Future Carrier Aviation Options: A British Perspective

Naval War College Review, Summer, 2001 by David J. Jordan

While this experiece suggests that a combined European defence force is unlikely in the near term, the idea of some degree of cooperation over CV(F) ought not to be ruled out. The Royal Navy could purchase a ski-ramp-equipped Charles de Gaulle-class carrier or two--although one hopes that any future vessels of that class will have power plants that function as advertised and decks large enough to accommodate their whole air groups. Although the Royal Navy seems not to want a nuclear-powered vessel, it would appear that the cost advantages (developmental and trials-related engineering expenses, etc., would be small) of adopting a STOBAR Charles de Gaulle-class ship might outweigh this objection. (44) This would provide a European carrier capability; the Royal Navy would foot far lower development costs, since these would have been absorbed by the French, and there would be commonality of aircraft types as well.

Consequently, the STOBAR option is plausible, with the choice between an existing aircraft type, the Rafale (which will be fully mature technology in 2012, but not outdated), and the slightly newer-design Typhoon, which is generally reckoned to be more capable. If the Typhoon proves suitable for carrier use, the decision between the two types would be difficult, but the difficulty would not be of the unwelcome sort. Whether, however, the short-takeoff-but-arrested-recovery option is the best for the Royal Navy is another issue. There is a compelling reason to suspect that Britain will procure another STOVL carrier--the Joint Strike Fighter.

STOVL: The Preferred Option?

Notwithstanding the scenarios in which a STOBAR vessel might prove attractive, there are strong reasons for the Royal Navy to continue to operate short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing vessels. This contention arises both from the nature of STOVL operations and from the United Kingdom's involvement in the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). The programmatic details of JSF are well known and beyond the scope of this article; the upshot is that although there are technological concerns, particularly with regard to the STOVL variant, cancelation seems highly unlikely. With its clearly projected costs for each version, the JSF is not an obvious candidate for the major overruns that lead to cancelation.

Furthermore, the Joint Strike Fighter is being relied upon to replace a huge number of aircraft, in a number of air arms. Outside the United States, it is the likely replacement for many F-16s and possibly FIA-18s. If the JSF is not procured, some other type will have to be. For the U.S. Marine Corps, the loss of the STOVL JSF--and in fact the programme is in jeopardy in the Defense Department's current Quadrennial Defense Review--would be a serious blow, demanding either the updating of the AV-8B or a fundamental change in Marine aviation doctrine. This vulnerability prompted Lieutenant General Fred McCorkle, USMC, Deputy Chief of Staff for Aviation, to comment, "This nation has all its eggs in one basket." (45)