• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Is it just me, or is the F-35 quite an ugly looking aircraft? It seems too complex with its VTOL, swinging the rear thruster down to do this? Wish we had made a carrier version of the Typhoon, or kept the Sea-Harrier? Just seems--awkward behaviour.

The rear thruster swings on many newly designed aircraft - it is what is supposed to give many modern jets their maneuverability. Obviously not to the extent of the F35B though! That is for the vertical take off. However, it is the fan behind the cockpit, with the opening trap doors to give downward thrust near the front that is the real bit of gadgetry!

From what has been said navalising the Typhoon would be very expensive indeed. A redesign with the UK as the only purchaser? Better to buy the Rafale :p
Sea Harrier? Well, the Sea Harrier was retired in 2006. The GR9 was retired more recently. The Harrier suffered from very short combat radius and could only really function after air superiority over a target has been achieved. The Sea Harrier was more capable, and it certainly carried a better arsenal than the GR9 - which required a refit (hence it's retirement) to meet the same standards.

A lot of articles about developments are very political. Those two you link are no exception. The entire thing has become politics, plain and simple. Most care not for the capabilities or anything else, it's political point scoring.
It is incredibly hard to find anything that isn't utterly skewing things for max political leverage. Undoubtedly some folks want the F35B for the UK and will do/say anything to ensure this happens. Why? Politics, money, business.
Inflating the cost of the refit, saying it will be 2028 before the carriers will have any wings on board (without any mention of when F35B production would supposedly give us a wing! :p ).

The only certainties are that the C is more capable (greater attack radius, greater load capability, cheaper to maintain, cheaper to purchase, and a fully laden B may need to drop unused expensive ordinance before landing due to weight issues) than the B. However, when delivered it may be like the Typhoon - shy on actual capabilities to launch various weapons we use as those requirements were stripped out to cut costs.

It is all becoming a farce. Maybe it already was, but too many folks have too much vested politics/interest/lobbyists and mis-representation/reporting to make it an utter minefield. What is truth, what is fiction, is nearly impossible to know. The US wade in to say we've inflated the costs of the refit by 100%. Hmm, I wonder why those costs have suddenly grown so much?

I no longer care about the variant anymore, I just pray we have some bloody carriers which may be used instead! Utterly ridiculous. 2025 before a proper carrier group, insane. Buy the Rafale :p
 
In 1937, five Battleships and 6 aircraft carriers were laid down, and all of them where ready to see action during the war. I know modern ships are a lot more technologically advanced and much more complicated to build, but come on. It is just downright depressing at how much of a fiascos these carriers are proving to be.

It actually seemed quite fine until Cameron came along.
 
It actually seemed quite fine until Cameron came along.

Hehe, don't believe it. Labour delayed the build by 1 year at a cost of £1 billion...
That's £1 billion pounds for nothing. What a BARGAIN.

The lack of planes (F35) is due to development issues in the US, and I thought it was also partly why the decision to go for the F35C - as the B had serious question marks hanging over it at the time (it was on probation, which if it didn't pass, would then be dropped). The carriers were originally going to be ready in 2014 I believe (as in fully ready), and the F35 originally arriving 2012. The F35 is going to be 10 years late. The carriers may be 5-8 years late.

Regarding the use of Harriers for the job done in Libya, there was an article which pointed out that the harriers were not suitable as they could not carry the correct ordinance for the job (no idea!). I think the sea harriers were originally retired on the hope that the F35 would be on carriers by 2014 so a refit would be pointless.

As said, political minefield. What is true, what isn't? Real issues are that the MoD has no money whatsoever. If you care to read, dig around to find out what sort of project incompetence has led to such issues.
 
Last edited:
I watched some F-35 videos on Youtube, and it just looked too complex with the revolving thrusters - the Harrier was simple VTOL, but this plane looks like a mechanics nightmare. So, are we really without a carrier fleet at the moment? Stunning...
 
I watched some F-35 videos on Youtube, and it just looked too complex with the revolving thrusters - the Harrier was simple VTOL, but this plane looks like a mechanics nightmare. So, are we really without a carrier fleet at the moment? Stunning...

We have a carrier just not any fixed wing aircraft to fly from it at the moment.
 
I'd also advise everyone not to take what they read in the UK press regarding the carriers at face value (Such as the 2025 for QE, that's ridiculous) as the UK press are terrible for their defence reporting.