[Closed] 100m quid are you having a laugh

Because on the scale of things, 100m isn't that much?

Perhaps it was the get out clause in the contract they signed with the manufacturer.

Now watch as The F-35 B goes tits up.

Should have kept the catapult capability and bought F-18E's then bough some F-35C's at a later date when we could afford them to complement them much like the US Navy. Longer ranged, more bombs, less chance of the carriers being sunk by Argies.

Even better, they should just amalgamate the three forces and give all the money + command to the Navy.

That does not confuse me at all. What does confuse me is how the cost to fit £125 millions worth of electromagnetic catapult tech into a hull that was supposedly designed to allow for it unexpectedly rose to a projected £2 Billion. Surely not even the MOD could screw it up that much?

Still reverting back to the F35B from the F35C isn't completely surprising. Back in late 2010 the F35B was looking likely to get cancelled. The USMC wanted it really badly though and they put a man in charge of that part of the project who has got results. It is now doing well in testing and UK Plc now own our first two test models and UK's test pilots are flying them.

By contrast the F35C is having problems and is behind, there are problems with the design of its arrestor gear which for a carrier-borne aeroplane is a big problem.

I guess the big question is why are bothering with the F35 at all? Sure it is cutting edge and has stealth capabilities but there are combat proven aircraft already in operation with western Navies that we could have tomorrow at a fraction of the cost. The answer to that I think is that we have already piled a lot of money into the F35, BAE have a big stake in it, and there would be huge political fallout with the US if we pulled out altogether - especially if we bought the French Rafael or tried to build a naval Typhoon.

I dont really know anything about it but it certainly looks like another cock up from the government.

Bwaarp,

You have a point, but don't put too much credence into what Lewis Page says. At least his article was better than the brief note in todays Evening Standard i suppose 😯

Is an aircraft carrier not the equivalent of a conveyor belt when steaming along?

@ matt, Well it does have to go in the right direction and at the right speed 😉
America cut short the run of F-22 and there isn't going to be 'waves of fighters coming over the horizon' so is there really a need for F-35 B/C at all? It is a very impressive capability, but to what end? small numbers of next gen a/c of higher numbers of perfectly capable (cheaper,proven) assets? 4 smart weapons are still 4 smart weapons, regardless of what platform they are released from, the result is the same.

Even better, they should just amalgamate the three forces and give all the money + command to the Navy.

Could be worse. We could be paying £150 mil to lease (lease!) a plane that could theoretically be bought and converted to a tanker for, say, ooo- £50 mil!? Wait, hang on a sec..! 14 of them and we won't even own the bloody things!!

amalgamate the three forces and give all the money + command to the Navy

Since when have the RAF done anything remotely useful apart from bombing Port Stanley that Fleet Air Arm could not do 10 times better?

Plus it would get rid of all the bickering and waste spent on developing different fighters for both the Navy and RAF. **** knows why they needed Typoon.... could have just bought a load of F-18's a long bloody time ago and given them to the Navy to carry out land based air space security and have a naval fighter to boot.

But noooo..... what we'll have instead is a 4th generation canard design that has taken since the Mid 70's to get off the drawing bored at a cost that's almost the per unit cost of the F-22.... with an austere reduced capability to bomb people running around in the desert. All because we thought designing something with lots of electronics in partnership with the electrical engineering gods that are Italians made a lot of sense.... when say compared to Northrop Grumman on Lockheed. If you thought the F-35 development was shocking, you should check out the history of the Tiffie. Then to top it all off the according to the Indians the bloody French built a better plane by themselves, that is actually carrier capable.

Oh and turmunkoz, F-35 is needed because the USAF F-16's and Marine AV8B's airframes are so battered and worn they'll be dropping out the sky soon like the F-15's are.

The catapult cost soared (sorry) for a variety of reasons. First up the Navy pointed out that they have used catapults in 30 years so nobody in active service has ever used one, add on a big training bill. Steam catapults would be cheaper but are due to be replaced by the Yanks with the "cats and traps" electromagnetic thing so by the time our carriers get finished steam would be (even more) obselete. The next issue is that there are no "ready to go" cats and traps so you can't put a fixed price on a product that's still in the prototype phase.

/regurgitated Times article from weeks ago

[i]Cat: What, am I the only sane one here? Why don't we drop the defensive shields?
Kryten: A superlative suggestion, sir, with just two minor flaws. One: we don't have any defensive shields. And two: we don't have any defensive shields. Now I realise that, technically speaking, that's only one flaw; but I thought it was such a big one, it was worth mentioning twice.[/i]

or in real life:

Cat: What, am I the only sane one here? Why don't we fit the electromagnetic cats & traps launch mechanism?
Kryten: A superlative suggestion, sir, with just two minor flaws. One: we don't have any electromagnetic cats & traps launch mechanisms. And two: we don't have any electromagnetic cats & traps launch mechanisms. Now I realise that, technically speaking, that's only one flaw; but I thought it was such a big one, it was worth mentioning twice.

Since when have the RAF done anything remotely useful apart from bombing Port Stanley that Fleet Air Arm could not do 10 times better?

Plus it would get rid of all the bickering and waste spent on developing different fighters for both the Navy and RAF. **** knows why they needed Typoon.... could have just bought a load of F-18's a long bloody time ago and given them to the Navy to carry out land based air space security and have a naval fighter to boot.

But noooo..... what we'll have instead is a 4th generation canard design that has taken since the Mid 70's to get off the drawing bored at a cost that's almost the per unit cost of the F-22.... with an austere reduced capability to bomb people running around in the desert. All because we thought designing something with lots of electronics in partnership with the electrical engineering gods that are Italians made a lot of sense.... when say compared to Northrop Grumman on Lockheed. If you thought the F-35 development was shocking, you should check out the history of the Tiffie. Then to top it all off the according to the Indians the bloody French built a better plane by themselves, that is actually carrier capable.

Bwaarp. You are Lewis Page and I claim my £5!