Seriously it would help to have some basic knowledge on this subject matter.  The CVF has always been designed to carry 36 fighters, the new plan is to normally deploy with 12.  The cost of the C is about $139 million unit flyaway vs $144 million for the B (FY13 USN Budget) so calling the C cheaper is both accurate and misleading as it's a small difference.

 

Beyond the extra cost to operate conventional aircraft one can add the extra expense to purchase and operate the equipment and extra crew.  It's actually false the C is cheaper to operate given the total cost of operations.   The entire decision to go to the C was flawed and did contain cost analysis of the conversion, the cost to add tanking capability, the E-2C, etc.  Exactly what the range advantage of the C might be over the B is yet to be determined for carrier operations given the lower margin of fuel required when a B lands- the C needs extra in case it doesn't trap the first time and normally one keeps a tanker up to refuel those aircraft that don't trap right away.

 

Finally the B is likely to get into service before the C and is far ahead in flight testing.  The USMC will reach IOC with the B before the other services as they're going not waiting for as late a software version.

Maybe the british should buy the SU-30 and use the ski ramp

My previous post should've included the following quote from the article: "The 27 ton F-35B is armed with an internal 25mm cannon", but for some reason, it didn't go through the first time.  Oh well.

Actually, the only version of the JSF that carries an internal cannon is the F-35A model.  The B and C models have provisions for an external gun pod though.

 

This is reminicent of the of the situation with the F-4 Phantom, where the USAF (after experience with the gun-less C and D versions) bought the gun-armed F-4E, while the Navy & USMC made do with gun pods on the F-4J.

 

Not sure why the Navy and USMC were quicker to give up on internal cannon than the USAF though.

It seems a waste of 65,000 tons to build a carrier for short-ranged, small weapon load STOVL fighters. The inability to carry an E-2 AEW aircraft or equivalent is also strange. Given the UK's current economic situation I wonder if both or even one will be completed.  

It seems a waste of 65,000 tons to build a carrier for short-ranged, small weapon load STOVL fighters. The inability to carry an E-2 AEW aircraft or equivalent is also strange. Given the UK's current economic situation I wonder if both or even one will be completed.  

 It is strange that they're limiting their capabilities so much but it fits in with both the political climate in the UK and in Europe as a whole. Carriers are seen as a force projection tool, imperialistic and all that stuff. And it's not seen well by both the public and politicians of other European countries that the British could be going down that road. Especially with the focus on self protection force levels being the hot thing in Europe.

 

As to whether they'll complete them or not? They have to. It would be a blow to the industries that are building those ships, would hurt some defence companies which have some serious pull in the right places.

 

They might delay them but they've started. Plus the economic situation in Europe is overstated in a lot of posts here, it's not as bad as it was in 2010. Not nearly as bad and the prospects are positive.

It seems a waste of 65,000 tons to build a carrier for short-ranged, small weapon load STOVL fighters. The inability to carry an E-2 AEW aircraft or equivalent is also strange. Given the UK's current economic situation I wonder if both or even one will be completed.

 I've got to wonder if the "equivalent" of an E-2 might not be provided by land-based drones or the sorts of small UAV types which can take off from (and trap upon) a 65,000-ton carrier. 

 

Who says that these AEW aircraft can't be piloted (and their systems operated) from aboard the carrier in easy reach of the mess hall coffee machines?

I've got to wonder if the "equivalent" of an E-2 might not be provided by land-based drones or the sorts of small UAV types which can take off from (and trap upon) a 65,000-ton carrier. 

Remember that Britain fielded a helicopter-based AWACS after the Falklands War:

http://www.geocities.com/CapeC...

 

And could field a newer one if needed:

 

http://www.defence-update.net/...