On the utility of carriers

[Mikey]

Also, in the future please don't omit salient parts of my points when citing me in an attempt to subvert what I've said into something I clearly didn't. That's a Murdoch-worthy form of debate, and I expect better.

[Captain Seafort]

Which bits are you talking about? I've certainly been cutting out big chunks of your posts, but as far as I'm aware all the stuff that I've been binning has simply been more detailed expansions of the core points I've been refuting in broad strokes. Detailed technical discussions of Soviet SAMs simply aren't relevant to a refutation based on the fact that nothing they ever fielded could touch the Blackbird or Valkyrie, or that any systems introduced specifically to combat the Valkyrie would simply be part of the continuous cycle of bomber and counter-bomber development, to be responded to by the fielding of a Valkyrie successor.

[Deepcrush]

Also, in the future please don't omit salient parts of my points when citing me in an attempt to subvert what I've said into something I clearly didn't. That's a Murdoch-worthy form of debate, and I expect better.

Sorry but do you really expect this to change???

[Mikey]

Which bits are you talking about? I've certainly been cutting out big chunks of your posts, but as far as I'm aware all the stuff that I've been binning has simply been more detailed expansions of the core points I've been refuting in broad strokes. Detailed technical discussions of Soviet SAMs simply aren't relevant to a refutation based on the fact that nothing they ever fielded could touch the Blackbird or Valkyrie, or that any systems introduced specifically to combat the Valkyrie would simply be part of the continuous cycle of bomber and counter-bomber development, to be responded to by the fielding of a Valkyrie successor.

No, I mean phrases out of sentences, which phrases alter the meaning. for example:
You cited me as having said, "has yet served admirably in its role...since 1955," and then went on to explain that I was wrong because the B-52 was forced adopt other roles to continue service. The part of my statement which you omitted said expressly, "and other roles," which alters the quote enough to render your criticism of it meaningless. If you take exception with something I say, fine; but don't express exception with something I didn't say or mean.

[Captain Seafort]

You cited me as having said, "has yet served admirably in its role...since 1955," and then went on to explain that I was wrong because the B-52 was forced adopt other roles to continue service. The part of my statement which you omitted said expressly, "and other roles," which alters the quote enough to render your criticism of it meaningless. If you take exception with something I say, fine; but don't express exception with something I didn't say or mean.

I originally quoted the entire thing, and objected to it on the grounds that it was rapidly obsolete in its core role of nuclear delivery, regardless of its later successes - it was when you objected to that that I produced the edited quote above. If you, as seems evident, interpreted that as selective editing to distort your views to support my own, then I apologise. My intention was simply to highlight the specific part of your statement I disagreed with, which I interpreted as implying that the B-52 has continued to serve successfully in its original nuclear delivery role since its initial entry into service, in addition to those it subsequently adopted.

[Mikey]

I have no issue if you choose not to include the full body of my post if you're responding to one specific idea; I do the same thing myself. The issue I had with it arose when you replied to the edited quote as if it embodied what I said, when the edited part actually changed the meaning of my post. The entire reason I included the bit which you edited was because I know that the one original role is no longer in the Buff's repertiore.

Oh well - I have had a very hectic week, and am looking at another, so water and bridges and all that.

[Captain Seafort]

I have no issue if you choose not to include the full body of my post if you're responding to one specific idea; I do the same thing myself. The issue I had with it arose when you replied to the edited quote as if it embodied what I said, when the edited part actually changed the meaning of my post. The entire reason I included the bit which you edited was because I know that the one original role is no longer in the Buff's repertiore.

Oh well - I have had a very hectic week, and am looking at another, so water and bridges and all that.

Fair enough - as I said, I misread it, and edited it to emphasise the bit I was objecting to. My apologies for that.

[GrahamKennedy]

Well, back to the B again. Wheeeeee.

Source

The British government has changed its mind again on some of the F-35 Lightning II fighter jets that it intends to purchase. Unlike Canada, the British aren't considering delaying orders or reducing the number of jets they ordered this time around. Rather, the British government is now announcing that it will switch back to the F-35B short takeoff and vertical landing version of the fighter rather than the F-35C carrier-based version.

The F-35B STOVL fighter was originally the version that the British intended to purchase, but delays and fears of the program being canceled after the U.S. put the B variant on probation led to the British deciding to use the F-35C instead. Recent improvements to the program have led to the fighter being removed from probation, and its future is looking better.

According to British Defense Secretary Philip Hammond, the plan to purchase the carrier-based F-35 versions was killed due to what he calls an unacceptable cost. Delays in the plan to convert the carrier to handle the F-35C had also mounted. According to Hammond, an estimate to convert one British carrier had doubled from the original $1.6 billion to an amount roughly twice that. One British defense official blames the U.S. for that cost increase.

According to the unnamed official, the United States had insisted that the UK purchase the required Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System or EMALS directly through a government-to-government foreign military sales (FMS) deal rather than allowing the British to purchase directly from the manufacturer. That requirement allegedly added about 150M pounds or about 7% to the cost of obtaining the EMALS system.

The British government expects flight testing for the F-35B to begin in 2018 while initial operational capability will commence in 2020.

Total cost of changing to the C and then going back to the B again? Estimates are £200 million.

[Captain Seafort]

Any bets on how long it'll be before they change their minds again?

[McAvoy]

Wow.

Love politics especially when it comes to the military. That is a garanteed constant.

[Mikey]

Any bets on how long it'll be before they change their minds again?

It'll be at least a little while... if it happens too quickly, there won't be enough money wasted in the (re-)change-over.

I especially like the part about how the U.S. is at fault for the UK stuffed shirts not wanting to let the military leaders make military decisions and then waffling over procurement.

[Deepcrush]

Well if the US isn't to blame for the UK's government problems... who could it be...?

[Mikey]

Well if the US isn't to blame for the UK's government problems... who could it be...?

Exactly. Here's the funny thing about that comment: We don't care if you buy EMALS from us! We want you to get the Bravo version, because judging by the Harrier there are exactly two major players to whom to market it in the world - the UK and the USMC.

[Captain Seafort]

We don't care if you buy EMALS from us! We want you to get the Bravo version

The US Navy disagrees, because without catapults on the QEs they won't be able to cross-deck. This isn't the first time stupidity from on high has shot the US in the foot on the subject of our carriers - it took a lot of pressure from both sides of the pond before we were given the source code for the F35.

[Mikey]

The USN might disagree, but Ways and Means sure doesn't. We can't make enough off of the jarheads alone to offset the development of the Bravo.