With consummate ill-timing U.S. policy makers efforts to sustain a second-engine for the F-35 are met with claims that London is ready to ditch equipping its planned second carrier with the aircraft.
Britain’s “Sunday Times” claims the Royal Navy has “agreed to sacrifice” one of its two 65,000 ton aircraft carriers, instead saying the navy would use the ship only as a helicopter carrier. For good measure the story speculates only about 50 of the F-35 will be bought, to save on cost.
Given budgetary pressures cutting the initial number to 50 appears credible - it would provide enough aircraft to equip the first carrier with a strike wing, and also for training needs.
The notion of having the second 65,000-ton carrier and using it only for helicopters seems far less so.
So... some questions:
1. This seems to suggest that one CV would be permanently configured for F-35s, and the other for helicopters. Wouldn't it make more sense to give both ships a flexible configuration, given the inevitable downtime that carriers need? The Times article suggests that Prince of Wales will be the helicopter/commando carrier, which would "save" the RN the 600 million it would otherwise require to replace HMS Ocean.
2. Can the RN possibly justify the construction of Prince of Wales as a glorified amphibious assault ship?
3. What does this mean for the rest of the Royal Navy's procurement plans? Does it get anything back for giving up an airwing?
UPDATE: Correspondents (as well as commenters) are indicating that the answer to question #1 is "No." The Times article is wrong, by this account, to suggest that Prince of Wales will be permanently configured around commando and helicopter operations. Rather, the two ships are likely to trade off the F-35 air group. This makes much more sense, and does suggest that the revision is more modest than the initial reports implied.
No comments:
Post a Comment