5 ms·
Very scary but also a reminder of the high cost of politics and agreements and strong personailities and "you're damned if you do and damned if you don't" I wa
by lbriner 8y ago
Very scary but also a reminder of the high cost of politics and agreements and strong personailities and "you're damned if you do and damned if you don't"
I was reading earlier about the UK saying they were going to buy 150 of them at $100M a pop. Probably already signed the agreement and then will get the shock of the service pricing and the idea that once you have it, it costs you more to mothball and replace than to keep paying good money after bad.
Shudder.
- arethuza 8y agoWouldn't be quite so bad if we weren't in the process of completing two carriers that can only be used with the F-35B as they don't have CATOBAR capabilities - so far that's over $10 billion just on the ships.
- rjsw 8y agoWe don't want CATOBAR, using STOV(R)L aircraft is cheaper in the long run.
- greedo 8y agoCATOBAR is far better in the long run. You can take off with more weapons/fuel, and bring back more of both instead of dumping them. The RN made a huge mistake in not putting in catapults and arresting gear.
- rjsw 8y agoNope. You need to keep much more fuel in reserve if doing arrested landings compared to vertical ones. You probably also need airborne refuelling provided from the carrier. Another extra cost comes from needing to keep practicing landings, plus trainers like the T-50 to learn how to do them. There is more chance of losing an aircraft in a landing accident too. Not needing to keep practicing landings means that the mix of F-35s and helicopters can be changed at short notice.
- arethuza 8y agoActually, my main concern is the risk created by coupling one very and expensive project (the carriers) to the design of a particular model of new aircraft. At least with CATOBAR there is the option of falling back to other designs.
- greedo 8y agoCorrect. Harriers are out of service for the RN/RAF, and good they should be. The French were prudent in using CATOBAR with their carriers. They get the advantage of Rafale, F-18, E2, etc etc. Plus they wisely chose nuclear power.
- greedo 8y ago1. CATOBAR means no onboard AEW (I'm not counting the Crowsnest on the Merlin). An E2 Hawkeye has longer loiter time, range and higher ceiling (granting a longer detection range). 2. Airborne refueling from a carrier is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing. STOVL aircraft have short legs anyways, so being able to provide dedicated tanking is essential. 3. Practice landings is an extra cost? How? With STOVL aircraft you still need to practice landings and takeoffs, and landings are still quite complicated. This will have no impact on the mix of aircraft that would or could be deployed. 4. Safety - the track record for STOVL is far far worse than normal aircraft. The Harrier has an atrocious rate of Class A accidents. Hopefully the F-35B will be better than past STOVL aircraft, but there's no indication that it will be safer than more traditional aircraft.
- growlist 8y agoSome of that money is coming back to the UK: 'As the program’s only Level 1 partner, the United Kingdom has garnered tremendous economic benefits from the F-35. British industry will build 15 percent of each of the more than 3,000 planned F-35s, generating significant export revenue and GDP growth. The program is projected to create and support more than 24,000 jobs across every region of the United Kingdom.' ..but still, I do wonder whether we are trying to fight the last war with this plane.