read every newspaper article or comment piece on this avidly. As you are well aware, the story has mostly been carried by the Telegraph and has been subject to the usual flaws present in almost all UK defence reporting - cats and "flaps" being a personal favourite.
ReplyDeleteRiddled with factual errors or not, the Telegraph articles sat firmly within the framework of a journalistic ruse common to all papers. Let's call it the interpretation gambit, we all know it, it's a quiet day in the office and the news editor says to the "defence correspondent" ( who also compiles the horoscope and masquerades as Betty the agony aunt): "hmm, I see the MoD says that it is routinely reviewing the costs of all major programmes, including the carriers, gimme 2,000 words on that sentence". Maybe naively, I have believed that this whole story was journalistic generation of noise but no heat. The tone of the Times article has made me doubt that.
We shall see.
If this does happen it will be tragic climbdown. We will get both our carriers to use but lose our cross decking capability with the USN and France not to mention some useful range and stores carrying capability.
ReplyDeleteUltimatly the choice I think has already been made for the UK not by MoD, not by Whitehall, but instead by the shower of money grabing barstools at BAE Systems who consistently under cost/price to get the work then hike it back up after despite getting hauled over the coals each and every bloody time.
utter rubbish, i've read the times article, we're loosing alot more than range & weapons load, we're loosing ever having the opertunity to fly anything else from the carriers aswell!! no awacs, no arial refueling, no electronic warfare, no fast replenishments from home & everything else that comes with cats & "flaps" lols.
ReplyDeleteOfficial - It's back to the F-35B for the UK.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=19482
It's really rather stunning they didn't cost out the carrier conversion and understand what they were getting into. Frankly the whole thing looked like smoke and mirrors in that the "savings" really stemmed from going to one carrier and sharply decreasing the total F-35 buy. This should not by any means be read as now going back to two carriers. Maybe someday, if they don't sell it off and find the funds to operate the 2nd.
ReplyDeleteThe RN in 1990 operated 3 carriers, 49 escorts, and 29 SSN and SSK's. Today they're down to no carriers, 18 escorts, 7 SSN's, and the maritime patrol Nimrods were also retired without replacement. As a long term admirer of the RN it's really rather sad to witness. The writing was on the wall when the Sea Harriers were first retired.