UK Carrier Plane U-Turn

I agree with what has been said, if these carriers are going to be used over the next 50 years. Well... at least do it right and spend as if it were an investment; if **** hits the fan. The MoD should have tried to get in with the American's on the EMALS system they are developing.

No no no no no no no no no.

It would require such a wholesale change to the airframe. People have bandied this idea around for a while but it just does not work out. It would cost so much money and that's before we take into account it's BAE who'd be behind it...
You'd need to strengthen the entire fuselage massively, install much tougher, much heavier landing gear, an arrestor hook of substance, completely redo the avionics, sensors, engines.
With BAE behind it that's a 10yr project. And a few billion.

Nope, they bought/are buying the designed-for, built-for and already operated from-carriers aircraft, the Rafale. If you're buying a proven carrier aircraft from the west your options are the Rafale or the FA 18E/F. End.

Would you agree that we're better off opting for cats and traps but then making do with some second hand f18s from the yanks with a smaller f35C order for the moment on the basis that f18s are perfectly capable aircraft anyway (with 2 engines which is always an advantage for any navy plane)...? And then procure more f35Cs when the time demands it (for the immediate future at least, stealth is not needed necessarily against the middle eastern countries we are likely to come up against)

I'd go further than that;
-cats and traps, ideally on both carriers,
-completely abandon the F35, and use the money to fund a buy of 70 FA18E/F/Gs [in a mix of 50/15/5 respectively] and 4x E-2Ds,
-make the Hornet sqns 70% RN, 20% RAF and 10% USN [in terms of manning],
-get the RAF 1 additional squadron of Typhoons [an extra 15-20 a/c] to make up for the shortfall that not having the F35s would create.

All that, aside from the cost of cats and traps, would cost about the same as the F35 buy and gives us far better capabilities, imo.

quite! The F35 is all too reminiscent of the yank's f111!

I'd go further than that;
-cats and traps, ideally on both carriers,
-completely abandon the F35, and use the money to fund a buy of 70 FA18E/F/Gs [in a mix of 50/15/5 respectively] and 4x E-2Ds,
-make the Hornet sqns 70% RN, 20% RAF and 10% USN [in terms of manning],
-get the RAF 1 additional squadron of Typhoons [an extra 15-20 a/c] to make up for the shortfall that not having the F35s would create.

All that, aside from the cost of cats and traps, would cost about the same as the F35 buy and gives us far better capabilities, imo.

How do you think RAF types would react to deploying regularly on carriers, especially if they were longer deployments than the RAF normally undertake?
Couldn't agree more with the E-2Ds. Also I saw an article today that said part of the justification for not using cats, and therefore reducing fuel load, was that we use tankers closer to the front line - kinda defeats the point in a carrier if you're relying on land based refuelling!

They've been doing it for the last 10 yrs. They're used to it.

Not really. An AAR a/c [the Voyager, for example] can fly an awful lot further than the carrier embarked a/c and still be useful. For instance, during the early days in Afghanistan when we didn't have a/c based in country, they were flying off carrier decks in the Indian Ocean and meeting up over Afghanistan with refuellers flying out of Doha.

Really? Last I heard the RN were struggling to get Harriers onto carriers at all as they were too busy in Afghan.
Fair point on the refuellers, but you're not always going to have that option. I know the Falklands is a pretty unusual scenario, but no land based aircraft could support carrier ops there.

That's because we'd pared down the fleet to only a token amount and didn't want to undertake both at the same time. When the Harriers came out of Afghanistan and before they were retired the entire Cottesmore Wing was working up for redeployment on the carriers. Once the mannign departments of both the RAF and RN know what the requirement is, they can start recruiting and training the people needed.

As for the Falklands scenario, the need for such a thing can be avoided in the first place. We've proven that we can fly Typhoons direct to the islands in 2 days [could be done quicker if necessary] in relative ease. And if carrier aviation were required, then that's why having FA18s works better, they've been designed for - and the US has lots of experience in - buddy refuelling, where one aircraft takes off purely with fuel on board, the others take off with weapons and the fuel-laden one hands it all off to the others.
Now that we've got 10+ RN pilots flying the FA18 with the USN in operations it makes sense to use their now building experience in the best way.

I've never heard of buddy refuelling, very clever! Getting Typhoons to the Falklands does rely on still having them in UK hands of course. Having said that you obviously don't predicate your entire defence strategy on one relatively minor scenario!
Yep it seems daft we're rapidly losing our STOVL expertise and gaining conventional fixed wing experience to then revert to STOVL ops..

In fairness, the F111 was a cracking aircraft and one we should have bought. Certainly more useful across the board than the -35.

And the dump and burn party piece is just very showy offy

Drewski - One glaring issue about the F/A18 purchase you propose, where is the UK workshare?

While my list is more "what we'd like" than "what we'd get", there is scope for it to work out.

Boeing build the Hawk in Mississippi [known as the T-45 Goshawk, locally] under license from BAE. I see no reason why a reciprocal agreement couldn't work with building some/the bulk of the jets here. Additionally, there is scope to re-engine them with either EJ200s or one of Rolls' many turbojets. Those two pieces alone would see plenty of pennies flowing into the coffers. Admittedly not as many as the F35 would, though my list is working on the presumption that the US eventually cancels the F35 for being simply too expensive.