Classic British Flight Sim

The Government have U turned on the F-35 STOL version and changed the order to the "catapult and trap"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18008171

I had to read that twice but from what I understand, Labour ordered the STOL version (F-35B) and the coalition wanted the 'C' cat and trap version but conversion has gone from 200m to a few billions so they're cancelling the 'C' and going back to the cheaper 'B' as originally ordered by Labour. I couldn't make out if the STOL version was cheaper to buy but it's obvious that to NOT buy the 'B' put's many millions onto the cost of the carrier. You win some, you lose some

ATB
DaveB

I was getting confused too

Thing is, it's often more expensive to change to the cheaper at a late stage and of course the Harriers proved that VSTOL was a winner in cetain circumstances so there is a real need for a fighter of that type.

Indeed mate

One might presume that the cat and trap 'C' version would be more than a few quid cheaper than the 'B' as it has a whole pile less to do but I have no idea if that's the case. If they are cheaper, it looks very much like it's not enough to offset the extra cost of converting the carrier at this point. So.. here we are again buying something we don't really want

ATB
DaveB

This was in the Sydney Morning Herald today....

http://www.smh.com.au/world/why-the-joi ... 1ycjt.html

On the front page the link refers to it as the "LemJet"

Not sure I get the flying piano thing though

Paul

The B is the most expensive F-35 variant, as to whether the difference is more than the cost of converting the carriers depends on how many you actually buy which is still an unknown. Well we have paid for three but beyond that it's a bit of a guess.
There's also the performance to be taken into account where the C goes significantly further than the B while carrying more, so you'd need X+Y Bs to do the job of X Cs, assuming the target is in range of the B otherwise the B just can't do it. There's no provision for any variant to carry refuelling pods so if we wanted to use some as tankers we'd have to pay for the development ourselves.
This does also mean our carriers are tied to a specific aircraft, no F-35B, no carrier airpower whereas with catapults there's always the F/A-18 and the Rafale to fall back on. Never mind finding a successor AEW platform that can take off and land vertically, I'm sure converting Merlins to AEW will be cheap...
Ultimately this is a cost saving in the short term that's going to end up costing more for less performance in the long term. Considering the EMALS kit to launch the C version was ~£500 million, how the cost of conversion ballooned to ~£1.5 billion is one of the mysteries of defence procurement.

Thanks for that Skip I'd presumed the B would be more expensive but as you say, whether the saving on the C makes up for the overrun on the carrier conversion depends on how many you buy. A bean counters heaven!

I've not kept my finger on the pulse with the F-35 but I do remember the C variant having a significant performance advantage over the B.. not least of all because it doesn't carry all the gubbins for vertical takeoff. Again as you point out.. the advantages of having a cat/trap carrier far outweigh the non-cat/trap version. One has to wonder how £500m became £1.5bn. If I'm not mistaken, both were design options at the outset and with the carrier yet to be built.. why is the cost now so high

ATB
DaveB

paulsl wrote:This was in the Sydney Morning Herald today....

http://www.smh.com.au/world/why-the-joi ... 1ycjt.html

On the front page the link refers to it as the "LemJet"

Not sure I get the flying piano thing though

Paul

Some pianists have performed with their pianos wire - lifted and twirled above the stage. I think that the comment, which appears to be attributed to a US expert, refers to the fact that such expensive and dangerous activities do nothing to enhance the listening pleasure. Looks like a modern day equivalent of something like a "white elephant."
In Australia, such things are often referred to as "useless as tits on a bull".
The whole saga recalls a "Wizard of Id" newspaper strip cartoon, in which the Wizard was thrown into the dungeons for spending millions developing a solar powered vampire.

Everyone says that the B is more expensive but even if it is. There saying that the F-35 will cost 1 trillion to operate over a life time. So pretty much even if the B costs more money than the C were in the same position as every other country that has ordered the JSF.

Landing on:

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=Ki ... ure=colike

George