Well, as long as it can deliver Jeff Goldblum to the centre of the alien mothership armed with a Mac laptop, that's umpteen billions squids down the drain in a good cause.

Yes but Harriers will be sufficient for a few years. The need for air supremacy is clear but many aircraft have the capability if well supported. We will still need the JSF and Typhoon but maybe not as many.

the development of new aircraft needs to run in tandem with the development of anti aircraft weapons

faster smarter anti-aircraft weapon means faster smarter aircraft, simple really

out in the modern world older slower jets just cant handle the pace, even at this point in time its antiquated

edit-i mean antiquated technology wise, not thats its not of any use

I don't disagree with any of that. The point I've been trying to make is that we can't actually afford it any more.

The government is effectively selling the NHS off to the highest bidder, and looking at 25-40% savings to be made across the public sector, yet we can still apparently find billions of squids to spend on a fancy jet fighter.

Anyone else see a problem here?

To be fair there is an incoming very wide ranging strategic defence review that may decide we actually can't afford it, or the new carrier(s) it will fly from. The report did mention that. And, even if it decides we do need the F-35, we may end up buying a lot fewer than we planned. There is plenty of scope for cutting the defence budget in all sorts of places and buying less high end kit is just one of them. One obvious way is that our armed forces are currently incredibly top-heavy organisationally. For example, did you know we have more Admirals than warships? And more Squadron Leaders than squadrons? And about four times as many Generals as the Army's organisational structure requires... Get rid of a few of the top brass who do little more than shuffle papers around and that'll save a very large amount of money. Merge units together for similar reasons, buy less kit but buy better kit that doesn't need to be replaced as quickly...

There is more than one way to skin the proverbial cat in this regard. Cancelling high value items like the F-35, Typhoon phase three and the new carriers would certainly make the biggest difference to the absolute bottom line but surely the best thing to do is look at what we wish our armed forces to do given the budget available and size & equip them within that restriction.

A few less ludicrous expeditions in support of America's foreign policy goals would be an awfully good step forward as well. The F-35 is a bargain compared to what Afghanistan has cost us for next to no apparent gain.

Jon

TBH we need this aircraft just for fleet defence. As things stand the Royal Navy is relying on ageing, and mostly useless, Harrier GR9s. The GR9 was never intended to be used for fleet defence.

The F-35 will not only vastly improve our ability to protect the Royal Navy (in particular the new carriers), but it will allow us to project air power into enemy territory - all with an aircraft with an incredibly low radar profile.

And outside the F-35, this is how they get painted.
http://jalopnik.com/5581632/this-is-how ... ghter-jets

A few tins from Halfords and some masking tape it is not.

But what about the sea bass? Haven't they got the lasers on their heads?

Given the high cost of the B variant compared to the C variant, why didn't we build our new carriers as CATOBAR rather than VSTOL?
Then we could have had a proper early warning aircraft too.

I think that the new carriers will be full size so airborne early warning will be an option as well.

Nope. They're full sized, but with no catapult or arrest wires. At the moment the plans are to keep the helicopter based system. That is limited as their low altitude and poor range reduce their effectiveness.

That seems stupid. They will be nuclear powered so a steam catapult will add barely anything in terms of energy demands. Arrester wires will be useful for taking aircraft from other nations that are forced to divert to the carriers. It looks like a cost saving measure that cripples them so much that they are pointless.

Electro magnetic catapults are the new thing. A shorter recharge time and less stress on the airframe because of a variable acceleration rate make them much more suitable across a wider range of aircraft.

Electro magnetic catapults are the new thing. A shorter recharge time and less stress on the airframe because of a variable acceleration rate make them much more suitable across a wider range of aircraft.[/quote]
Fine even better but still easy for a nuclear powered aircraft carrier to manage.

Nope. They're gas turbine powered, not nuclear.