I posted this on another forum where they were talking about this utter cock up
The source used for this is here:
http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/2012/04/angled-deck-or-ramp-for-our-queen-elizabeth-class-carriers/
I wouldn't say it is ideal to trust this source (think tank without any sources being provided for their statements!) - but if it
does have truth in it - then holy crap for completely retarded acquisition again. I semi can't believe the truth, as it'd imply the US Marines are also going along with the deficiencies. However, choice cuts from it are:
eck operations – Launch. DSTL analysis has shown that for the F-35B the deck run required for a flat deck launch increases significantly in high sea states, high temperatures and with low wind over the deck – to an extent that often the aircraft will not be able to launch in the conditions to be expected East of Suez. The ‘C’ is not affected by this. Therefore, in switching to the ‘B’ the UK is considering reverting to an aircraft which does not deliver carrier strike, has less endurance, carries less payload and which cannot launch from a flat deck under the very climatic conditions expected to be experienced during power projection carrier strike operations.
Worth pointing out it talks about flat deck, not ski jump. The ski jump is to enable planes to take off with heavier loads, and safer in rougher conditions too.
Deck Operations – Recovery. In the same conditions referred to at paragraph 34, above (high ambient temperatures and sea states), the weight of the ‘B’ and its limited available thrust is likely to prevent it from being able to hover before landing. In order to get back on board ship it will therefore need to conduct a new flight procedure known as Ship Rolling Vertical Landing (SRVL). This is ‘un-cleared and unfunded’ and the landing systems required to enable this have not been fully tested and developed. Indeed at night this is expected to be more challenging than a vertical or arrested recovery. This must be considered a very high risk area for the ‘B’ – and possibly high extra cost. (*Chips edit* It is pointed out earlier in the document that the B aircraft may have to drop unused munitions prior to landing.)
From what I remember, the harrier also had to dump things in order to land (couldn't land vertically when fully loaded).
Costs. Through lack of oversight and accountability (the blame for which cannot be placed at the door of the Naval Staff but more to the changes forced on the latter by MoD at the highest level), the cost of preparing the two flight decks for the ‘C’ may indeed be approaching £2 billion. For political reasons and short-term expediency, it would appear that this figure has been highlighted in isolation. What needs to be considered as well is that so much has already been stripped from the Queen Elizabeth that to reverse course and get her back to an operating capability with a ramp (and without a ramp the ‘B’ may be inoperable in hot climates) will itself be extremely expensive – and therefore the ‘cost gap’ between the two alternatives significantly narrows. The cost of preparing to take a ramp is substantial and is the subject of work on-going. It is thought that it will cost in excess of £0.5 billion alone just to get the Queen Elizabeth to a very limited operating capability to take helicopters, troops and her own mission systems, let alone rewire and get ready for fast jet ‘B’ operations. These costs must be considered as well and set against the predicted costs of installing ‘cat and trap’ for the ‘C’.
Accountability. It is not the EMALS catapult launch system that is being redesigned, but the ship – and British Aerospace Systems are supposed to have costed the ‘for but not with’ design into the initial cost of the ship. Why did they not do this?
Interoperability. The Statement of Intent (SOI) signed by the Secretary of State in January clearly stated interoperability as a desired outcome. Therefore this work has progressed within the SOI working groups – based on the choice of the F-35C. 5 levels have been identified for the integration of support and mission systems in each other’s ships. The US and UK have a desire for level 4 and with the French at level 2 (training/Carrier Qualification) only. A reversion to the F-35B would prevent UK compliance with the SOI.
Obviously the B can also carry much less, and internally, about 1/3rd of the C's equipment.
If, and that's a big IF, the above points are true (all of them) - then true face palm. I just hope to God it isn't true, and that it was an attempt at more political pressure to keep the C. I'd have preferred the C. Honestly, just glad we'll get some carriers as it is starting to get hideously stupid
