F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

[moahunter]

Not a bad plan cutting all but the A... Unfortunately, you have almost doubled the price for them without C production... And at the end the USAF will want Super Hornets too... Kill the C and you kill all of the F-35s...

Doubled the price per unit, but probably cut by half the total cost (which is what is relevant here for the deficit), perhaps even more, because while there is less economy of scale you also have far less research to finish the program. Cost per unit wasn't the deciding factor for the F22's and it wont be here.

Of course, without the C and B variants, there will still be superhornets to buy, but the savings are in the extra R@D needed to enable the F35 to undertake naval (and VTOL) - as the superhornets are constantly being upgraded for naval use and will continue to be anyway.

 

[swerve]

Not a bad plan cutting all but the A... Unfortunately, you have almost doubled the price for them without C production.....

Cutting 20% of the programme (most F-35s will be As) wouldn't increase total programme cost, which is what you claim. That makes no sense at all.

I keep reading things like this. "Cut numbers and you put the price up". Yes, the unit price increases, but the total price comes down.

If you cut the B or C, you save not only the production cost for them, but the development cost, so the unit price of the A shouldn't go up very much.

 

[colay]

You may realize some short-term financial relief cutting out a variant but in the long run you will be spending a lot more. You'll need more pf the less capable lehacy jets to get the job done. You revert back to the practice of massive strike packages requiring coordination of all sorts of support assets in lieu of a leaner, more efficient and survivable stealthy Gen5 force. DIdn' the USAF lose 3 Vipers the last time they tried that approach over Baghdad? The higher cost in treasure, not to mention pilots lives, is going to be the inevitable outcome with less assurance of mission success.
The F-35 was designed ith superior sustainability in mind and buying larger numbers of legacy jets and upgrading older ones will cost a lot more over the projected lifetime of the respective fleet.

Uu

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Maybe the "right" answer from an economic standpoint is to cut both the B and C variants, and just focus on the A? I don't think the US Navy would be that upset going with Superhornets, more the Marines, but I think there has to be some serious soul searching over whether or not the Maines air arm makes sense.

This paragraph encapsulates much that is wrong and plain crazy in the criticism of the F-35. While cancelling the B and C versions would reduce the overall cost of the F-35 program it wouldn’t reduce the overall cost to the USA. The US believes – for good reason – that they need Navy and Marine TACAIR fleets. Without the B and C how are these fleets going to recapitalise? The Navy does NOT want to be an all Hornet force in the future, they want a 5th generation fighter. They especially want a stealth capability.

As to the Marines needing to do some serious soul searching about their air arm this is beyond crazy. Marine TACAIR is a central part of their structure and the entire US armed forces. The Marines comprise 24 TACAIR squadrons compared to the US Navy’s 41. That’s over a third of the Naval airpower.

While other countries don’t have Marine TACAIRs the US has had it since the 1920s. Apart from the historical legacy the US is also the only country in the world with permanently deployed amphibious capabilities. Marine TACAIR is a crucial part of their expeditionary strike group (ESG) capability. STOVL makes this work on the small side with the MEU level force and it also crucial for the Marine’s concept of forward deployed TACAIR on the big side in brigade, divisional level combat. Every Marine formation is organised as a Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF), telling them to get rid of TACAIR is as misguided as telling them to get rid of helicopters.

 

[moahunter]

You may realize some short-term financial relief cutting out a variant but in the long run you will be spending a lot more. You'll need more pf the less capable lehacy jets to get the job done.

I'm a bit unclear on what you are saying here. Are you saying because the F35B and F35C are more capable than existing generations, that fewer planes will be needed? If that's the case, it is a given for all future generations that they will have a higher cost per unit, as there will be fewer planes resulting from the R&D spend, a downsized military if you will. To me, that's one of the sad things about the F35 project, I fear the result if it is not simplified and streamlined soon will be smaller forces, because unlike the past during the cold war, the overspend can't be endless anymore. We see that with Canada for example, only ordering 65 F35's versus the 138 CF18's, I personally think that's a downgrade in role coverage even if an F35 is worth 2 CF18's in combat.

That's why my preference would be to be more prudent with R&D in future, perhaps just focusing on a few elite weapons systems in smaller numbers, and using simpler aircraft that are already proven technology for bomb truck, combat support roles and similar. Given the choice between building the A,B and C variants, but having to cut the A's significantly due to the cost overruns and the extra complexity for 3 variants (in R&D / manufacturing process / complexity of the B), versus scrapping the B's and C's but retaining the original number of A's, I'd choose the later. Sadly, the airforce may end up paying the price if some hard decisions aren't made.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Newer jets are always used in fewer numbers as capability goes up.

WW2 has upwards of 1000 bombers per target
Vietnam had dozens of bombers
GW1 has 3-4 fighterbombers
GW2 has 1-2 fighterbombers

Besides the fighters themselves, the F-35 is able to do its job most of the time without the tremendous amount of supporting assets required for legacy aircraft.

View attachment 5027

 

[t68]

Tripped over this one on another forum:

Sharkey's World: THE F-35C Lightning II: IS THIS THE CORRECT CHOICE FOR OUR NEW CARRIERS?

Nigel Ward strikes again with a collection of prior conclusions about the price of F35, some scary stories about the ability of it to be able to trap on a QE and effectively concluding it'd be cheaper and smarter to buy SH.

Depressingly made up

Ian

He does have a point, not sure on what to make of the ability of the aircraft to land in light or no wind scenarios but all this would be factored in when designing the QE and the aircraft from the word go that is how the RN came up with its minimum size, but it will all come down to the conops of the RN compared to the USN.

Unless they come up with as GF has called it the Prowler in the future Ewarfare might have to be sustained with the EA-18G Growler, current airwing for the USN is 24 F/A-18E,10 F/A-18A,10 F/A-18C with 4/6 EA-18G. The RN will have a max of 36 aircraft for deep strike onboard the Queen Elizabeth class carrier, if the 1.6 billion figures are correct for mod to the F35C then a split RAF buy of F35C plus 12F/A-18F plus 12 EA-18G would be the go, not only will the RN make use of the type but also the RAF as can be the case on how the RAAF is expected to use the F/A-18F.

Not all 36 aircraft will be on mission for deep strike for the Queen Elizabeth class having 24 F35C and a 8 F/A-18E/F plus 4 EA-18G the F35C can and will be used for strike operations and F/A-18E/F can be used as CAP and escort for the carrier and whatever the RN decide on CAEW aircraft plus back up on the ARS side of the house, once the F35C program matures these aspect will form a function in future upgrades for F35C and will be beneficial so the RAF/RN will not have block obsolesce of aircraft in the future.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

He does have a point, not sure on what to make of the ability of the aircraft to land in light or no wind scenarios but all this would be factored in when designing the QE and the aircraft from the word go that is how the RN came up with its minimum size, but it will all come down to the conops of the RN compared to the USN.

The CVF was designed for STOVL ops with CATOBAR as an afterthought.

Ward makes good points about the Wind Over Deck (WOD) problem and lack of IFR for safe CATOBAR recovery. Also the lack of funds for supporting aircraft like carrier landing trainers and AEW. He could have also pointed out the much higher crewing demands of a CATOBAR carrier to keep the flight deck fluid during cyclic operations plus of course operate and maintain the arrestor gear and catapults.

But his points about cost, stealth, Growler vs F-35 and F-35 doubt are all bullshit. LRIP prices are the greatest gift to anyone who wants to stir the pot against the F-35. They are in no way representative of full rate production costs so anyone using them exclusively to cost an overall buy is just making a fool out of themselves.

But the depressing fact remains that the F-35C will be much harder for the RN to operate. Their carrier will be a nice overnight coastal capability like the French Navy but not something to deploy on its own to the Indian Ocean. But that is the price the RN has to pay for the massive cuts to their Budget by the Tory Government.

 

[t68]

The CVF was designed for STOVL ops with CATOBAR as an afterthought..

Afterthought, I was under the impression it was designed from the start to accommodate an angled deck to future proof in case when there is no STVOL aircraft replacement after F35B.

Ward makes good points about the Wind Over Deck (WOD) problem and lack of IFR for safe CATOBAR recovery. Also the lack of funds for supporting aircraft like carrier landing trainers and AEW. He could have also pointed out the much higher crewing demands of a CATOBAR carrier to keep the flight deck fluid during cyclic operations plus of course operate and maintain the arrestor gear and catapults..

When will USN replace T45 Goshawk or could the RN/RAF rebuild existing Hawk LIF for the job?

But his points about cost, stealth, Growler vs F-35 and F-35 doubt are all bullshit. LRIP prices are the greatest gift to anyone who wants to stir the pot against the F-35. They are in no way representative of full rate production costs so anyone using them exclusively to cost an overall buy is just making a fool out of themselves..

Agree about the costing aspect to his blog. But at the present time their is no alternative to the growler and ARS except the SH.

But the depressing fact remains that the F-35C will be much harder for the RN to operate. Their carrier will be a nice overnight coastal capability like the French Navy but not something to deploy on its own to the Indian Ocean. But that is the price the RN has to pay for the massive cuts to their Budget by the Tory Government.

Hopefully with the assistance from the USN the poms can hit the ground running once QE arrives and the budget is out of the woes.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Afterthought, I was under the impression it was designed from the start to accommodate an angled deck to future proof in case when there is no STVOL aircraft replacement after F35B.

An angled deck is just painted lines. The deck design of the CVF was to provide dual axial tramlines so STOVL aircraft could both land and launch at the same time. It had the secondary benefits of providing lots of width so plenty of aircraft could be parked and an angled deck could be painted on.

But the CVF was not designed for CATOBAR operations as Ward points out it lacks the speed to provide Wind Over Deck (WOD). While USN carriers aren’t really >40 knot ships they can easily plough along at the low to mid 30s to provide enough WOD in becalmed weather (no wind). The CVF will have minus 5-10 knots WOD in similar circumstances because it lacks the speed. This makes no real difference to STOVL operations but is a big deal for CATOBAR.

When will USN replace T45 Goshawk or could the RN/RAF rebuild existing Hawk LIF for the job?

I don’t think the USN has any plans to replace the T-45. An existing Hawk can not be rebuilt into a T-45. But obviously the RN can order new T-45s. That there is no budget for this is an indication of what a half arsed imposed idea the F-35C was onto the RN.

Agree about the costing aspect to his blog. But at the present time their is no alternative to the growler and ARS except the SH.

Sure but the RN has no fleet air arm at present time and won’t get it back for another 5 odd years. One of the key reasons behind going from F-35B to F-35C was it allowed the UK to cut its entire Harrier and carrier force and not operate them until the CVFs are ready. This saves them hundreds of millions of pounds to try and get their finances back in order.

Hopefully with the assistance from the USN the poms can hit the ground running once QE arrives and the budget is out of the woes.

I have no doubt they will be competent at CATOBAR operations. However the structural limits built into their force via the lack of a high speed carrier, lack of IFR capability, etc will mean it will be a green water carrier force. Sail more than 100-200 NM from shore and they will have no emergency recovery capability. They won’t be able to fly at night, in bad weather or with a pitching deck.

 

[ADMk2]

No thats why i've said its getting off topic on a number of points. My point was more in other area's.

We have i hope learned from our assumption that all future Air-Air engagments will be decided 3-5mi out with missiles that was once expected.

Er yes, that's kind of the reason as to why the US TACAIR fleet is moving to an all LO fleet in the longer term.

Partially to allow them greater capability to penetrate IADS but largely because it reduces the chance of getting involved in highly lethal (with modern IR heaters) short-ranged fights.

The same reason that modern IR missiles (ASRAAM, MICA-IR and AIM-9X Block II, Python V are the most visible examples of this) are gaining extended boost rocket motors to give them a defacto BVR capability.

 

[colay]

I'm a bit unclear on what you are saying here. Are you saying because the F35B and F35C are more capable than existing generations, that fewer planes will be needed? If that's the case, it is a given for all future generations that they will have a higher cost per unit, as there will be fewer planes resulting from the R&D spend, a downsized military if you will. To me, that's one of the sad things about the F35 project, I fear the result if it is not simplified and streamlined soon will be smaller forces, because unlike the past during the cold war, the overspend can't be endless anymore. We see that with Canada for example, only ordering 65 F35's versus the 138 CF18's, I personally think that's a downgrade in role coverage even if an F35 is worth 2 CF18's in combat.

That's why my preference would be to be more prudent with R&D in future, perhaps just focusing on a few elite weapons systems in smaller numbers, and using simpler aircraft that are already proven technology for bomb truck, combat support roles and similar. Given the choice between building the A,B and C variants, but having to cut the A's significantly due to the cost overruns and the extra complexity for 3 variants (in R&D / manufacturing process / complexity of the B), versus scrapping the B's and C's but retaining the original number of A's, I'd choose the later. Sadly, the airforce may end up paying the price if some hard decisions aren't made.

Go thru Gen. Dave Deptula's slideshow. One slide compares a traditional force package composed of legacy jets vs. A Gen5 force comprising Raptors and Lightning IIs. The former approach requires 3X the number of aircraft which would incur higher losses with no assurance of mission success.
Leveraging Vth Generation Aircraft | SLDInfo

 

[swerve]

Ward makes good points about the Wind Over Deck (WOD) problem and lack of IFR for safe CATOBAR recovery. Also the lack of funds for supporting aircraft like carrier landing trainers and AEW. .

I've generally ignored anything Ward says since reading his account of Tornado losses in Iraq in 1991, which made completely unsubstantiated accusations of cowardice & incompetence by RAF crews (some of them dead), as well as having an account of how most aircraft were lost which contradicted the evidence of survivors, other RAF crews who witnessed some losses, air base personnel, & the post-war investigations, which were able to examine most of the wreckage. His account required a vast conspiracy to cover up the true causes, circumstances & locations of losses. He claimed to have inside information, given to him in confidence.

IFR is an issue if we don't buy any buddy refuelling pods & pay for integration on F-35C. Given the reluctance of the MoD to spend money, & the availability of F-18E buddy refuellers to the USN probably requiring us to fund integration, that's a risk, but it's not definitely decided yet. The pods would be made in the UK, so there'll be industrial lobbying for it.

We'll use USN carrier landing trainers, as the French do.

AEW is depressing, but we'll be no worse off than with F-35B.

A lot of the rest is bollocks.
- He uses arguments in favour of F-18E/F which are equally applicable to F-35C.
- He falsely claims that F-35C for the UK is instead of an F-35A/B mix.
- He claims that F-18 has an inbuilt buddy refuelling capability (doh!).
- He claims that buddy refuelling capability would compromise the stealthiness of an F-35C (er yes - but only while carrying a pod, & it'd then be in the vicinity of a great big carrier, which is not exactly inconspicuous). He says it would need major design modifications, which is nonsense. It might need a redesigned external tank because of separation issues with tanks used by F-18E, when both tank & pylon are ejected (for stealth) & other external stores are carried - but this can't be an issue with a buddy store, unless it's planned to use it for supporting strikes, rather than recovery.
- He's (probably deliberately) trying to confuse matters with talk of the first carrier not having cat & trap, saying that F-35C won't be able to embark until that carrier is refitted (odd that he doesn't see this as an argument against F-18E), ignoring the second carrier.
- He falsely implies that no E-2D = no AEW at all. He throws into a that a suggestion that E-2D could provide a land-based AEW capability for the RAF. Hey, Sharkey! Never heard of E-3?
-T-45 Goshawk - errr . . . the US will use it to train F-35C pilots, just as it's now used for training Rafale pilots. It isn't tied to the F-18E.
- He plucks numbers out of the air.

Typical Sharkey, in other words. I shouldn't have bothered reading it. There are some sound points, but he shows no signs of understanding which of his arguments have some validity & which are nonsense. His analysis is at Strategypage level.

 

[moahunter]

Go thru Gen. Dave Deptula's slideshow. One slide compares a traditional force package composed of legacy jets vs. A Gen5 force comprising Raptors and Lightning IIs. The former approach requires 3X the number of aircraft which would incur higher losses with no assurance of mission success.

In contested airspace. That's not what we have been seeing in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, after the initial phases which lasts a week or so, there is total air dominance. Now, is it possible the US could go to war with a Russia, or other advanced nation and need these technologies for all planes? Not really. And per my post, I'm not arguing that 5th generation isn't superior overall or isn't needed (in a couple of decades time the PAK-FA will be a real threat, but it will take at least that long, probably longer, before countries other than India or Russia have them in any numbers). I'm simply pointing out that by converting all three air arms to 5th generation, the price is going to be a smaller number of F35's for the Air Force than what they have planned for, for there will be cuts as a result of the F35 cost over-runs / deficit issues.

My preference would be, simplify the F35 project now into just the A model, allowing more planes to be ordered for the same money than with the A, B and C. The Airforce won't be degraded versus what they have requested, the US ends up with an airforce that can outclass any other for decades. Order a few more Superhornets as an interim technology for the Navy/Marines, they stay at roughly current levels of technology for a decade or two with incremental gains via normal development of the Superhornets - will still outclass all but one or two of the worlds potential enemy air forces (definitely outclass with support from US Air force in any major engagement). And, open up a fixed cost tender this time, for a 6th generation solution for the Navy and Marines (not VTOL) around 2025. Boeing and Northrop Grumman are already working on 6th generation concepts.

 

[Belesari]

In contested airspace. That's not what we have been seeing in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, after the initial phases which lasts a week or so, there is total air dominance. Now, is it possible the US could go to war with a Russia, or other advanced nation and need these technologies for all planes? Not really. And per my post, I'm not arguing that 5th generation isn't superior overall or isn't needed (in a couple of decades time the PAK-FA will be a real threat, but it will take at least that long, probably longer, before countries other than India or Russia have them in any numbers). I'm simply pointing out that by converting all three air arms to 5th generation, the price is going to be a smaller number of F35's for the Air Force than what they have planned for, for there will be cuts as a result of the F35 cost over-runs / deficit issues.

My preference would be, simplify the F35 project now into just the A model, allowing more planes to be ordered for the same money than with the A, B and C. The Airforce won't be degraded versus what they have requested, the US ends up with an airforce that can outclass any other for decades. Order a few more Superhornets as an interim technology for the Navy/Marines, they stay at roughly current levels of technology for a decade or two with incremental gains via normal development of the Superhornets - will still outclass all but one or two of the worlds potential enemy air forces (definitely outclass with support from US Air force in any major engagement). And, open up a fixed cost tender this time, for a 6th generation solution for the Navy and Marines (not VTOL) around 2025. Boeing and Northrop Grumman are already working on 6th generation concepts.

It makes more sense to focus less numbers in the airforce and more into the Navy IMO. Carriers can launch more sorties faster than the airforce and can respond faster. Not to mention they carry multiple land attack capabilities as well as air to air assets even without the F-35C/F-18E/F. And they also repressent the best and because it is mobile most cost efficent BMD we have.

The US is pretty much a huge island. Over 70% of everything we buy or make goes out on cargo ships. So add to that our Navy has the Marines corps for amphib ops also.

To me the best thing for the Airforce is to stick with High end aircraft like the F-22 (which i would have rather seen 250-400 of), strategic bombers, airlift and shunt most of the resources for fighters to the Navy. Put all the CAS aircraft like the A-10 into the armies inventory along with the funds to sustain them along with the AC-130.

Would rather see 12 CVBG than the predicted 10 soon.

 

[colay]

The threat from advanced double-digit SAMs tends to get overlooked and trivialized. These systems are lethal against legacy platforms. They are proliferating and will be sold to anyone with the cash and can be put in place with relative ease. Opposing Gen 5 designs may also pose a threat down the road as we can expect these may prolifeate as well.

The F-35 will form the backbone of the US and its allied fighter fleets for the next several decades. It can handle low and high end threat scenarios. Spending money for a platform capable of only the former is counter-productive.Building less capable platforms just eats up limited funds and gives an opponent more opportunities for target practice.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

It makes more sense to focus less numbers in the airforce and more into the Navy IMO. Carriers can launch more sorties faster than the airforce and can respond faster. Not to mention they carry multiple land attack capabilities as well as air to air assets even without the F-35C/F-18E/F. And they also repressent the best and because it is mobile most cost efficent BMD we have.

Carriers provide mobile, sovereign air power just about anywhere you want it but they are NOT more efficient than land air bases. Quite the opposite and by a long way. Also carriers launch faster sorties for shorter periods of time. Carriers can not operate 24-7. They only have one shift of crew for the flight deck and they need time to sleep, eat, maintain, play xBox, etc. Fixed air bases are a long way from being put out of business by ballistic missiles. Air bases, even non-hardened ones, are very difficult to put of action. The US has plentiful BMD capability via Patriot and THAAD to make any attacks on airbases a waste of missiles.

No point responding to the rest of your statements.

 

[Belesari]

Carriers provide mobile, sovereign air power just about anywhere you want it but they are NOT more efficient than land air bases. Quite the opposite and by a long way. Also carriers launch faster sorties for shorter periods of time. Carriers can not operate 24-7. They only have one shift of crew for the flight deck and they need time to sleep, eat, maintain, play xBox, etc. Fixed air bases are a long way from being put out of business by ballistic missiles. Air bases, even non-hardened ones, are very difficult to put of action. The US has plentiful BMD capability via Patriot and THAAD to make any attacks on airbases a waste of missiles.

No point responding to the rest of your statements.

Well my post was if we are going to cut funding for DoD and cutting F-35 buys. Closing alot of bases would help and i think in a enviroment like that carriers will simply be far more logical.

Your statment also fits with my tactical vs strategic gripe. Less ships, less aircraft. less sailors, and airmen.

As far as BMD its better because it is Mobile. If Iran becomes more of a threat as far as nuclear or ballistic missiles you can shift to where the need is most. Also they could be deployed to defend allied territory also.

True airbases are hard to take out but they are also expensive politicaly.

Bases in countries like Japan or Guam......no they are basicly the biggest carriers in the world.

 

[riksavage]

The CVF was designed for STOVL ops with CATOBAR as an afterthought.

Ward makes good points about the Wind Over Deck (WOD) problem and lack of IFR for safe CATOBAR recovery. Also the lack of funds for supporting aircraft like carrier landing trainers and AEW. He could have also pointed out the much higher crewing demands of a CATOBAR carrier to keep the flight deck fluid during cyclic operations plus of course operate and maintain the arrestor gear and catapults.

But his points about cost, stealth, Growler vs F-35 and F-35 doubt are all bullshit. LRIP prices are the greatest gift to anyone who wants to stir the pot against the F-35. They are in no way representative of full rate production costs so anyone using them exclusively to cost an overall buy is just making a fool out of themselves.

But the depressing fact remains that the F-35C will be much harder for the RN to operate. Their carrier will be a nice overnight coastal capability like the French Navy but not something to deploy on its own to the Indian Ocean. But that is the price the RN has to pay for the massive cuts to their Budget by the Tory Government.

The QE Class Carriers were designed from day one to be converted to CATOBAR vessels. The decision to go for C over B was the right one and means the RN can host assets and also deploy aboard its two most important maritime partners, the US and France. This has been made ever more relevant by recent events in Libya.

French Marines (2RIMa) have just finished exercising in the UK with 3 Commando and in 2012 the UK Response Task Group with join the French GdG for a major joint exercise as part fo the the ramping-up of joint operations. Admirals Stanhope and Rogel have agreed to fully maximise joint training ready for the new 'Combined Joint Expeditionary Force' built around an active strike carrier.

UK and French ground and aircrews are increasing the number of exchanges ready for both services to cross-deck aboard CdG and the active QE's. FAA pilots are now operational in the US and France flying carrier fixed wing, Future training needs will be met as part of this ongoing exchange programme.

By moving to CATOBAR RAF and FAA can invest in a single variant to fill two roles, carrier and land based deep strike. Also should funds permit there is nothing stopping the UK government investing in or leasing Growlers down the line to fill a much needed gap. Also the QE's are expected to last 50 years, they will need to support the next generation of UCAV's, which I seriously doubt will be STOVL configured but geared towards EMALS.

Moving away from STOVL was a no brainer for the RN based on economic realities and the need to dovetail with partners who have the most to offer. The RN wisely decided to hedge its bets, had they pursued the B and it ended up being cancelled there was no alternative. If the C model is cancelled or proves too expansive they can fall back on SH or Rafale.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The QE Class Carriers were designed from day one to be converted to CATOBAR vessels.

Yes they have been designed to be converted to CATOBAR but that is very different to being designed to be a CATOBAR carrier, particularly for the F-35C. The F-35C is designed to operated from a particular type of CV and it is not the CVF. To fly them from the CVF will result in compromises because of speed limitations and therefore WOD limitations. No amount of chest thumping can create wind when it isn’t there.

The decision to go for C over B was the right one and means the RN can host assets and also deploy aboard its two most important maritime partners, the US and France.

Since when has hosting assets from another nation been more important than having your own?

This has been made ever more relevant by recent events in Libya.

War fought a shoestring budget?

UK and French ground and aircrews are increasing the number of exchanges ready for both services to cross-deck aboard CdG and the active QE's. FAA pilots are now operational in the US and France flying carrier fixed wing, Future training needs will be met as part of this ongoing exchange programme.

So all training will be conducted in the USN. Fair enough but not exactly what is called a sovereign capability.

By moving to CATOBAR RAF and FAA can invest in a single variant to fill two roles, carrier and land based deep strike.

Somehow different to the F-35B? An extra 100-200 NM is not the difference between ‘strike’ and ‘deep strike’.

Also the QE's are expected to last 50 years, they will need to support the next generation of UCAV's, which I seriously doubt will be STOVL configured but geared towards EMALS.

The USN’s UCAV program is called UCLASS and it is an ISR asset. If the UK can’t afford naval AEW then it won’t be getting naval ISR. Besuides who says you couldn’t fly something like UCLASS from a STOVL carrier. One option is the GA-ASI Predator-C. All you would need is to string a single wire and you could fly and recover these from a STOVL CVF without any significant disruption to your F-35B and helo air wing.

Moving away from STOVL was a no brainer for the RN based on economic realities and the need to dovetail with partners who have the most to offer.

Yeap, no cash.

The RN wisely decided to hedge its bets, had they pursued the B and it ended up being cancelled there was no alternative. If the C model is cancelled or proves too expansive they can fall back on SH or Rafale.

The F-35B is not about to get cancelled and certainly not if the UK maintained a 130 strong commitment to it. This decision was all about money. The UK has little of it and the carrier force got cancelled. And when it is rebuilt it will be a shadow of itself.