• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Excelitas Qioptiq banner

BATTLESPACE Updates

   +44 (0)77689 54766
   

  • Home
  • Features
  • News Updates
  • Company Directory
  • About
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media Pack 2022

TO ‘B’ OR Not To ‘B’

March 29, 2012 by

TO ‘B’ OR Not To ‘B’ – OF CATS, TRAPS and F-35 ‘C’ JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER!
By Howard Wheeldon FRAeS, Wheeldon Strategic Advisory Ltd

29 Mar 12. Why is it I wonder that we in the UK are so good at mucking up things that we have gone to so much trouble to create?

With confirmation of the PR12 ‘settlement’ now likely off the agenda until post local elections due in early May the government has seemingly bought itself more time to settle vexing questions that remain in CV carrier programme. Prime amongst these is whether to switch back to procuring the ‘B’ STOVL version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter thus scrapping the need to retrofit an untried system of ‘cats and traps’ to one or both of the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers now under construction for the Royal Navy or to remain with the revised SDSR policy decision to eventually acquire the ‘C’ (Carrier) version of the aircraft. My view is that the government will correctly revert back to the original well thought out decision of acquiring the ‘B’ STOVL version of F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. It will do so in my view primarily because it can at a stroke remove significant potential risk of retrofitting the as yet untested catapult arrester system known as EMALS (Electro Magnetic Aircraft Launch System) and that could in my view push the burden of potential additional cost risk on the program up by as much as £3bn.

The latest quandary with regard to future ‘Carrier Strike’ capability and now being faced by the Prime Minister, Cabinet Office and Secretary of State for Defence was created through decisions that emerged in the 2010 SDSR with regard to retrofitting a ‘cats and traps’ system onto one of the two currently in-build carriers and that as a result would allow a change of ultimate air power procurement requirement from the ‘B’ STOVL (Short Take Off Vertical Landing) to ‘C’ (Carrier) version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Rather than eventually equipping one or both of the new UK aircraft carriers with the ‘C’ STOVL version the Government decided in SDSR 2010 that one of the two carriers would now be retrofitted with the EMALS system and that rather than acquiring the STOVL version of the plane the eventual purchase from Lockheed Martin would be in the form of the more traditional F-35 ‘C’ carrier version.

The UK will soon take delivery of the first of three JSF aircraft ordered as part of the UK test development programme. My understanding is that two of these aircraft will be of the ‘B’ STOVL variant and one of the ‘C’ Carrier variant. RAF and Royal Navy personnel have I believe already flown versions of the JSF in the US so delivery of test aircraft for the UK will not change anything. As with most debates on defence procurement and capability several schools of thought as to reasons behind why the government made large scale changes relating to future UK ‘carrier strike’ capability have emerged. My own is that this was done solely on the basis of perceived cost saving as opposed to sensible defence capability and strategy.

With the die seemingly cast the process of examining how an as yet unproven US based EMALS system (there being no remaining UK manufacturers of either the traditional steam or EMALS system of ‘cats and traps’) might be retrofitted (original design of the CV carrier programme having been signed off four years earlier) to one of the two Queen Elizabeth class carriers began. For the past thirty four years the UK air power capability with regard to carrier strike capability had been based on two generations of Harrier VSTOL (Vertical Short Take Off Landing) aircraft and Helicopters. The concept of through deck carrier landing would be completely new to the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force as Britain had been without true through-deck carrier landing capability since the decommissioning of the former HMS Ark Royal IV back in 1978. Whilst a change of air power capability caused by the SDSR decision would change timing and seemingly

Primary Sidebar

Advertisers

  • qioptiq.com
  • Exensor
  • TCI
  • Visit the Oxley website
  • Visit the Viasat website
  • Blighter
  • SPECTRA
  • InVeris
  • Britbots logo
  • Faun Trackway
  • Systematic
  • CISION logo
  • ProTEK logo
  • businesswire logo
  • ProTEK logo
  • ssafa logo
  • DSEi
  • Atkins
  • IEE
  • EXFOR logo
  • KME logo
Hilux DVD2022 GlobalMilSat

Contact Us

BATTLESPACE Publications
Old Charlock
Abthorpe Road
Silverstone
Towcester NN12 8TW

+44 (0)77689 54766

BATTLESPACE Technologies

An international defence electronics news service providing our readers with up to date developments in the defence electronics industry.

Recent News

  • EXHIBITIONS AND CONFERENCES

    July 1, 2022
    Read more
  • VETERANS UPDATE

    July 1, 2022
    Read more
  • MANAGEMENT ON THE MOVE

    July 1, 2022
    Read more

Copyright BATTLESPACE Publications © 2002–2022.

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. If you continue to use the website, we'll assume you're ok with this.   Read More  Accept
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT