The irony is pointing out how useful STOVL is when they wanted to do away with that and go to the C. Now after that fiasco and being forced back to the B all of a sudden STOVL is extremely useful.
The one nation on earth that probably should be most concerned about airfield denial, and operate STOVL fighters, is probably Taiwan. For the UK it's entirely overrated and something they were fully prepared to do without but oops the carrier conversion costs turned out too high.
Mister bushido,each aircraft has the features necessary for each customer ... the USMC needs v/stol for operating from ships whithout cats and for foward basing...the US Navy needs more range and payload ,the reason for the C version and the US Air Force can give up those features tradind those for kinematic performance...the A version...the best thing about this plane is also is Aquiles heel in the media...it tries to be all things to all men...I personaly tink that this is right path and in the end it will prove to be cheaper than developing 3 or 4 diferent designs ...I bet you that in 5 to 10 years the chinese and the russian will go down the same road...
The "they" is the ruling British coalition that decided to dump the B and go with the C. They then entirely screwed up that process by not properly costing out the carrier conversion and when faced with that reality "they" then had to switch back to the B.
Moreover, in various documents and statements to Parliament "they" were very clear on why the previous Labor government made myriad mistakes in the first place going STOVL and how much more effective the conventional C would be over the B.
The C is probably a better aircraft for us in the UK but the big problem was the previous regime committed to the two STOVL carriers with no way of paying for them. Kinda like putting them on a credit card and hoping for some money when they needed paying for. From that point on we were screwed. I'm sure BAE made sure that any changes To the carriers were going to cost billions (as they always do) so we ended up having to back track to the B again.
There's still no monolithic 'they' in MoD OR their government. One of my favorite quotes comes from the BBC's old Yes Minister/Prime Minister series: "It would be different if the Government were a team, but in fact they're a loose confederation of warring tribes." I have often found it a helpful reminder in dealing with our own government.
Different factions want different policies for different reasons. Those policies drive different acquisition strategies. Happens all the time, just usually before it has to go public. There is huge nostalgia among some in the RN for a big deck carrier with 'cats'. They were ALMOST able to do an end run around the RAF and RN STOVL advocates. Our own Navy has large factions that will have to be shown through experience what having an LO airplane will do for the fleet. We're in for an interesting next few years as more Navy F-18 drivers get to sit in the F-35 saddle.
The irony is pointing out how useful STOVL is when they wanted to do away with that and go to the C. Now after that fiasco and being forced back to the B all of a sudden STOVL is extremely useful.
ReplyDeleteThe one nation on earth that probably should be most concerned about airfield denial, and operate STOVL fighters, is probably Taiwan. For the UK it's entirely overrated and something they were fully prepared to do without but oops the carrier conversion costs turned out too high.
RE: 'they' wanted to do away with that and go to the C.
ReplyDeleteThere would be irony if there was a monolithic 'they' that changed their minds. There wasn't (there ARE factions). Ergo, no irony at all.
Why not just dispose of the A & C types and just focus on the B types? Sounds like a good idea to me, but what do I know? I'm just a civvie.
ReplyDeleteMister bushido,each aircraft has the features necessary for each customer ... the USMC needs v/stol for operating from ships whithout cats and for foward basing...the US Navy needs more range and payload ,the reason for the C version and the US Air Force can give up those features tradind those for kinematic performance...the A version...the best thing about this plane is also is Aquiles heel in the media...it tries to be all things to all men...I personaly tink that this is right path and in the end it will prove to be cheaper than developing 3 or 4 diferent designs ...I bet you that in 5 to 10 years the chinese and the russian will go down the same road...
ReplyDeleteThe "they" is the ruling British coalition that decided to dump the B and go with the C. They then entirely screwed up that process by not properly costing out the carrier conversion and when faced with that reality "they" then had to switch back to the B.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, in various documents and statements to Parliament "they" were very clear on why the previous Labor government made myriad mistakes in the first place going STOVL and how much more effective the conventional C would be over the B.
The C is probably a better aircraft for us in the UK but the big problem was the previous regime committed to the two STOVL carriers with no way of paying for them. Kinda like putting them on a credit card and hoping for some money when they needed paying for.
DeleteFrom that point on we were screwed.
I'm sure BAE made sure that any changes To the carriers were going to cost billions (as they always do) so we ended up having to back track to the B again.
There's still no monolithic 'they' in MoD OR their government. One of my favorite quotes comes from the BBC's old Yes Minister/Prime Minister series: "It would be different if the Government were a team, but in fact they're a loose confederation of warring tribes."
ReplyDeleteI have often found it a helpful reminder in dealing with our own government.
Different factions want different policies for different reasons. Those policies drive different acquisition strategies. Happens all the time, just usually before it has to go public. There is huge nostalgia among some in the RN for a big deck carrier with 'cats'. They were ALMOST able to do an end run around the RAF and RN STOVL advocates. Our own Navy has large factions that will have to be shown through experience what having an LO airplane will do for the fleet. We're in for an interesting next few years as more Navy F-18 drivers get to sit in the F-35 saddle.