Decision expected by Easter on which US joint strike fighter Britain will buy: ministers now want to revert to original choice



Britain's troubled and increasingly expensive plan to equip the navy with new aircraft carriers has been plunged into fresh turmoil as ministers consider reversing their earlier decision to change the type of plane that should fly from them, it has emerged.

The government announced in last autumn's strategic defence review that it had decided to buy the "cats and flaps" (catapults and arrester gear) version of the US joint strike fighter. This would have a "longer range and greater payload ... the critical requirement for precision-strike operations in the future", the government stated.

Moreover, the government added, it will be cheaper. It would also enable French planes to land on British carriers, and vice versa, inkeeping with the new UK-French defence spirit of co-operation.

Now, in an extraordinary volte-face, the Ministry of Defence says the "cats and flaps" planes may well be cheaper but it would be too expensive to redesign a carrier more than £1bn to accommodate them. The ministry is thus faced with the prospect of renegotiating a deal with the US, reverting to its original plan namely buying the short take-off and vertical landing version of the aircraft, even though it is acknowledged to be less effective and more expensive .

The latest chapter in the troubled saga of Britain's future aircraft carriers whose own estimated costs have soared was raised on Thursday in a letter to the defence secretary, Philip Hammond, from Jim Murphy, his Labour opposite number.

Murphy referred to "worrying suggestions" that the government was about to change its mind about the kind of aircraft to buy from the US. "It is vital that there is now clarity on the government's plans for this vital area of the defence equipment programme," he wrote.

Murphy said the decision in the defence review to scrap the Harrier fleet meant the UK would have no carrier aircraft capability until 2020 and then only one carrier would be operational.

Defence officials said that the government was "re-assessing" its earlier decision because, they indicated, of pressures on the defence budget.

HMS Queen Elizabeth, the first carrier, will be mothballed immediately it is launched in 2016, according to existing plans. The second, HMS Prince of Wales, will be able to put to sea by 2020, but it is not known how many planes will be able to fly from it nor what kind.

The two carriers, originally priced at £3.5bn, are now estimated to cost £6.2bn. According to the Commons public accounts committee, the cost is likely to icrease to as much as £12bn.

The government, which originally said it wanted more than 100 joint strike fighters, says that it will have just six operational ones by 2020. The unit cost of the joint strike fighter, made by Lockheed Martin, has soared because of production problems and delays caused by US defence budget cuts. Britain's BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce have big stakes in a future deal adapting the joint strike fighter for British forces.

A spokesperson for the MoD said: "We are currently finalising the 2012-13 budget and balancing the equipment plan. As part of this process, we are reviewing all programmes, including elements of the carrier strike programme, to validate costs and ensure risks are properly managed. The defence secretary expects to announce the outcome of this process to parliament before Easter."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/01/uk-aircraft-carrier-us-strike-fighter

---------
http://www.youtube.com/user/TURKKNCL
http://www.youtube.com/user/aleladebirali

No surprise this incompetent government has decided to further screw up the carrier design. They've decimated our armed forces, scrapped our invincible class carriers, sold off our Harriers to the US Marine Corps, scrapped Nimrod MRA4 (leavig an island nation with no martime survelience), made troops redundant and generally reduced moral to an all time low.

Scandalous!

The fact that they use the term "Cats and Flaps" does cause me to slightly question the truth behind this report, and the guardian have been trying to hit the ConDems quite hard recently, especially in areas that can't be easily turned round to blame Labour, which are few and far between.

The truth is the MOD budget is a mess, although improved from the much bigger mess a few years ago. While I can see the benefits of the annual planning rounds, what they've turned into is a method of producing more quick cuts and rolling spending over to the next year by slowing down a project, which always adds to the overall cost. In the UK we have far too many senior officers and our support functions are too large. The increase in petty regulations on service life are as bigger morale hit as the recent equipment cuts, and seem to serve only in increasing the need for further support staff.

Procurement is also a disaster, with the cosy relationship between the MOD and industry are poison to the actual efforts of the organisation. How can it be legal for a senior officer to sign off a large and expensive contract, often on selective criteria, and then 6 months later go to work for said contractor on a massive salary? MOD contracts are shockingly bad, which means that they are screwed at every turn by the contractor who can guarantee that the MOD will want to change the requirement 17 times per year during the build, meaning that all the gucci capability that resulted in the original high price gets negotiated out. The Harrier and Ark were hard choices, and regrettable ones. But considering how skint the MOD were they had to be made. As for the Nimrod, I agree we need an MPA in the UK, but considering the nightmare that had turned into and the problems it still had i find it difficult to argue the choice to cut it. That was the MODs own making and think what else might have had to go in order to try and balance the books if we'd kept it? I'm not saying that the governments (past and present) are blameless, not by any means, but there is more to it than just them.

Standard MOD rant over.

In terms of this article its possible this is based on a paper for the PR which looks at all options, even ones that will never get actioned. For me the C variant is the right answer, as are cats and traps. Considering the time its going to take to get the carriers into service I can't see that the aircraft will be far behind, and if needed we can offer the deck to US or French aircraft as part of the work up. I certainly don't think the gap will be enough to cause a shift in aircraft type or an interim lease/buy, which are never as good value as headline numbers often suggest. And, as ever, industry will have as much of a say as defence........

Now you people know why there are actually only two nations on earth that can build a nuclear powered catobar a/c carrier.

---------------------------


De Gaulle to the General Koenig, Norman hero of Bir Hakeim: "Hear and tell your troops: the whole of France is watching you, you are our pride."[

The incompetence at the British MOD is legendary.







-----------------------

It would be great to blame it all on a few incompetents, however some of the issues border on fraud.....

Until we realise that you can't just post an officer into a senior procurement position for two years or less as a 'broadening tour' there will always be problems. Project Management is an art, and worth big money, and until the MOD take it seriously nothing will change. Actually thats not true, the contract requirements will change on a regular basis and screw everything up as usual.

If we'd spec'd a Nuc Ship at the start and not messed with the design and funded it properly it would have been built by now. Wasn't CVF was first mentioned in 1998?!!

The only saving grace is that the UK isn't alone, in fact I'm not even convinced its the worse!

This report is sourced from a Labour MP and is known to be worthless. The CATOBAR conversion is under way. F35C could be dropped in favour or Superhornet, but it's very unlikely.