we're not confused, just saddend by the complete lack of leadership on this issue, labour made a mistake, when deciding on the f-35B, but atleast they stuck to it, for practical reasons, it made sense, no expensive, unproven, cats & traps, just, vertical landing, what the navy was used too... but they left it open for ther future
Then the "con-dems" made the only right decision, of the "sdsr", putting the emals in place and buying the cheaper f-35c!!
THEN they fold, to presure, or appear to be doing so, in reverting to the f-35b, which is way more expensive, in the long run.. a sad sad day, indeed.
Far too much emphasis seems to be made in the UK on the C being "cheaper" when in fact it costs about the same as the B. The FY2013 USN budget has the C at $139 million and the B at $144 million unit flyaway. The real cost issue has always been how many are purchased, the cost of the carriers, and the other aircraft for the carrier air group.
The entire choice to switch to the C appeared to be smoke and mirrors in that decision talked a lot about saving money when in reality the savings appeared to based on simply operating one carrier instead of two and cutting the aircraft buy by more than half.
While one can make arguments all day whether the C or B is a better choice it's in fact stunning a proper cost analysis on the carrier conversion was not undertaken before the decision was made to switch to the C.
What also doesn't seem to have come up is that going with cats also makes adding the E-2 rather compelling. While that's a lot more capability than the AEW Sea King and it's eventual replacement it's also one more added expense.
All this aside building two 65,000 ton carriers designed to operate 36 fighters under very high sustained operations and then deciding to operate one carrier with a normal air wing of 12 is the heart of the matter. It's in fact ridiculous.
Given the financial realities what should have been designed were smaller carriers normally operating 12 with the ability to handle 24. That might have allowed the RN to actually operate both carriers. The choice to operate a single CVF after building two is just ridiculous.
we're not confused, just saddend by the complete lack of leadership on this issue, labour made a mistake, when deciding on the f-35B, but atleast they stuck to it, for practical reasons, it made sense, no expensive, unproven, cats & traps, just, vertical landing, what the navy was used too... but they left it open for ther future
ReplyDeleteThen the "con-dems" made the only right decision, of the "sdsr", putting the emals in place and buying the cheaper f-35c!!
THEN they fold, to presure, or appear to be doing so, in reverting to the f-35b, which is way more expensive, in the long run.. a sad sad day, indeed.
Far too much emphasis seems to be made in the UK on the C being "cheaper" when in fact it costs about the same as the B. The FY2013 USN budget has the C at $139 million and the B at $144 million unit flyaway. The real cost issue has always been how many are purchased, the cost of the carriers, and the other aircraft for the carrier air group.
ReplyDeleteThe entire choice to switch to the C appeared to be smoke and mirrors in that decision talked a lot about saving money when in reality the savings appeared to based on simply operating one carrier instead of two and cutting the aircraft buy by more than half.
While one can make arguments all day whether the C or B is a better choice it's in fact stunning a proper cost analysis on the carrier conversion was not undertaken before the decision was made to switch to the C.
What also doesn't seem to have come up is that going with cats also makes adding the E-2 rather compelling. While that's a lot more capability than the AEW Sea King and it's eventual replacement it's also one more added expense.
All this aside building two 65,000 ton carriers designed to operate 36 fighters under very high sustained operations and then deciding to operate one carrier with a normal air wing of 12 is the heart of the matter. It's in fact ridiculous.
Given the financial realities what should have been designed were smaller carriers normally operating 12 with the ability to handle 24. That might have allowed the RN to actually operate both carriers. The choice to operate a single CVF after building two is just ridiculous.