UK will be buying the F-35b after all.

[watzizname]

Some common sense at last..

Mr Hammond said delays to the F-35C Joint Strike Fighter programme, a multinational venture led by American company Lockheed Martin, meant they would have not been operational until 2023 - three years later than planned.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18008171

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...switch-371661/

Of course by the time we have these planes, some bright spark in government will probably see no real need for carriers any more, as we could probably launch them just as well from modified dinghies

Yeah. Heard about this yesterday. Kind of embarrassing for the government but not a lot has been made of it.

[devilincarnate]

Originally Posted by Damien

Yeah. Heard about this yesterday. Kind of embarrassing for the government but not a lot has been made of it.

Not too sure about that?

The cost of the U-turn is likely to be about £100m, he told BBC News.

The estimated cost of fitting the "cats and traps" system to HMS Prince of Wales had risen from £950m to £2bn "with no guarantee that it will not rise further".

But, he revealed, the government had spent between £40m and £50m on design and assessment work and there would also be penalty costs associated with scrapping the F-35C deal.

'Incompetence'

He told MPs the eventual cost of the U-turn would be "nowhere near" the £250m claimed by Labour and warned "fiscal incontinence" over defence procurement would undermine "the support we should offer our armed forces".

When pressed about the cost of the rethink on BBC Radio 4's The World at One he said it would be in the region of £100m. Labour has called on Mr Hammond to publish the full costs.

Unveiling the decision to "mothball" one of the carriers and order the F35-C in October 2010, as part of the government's defence review, David Cameron attacked Labour's "appalling legacy" on defence procurement and said decisions were "now being made in the right way and for the right reasons".

Shadow Defence Secretary Jim Murphy: "Nothing has been gained. Two years have been wasted"

Shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy said Mr Cameron should now apologise for the government's "incompetence", saying that the prime minister had ignored warnings from the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office about the "high risk and high cost" of opting for the F-35C.

"It is as incoherent as it is ludicrous," he said. "The prime minister's decisions have cost British time, British money, British talent and British prestige.

"Describing this government's defence strategy as an omnishambles would be a compliment.

"The previous Labour government got it right and this government's policy has unravelled."

He said the government should never have scrapped its Harrier jump jets, which he said had been "sold off to America for a fraction of their value" - a decision he said risked "international ridicule".

Labour peer and former security minister Admiral West described the U-turn as a "shambles".

"It is extraordinary, it does smack of total incompetence. I'm just utterly amazed," he told the BBC's Daily Politics.

'Expensive cul-de-sac'

Lord Stirrup, who was head of the armed forces when the 2010 decision was made, said the government had made a "perfectly rational decision" to backtrack after discovering the "true nature of the costs and the risks that are involved".

But former Labour defence secretary Bob Ainsworth said the 2010 decision "was taken in the face of clear advice" and the facts had not changed in the way Mr Hammond claimed.

"I reviewed this decision, taken by my predecessor. The fundamental facts were there at the time and have not changed.

"We have been in an extremely expensive cul-de-sac for the last 18 months as a result of a shambles of an SDSR and I can only congratulate you for bringing some sanity to it," he told Mr Hammond in the Commons.

Mr Hammond insisted the risks associated with the F35-B were "dramatically different now" to what they were in 2010 when there was a possibility it would be cancelled due to technical problems.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18008171

Not too sure now after these comments?

Our top serving soldier thinks this is a good decision.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...essential.html

If choosing version B over version C means there are now prospects of having planes on the flight decks of our carriers in 2018 rather than 2023, and of being able to choose to operate both carriers rather than mothballing one of them, then that surely is a good thing.

[mertle]

Originally Posted by Chris

Our top serving soldier thinks this is a good decision.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...essential.html

If choosing version B over version C means there are now prospects of having planes on the flight decks of our carriers in 2018 rather than 2023, and of being able to choose to operate both carriers rather than mothballing one of them, then that surely is a good thing.

agreed but there is new player we would be fools to rule out. Russian claim cheaper at 47-57m us dollars with stealth technology. Considering we looking at upto 6 times the cost with F-35b.

Should we take the russian version.

It might not be best fighter but more buck for your money might be crazy not to consider.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/russia...ry?id=14315928

Yes can be aircraft carrier launched

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA

We have already paid a large amount towards the cost of the F35 as a partner nation in its development. That means we have full autonomous access to all its systems, including computer source code, so are able to operate and maintain the aircraft independently of the United States.

It is vanishingly unlikely that the British military would get anywhere near that level of operational control over any Russian military hardware.

Right decision in the end.

It must have been sickening for Phillip Hammond to have to admit the last Labour Govenment were right about something.


http://www.channel4.com/news/u-turn-...rier-programme

http://www.itv.com/news/2012-05-10/w...rime-minister/


The prime minister has given Defence Secretary Phillip Hammond the green light to revert to the previous Labour administration's plans to buy the conventional jump-jet version of the F35 Joint Strike Fighter.

[Matth]

So until then, we have no carriers at all, or a carrier with no planes. Other than the artificial importance of an independent nuclear deterrent, what have we got?
You can't threaten to nuke the Argies if they invaded the Falklands again.

[RB2004]

We are still relatively well armed, we have helicopter carriers in service, a couple of new subs and more being built, as well as some new warships.

Not to mention the nuke carrying subs.

Aircraft though we have a gap after the retirement of the harriers, and as good as the typhoon euro fighters are.. They don't offer much of a tactical advantage when half of Europe is also using them.

Don't know we don't start building our own again, we build wings in this country we build engines, subs, ships.. But not aircraft?