The Royal Navy say its Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers will be interchangeable with US Navy carriers.
First Sea Lord Admiral Tony Radakin was addressing the second Atlantic Future Forum, onboard HMS Queen Elizabeth while the ship was moored in the Chesapeake Bay just offshore of Annapolis, the US Naval Institute reported.
“As she has demonstrated already, we can successfully field a combined US, UK carrier strike group. I look forward to this developing further, moving to the point where we are not only talking about interoperability, but we are looking for interchangeability.”
Commodore Steve Moorhouse,Ā Queen Elizabethās commanding officer, reportedly told members of the media:
“What weāre trying to do is get beyond being interoperable. There are lots of nations that can do that. What we want to be here is absolutely integrated, so almost it doesnāt matter what flag youāre flying; the U.S. ship or aircraft can dock into our strike group seamlessly as though it was a British ship. Weāve made some huge strides this autumn getting into that.”
In 2021, HMS Queen Elizabeth will deploy with two frigates, two destroyers, a nuclear submarine and support vessels. The ship will also carry 24 F-35B jets, including US Marine Corps aircraft, in addition to a number of helicopters.
Captain Jerry Kyd, former commander of HMS Queen Elizabeth, commented on the initial deployment and the gradual increase in air wing numbers:
āWe are constrained by the F-35 buy rate even though that was accelerated in SDSR in 2015, so initial operating capability numbers in 2020 are going to be very modest indeed.Ā We will flesh it out with helicopters, and a lot depends on how many USMC F-35s come on our first deployment in 2021. But by 2023, we are committed to 24 UK jets onboard, and after that itās too far away to say.”
After the deployment, by around 2023, the Ministry of Defence have indicated that the UK will have 42 F-35 aircraft with 24 being ‘front-line fightersā and the remaining 18 will be used for training (at least 5 on the OCU), be in reserve or in maintenance.
According to a couple of newspapers this morning it will be a darn site more than integration (read: hire out/loan/sell). Oh, and the Army to be reduced to 60,000…or is it fake news. I for one, always expected the carriers to slip away into the night!
Great news. I could always see this coming. Once the other countries have broken free, little England will have to face reality. Strange to think this has occurred under the hated Tories. Roll on the freedom referendum!
I don’t comment on Scottish Independence, that is a matter for the Scots. Quite how you link the reduction of British Armed forces with Scottish Independence is somewhat tenuous. But, I wouldn’t bother banging your drum on this website!
It is delicious news though isnāt it? Seeing the right wing English militarists squirm is going to be great!
Not really, I’ve never been a fan of petty nationalism or the childish pleasure that some of it’s supporters take in seeing others humiliated. ‘Oh wa God the gift to gee us, to see ourselves as others see us’
Yawn
Probably the most intelligent comment that you have made on this website. By the way, are you an anti-Semite?
Scotch Nationalists need to look to the wonderfully experienced armed forces of Eire to see what their forces would look like after Indy. Once Alex Salmond gets out of prison for sexual impropriety and becomes Scotch PM he can maybe ask the rUK to police his skies as he doesn’t have an airforce … just like the irish have.
Doug…’Scotch’ is an alcoholic beverage! It is Scots or Scottish!
“Scotch?” …. nonplussed look. Thank you, Herodotus.
Scotch is increasingly being used to desctibe the SNP’s special brand of anti-english (sorry anti-Westmister) nationalism … mainly because it bothers them.
Unless of course you’re doing it deliberately. It happens….
Not when you describe the Scotch Misty Swivel Eyed Haggis Botherers of Scotch Nationalism. And I say that as a Scotsman myself. :o)
My, you are a naughty (pronounced Nockty) boy….aren’t you?
While it doesn’t bother me, I can see why deliberately mispelling a nationality might bother some, whatever your personal justifications. Each to their own I guess.
I’m not mis-spelling their nationality, just their “nationalism” … there is a difference.
That was very hard to discern from your use of it earlier.
Is it all forms of nationalism you’re not fond of ?
You’re one of those fella’s who alweays wants the last word aren’t you?
On ye go, have it.
OK, cheers Douglas. I’m guessing you’re not willing to answer the question on where you stand on all forms of Nationalism then. I can now see why you might thought it was a trick question….
Is Ireland any the worse for it ??? We’re all here because we have an interest in defence matters (and Scottish independence it seems) but whisper it, a lot of people don’t really give a crap about defence. They’d rather the money was spent on other things, I’m guessing the majority of Irish voters feel this way or there would be more calls for Irish jets and destroyers.
Perhaps the Russians will slip ashore on the Irish coast and bag themselves a few Atlantic ports, some good airfields, a strategic position in range of Western Europe and a place in the EU.
Mark wrote:
<b<"Perhaps the Russians will slip ashore on the Irish coast and bag themselves a few Atlantic ports, some good airfields, a strategic position in range of Western Europe and a place in the EU."
That’s something, that I have wondered is what the SNP would do if they left the union simply to P off the English and Americans.
Well they’ve kept that quiet, is it like some hollowed out volcano lair or something ?
Feel free to work yourself up over this but IT HASN’T HAPPENED.
It is easy to spend your money on other things when other nations spend theirs on your defense.
Yes David, it is.
Ireland are maybe taking full advantage of their geography knowing that they’re unlikely to be invaded. Its not something I lose any sleep over.
It’s always amusing when we hear one of the Scottish SNP brigade post with a massive chip on their shoulder about the English. Even when the SNP decide a good deal of their own laws and spending they still find time to blame it on the English when it goes wrong. I can only think that when independence comes, at least the English will not have to listen to the small minded and bitter drivel anymore from the 10% of the Scottish people who have nothing left to do in but complain about everyone else.
You reckon…..seems to me that anti-Englishness is an anal fixation with many nationalities….most of all, the Americans!
And once again itās a yawn! Your contributions are valuable, do keep them up.
Douglas Newell…the above contributor (?) is another that always has to have the last word. Infantile?
Well said that Man.
Thanks for the change of pace Mike, usually when an article that has nothing to do with Scotland but ends up being about Scottish independence is sidetracked, it by some phuqtard Morris dancer. A phuqtard Sweaty sock doing it is really really refreshing……. NOT.
Mike, Mike, Mike, you are entitled to your views. If Scotland votes for independence let’s see if you are still singing and happy in your splendid isolation in 10-15 years.
The minute Scotland votes for independence is the minute rUK pulls all investment, jobs, Barnett formulary etc out.
You can also take a share of the national debt with you that you have in no small way contributed towards.
Say 250 billion sounds about right.
How will you fill the Ā£16-18 billion a year deficit that the rUK currently pays for?
I wonder if the SNP are telling Scotland vote leave and say goodbye to free social care, university, prescriptions etc etc etc
Another Scotch Nationalist Troll talking haggis.
Yawn.
MIke, a little bit of reading from the Scotsman:
Russia and China āusing Scotland as backdoor to influence British policyā
A foreign affairs expert has claimed China and Russia are using Scotland as a backdoor to influence British policy. John Hemmings, a director of the Asia Studies Centre at foreign policy think-tank Henry Jackson Society, said authoritarian regimes were finding a āfriendlier earā in Scotland.
The society has accused China of waging an intellectual war on Britain.
Scotland has Confucius Institutes based at the universities of Strathclyde, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Heriot-Watt.Russia has meanwhile prominently featured high-profile Scottish politicians, including former First Minister Alex Salmond, on its state-run broadcasts.
Read more: Brexit: Theresa May faces battle to save deal as Commons showdown looms
āRussia and China lost the Cold War and thus still view the West as opponents,ā Mr Hemmings told The Times.
āIf one were to ask why Russia and China might approach Scotland, I would have to say that presumably itās because the [independence] referendum makes Scotland appear as a back door way into influencing the UK, somewhere Russian and Chinese perspectives might find a friendlier ear than London. If there were a larger game, one might see any potential separation of Scotland from England as a way to reduce the part of the West that is most likely to defend the rules-based system both diplomatically and militarily.ā
Yaaaaaawn, sorry did you attempt some sort of xenophobic abuse?
Mike whars yer trousers min ? yer talking total and utter pish. The silly wee nats and their wee crowd of baw bags are in for a big disappointment . You probably missed it last time but us Scots voted to remain in the glorious greatest union the world has ever seen ??????????? itās just a pity all these dafties donāt actually realise the wee nats donāt really want to be a self governing nation they want the EU to be in control . You do realise without your own central bank and ability to set interest rates it isnāt really independence?. But hey keep dreaming ?whether there is or there isnāt another vote result will be the same .. as for Herodotus getting his daily fix from the evening tele (thatās a newspaper son not the box) absolute mince not news just more B?S written by uninformed twats
That’s the irony of an SNP ‘independence’ (which is currently and likely to be the only form of independence), leaving one Union in which Scotland is a small (about 10%) player to throw themselves on the mercy of another Union where we’ll be an even smaller player.
At the risk of being picky, it doesn’t sound very independent…..
Anyhoo, Aircraft carriers……
I read that – Also I read the army wanted us to lease a carrier to the US – Main report over 60,000 army came from The Times. Boris has said he will maintain defence spending but has not said, he will keep the forces at their current size.
Hi Ernie, are you an ex Racal employee?
Great news and as I and others have been forecasting as the soon to be defunct UK faces reality – aircraft carrier to be passed to USA and army to be massively reduced. This will make the world a safer place as the English Government will be uable to sabble in other country’s affairs! Sense at long last. Next step, referendum and let’s break up the UK.
‘What weāre trying to do is get beyond being interoperable’….yes Commodore (soon to be Rear Admiral) we now know what ‘getting beyond interoperability actually means!!!!!
Th British get far more done around the globe using soft power than hard you idiot, but itās nice to know you have the hard option and thankfully the UK has and will have for years to come, carriers for 50 years, nuclear armed for many years both brand new big hard options.
Mike what are you on the Lib dems haven’t legalised it yet, this seems like an evolution of sea power, it’s very unlikely the uk could, would want an independent carrier task force except the unlikely scenario where a Falklands island type incident happened, the sharing of knowledge of carrier borne operations and how best to operate these new carriers in this role seems like common sense, who knows the US might see how good they and t26 are and order a few
Here we go again. Carriers won’t be built, Royal Marines for the scrapheap, seventh Astute cancelled, Type 31’s won’t be built and on and yawn… on we go. The doom mongers are at it again
Royal Navy and U.S.Navy warships have been inter operable since the war and nothing is being suggested that makes any real difference.
As for Mile and the scary lady is concerned there will be no Trident, no ship building, no defence no anything so good luck pal.
ONE VERY SERIOUS NOTE…whatever we might think about this government a hard left ,socialist,Labour party backed up by an equally left S.N.P. will be A disaster.
Hi Geoffrey, The SNP is not a hard-left party.
It “talks-the-talk” to pick-up disaffected Labour voters, but in practice – it is constitutional, moderate and pragmatic. It has also run a devolved administration in Edinburgh (recently in partnership with the Greens) for over ten years, and has been largely ineffectual in delivering its stated policy objectives in health and education.
But a future British government at Westminster should not be in cahoots with the SNP, and if Corbyn thinks he can “play” the separatists to get into power, he is conducting a very dangerous game – and like Cameron before him, he may find he is devoured by a nationalist tiger.
Yup, there was a time when the SNP were branded as the ‘Tartan Tories’ but they realised that if they wanted to get their way they were going to have to rebrand themselves. It really is a case of its all about independence.
As you point out Alan, they’ve been poor in their day to day administration of the country, no surprise really as they spend more time on their ‘pet project’ than the day to day stuff.
We seem to have dived back down the rabbit hole again, now where were we… Aircraft carriers. that was it !
I hope to God the claims in today’s papers are lies and HMG are NOT considering reducing the army to 60000 and sell off one of our carriers + 3 frigates, 4 patrol craft river type1s and reduce RAF. Utter BS we might as well all vote for corbyn if that is what happens under the Tories.
Worryingly it is the military top brass that have broken rank on the issue.
Well ‘ding dong’ the Mail doesn’t usually get things wrong! Except when it supported the British Union of Fascists in the 1930s….a minor indiscretion!
I have no problem with any UK government reducing spending on Defence/Armed Forces. If we were to reduce our defence footprint that’s fine, what I not keen on is trying to piss with the big boys but on a budget which is where we’ve been for a while.
We are not a world power…that period has long gone. I think what most people want from our armed services is that our nation is adequately defended. We need some sort of national agreement on what our role should be in the future. The way that really important issues such as defence and the NHS are used as political footballs is disgraceful. Time for change in 2019!
Great Britain has never been a major power. Too small, always. The U.K.’s strength, it’s extraordinary ‘soft power’ as the modern expression has it, was the influence of ideas, trade and laws. Witness Hong Kong voting today and the protests that have marked that tiny British (and never let it be forgot, Scottish) colony’s determination to hang on to the vital legacy of the often mocked but wholly misunderstood Empire. India would not have been British for a month if the Indian populace had not wished for this to be so well into the last century. Nationalists and Marxists squirm over this fact. Let them.
The carriers can now be gainfully employed ā it was thought at least one would be sold: Who to? ā to support joint operations in peacetime, thereafter by Royal Assent, as H.M.S. Royal Navy vessels. The cleverness of this initiative has defeated the news hounds, itself nothing new, but surely not around these parts? By integrating the carriers Great Britain or, eventually, England and Wales or just England if you wish, will be able to keep them in up to the minute readiness and regain lost skills in high tempo operations much more quickly and realistically, than just floating about. The next step involves the Pacific and other friendly navies joining in. America gains hugely in diplomatic terms, perhaps in other ways also.
The last century teaches us all that the best way to avoid conflict is to make one’s position stone cold clear militarily and politically. These moves make sense in light of that.
Regarding the NHS I’ve started to come to the idea that maybe it should be made independent, likecthe Bank of England. Fund it by the taxpayers but let them run themselves, instead of changing every 5 years on the whims of whichever party gets into power. That way the only involvement the government has is in funding.
I assume the Top Brass are just jostling for position, there must be another defence review coming up!
Oh Alan, you’re such a cynic.
Tried to reply to a post of yours from yesterday but can’t find it, did you delete it ??
Hi Andy, I assume George did – he must have thought we went a bit off-topic! LOL
Read it in m notification email, good post mate.
The comments section on this site is degenerating to being slightly (and I stress the slightly) above the absolute tripe you get on twitter et al.
Yeah Steve…but your films are crap. Will the next one be funny?
Cheaper by the dozen 12 – Friday 13th you mean? Ill have you know its absolutely smashing the reviews.
Roxanne said: amazing, this will change your life.
Brilliant.
Please don’t do another Jerk, we’ve plenty on here……
Absolutely Steve.
From my perspective, this is not good news, quiet the reverse.
We know we don’t have the escorts or the jet buy rate to have our own carrier strike group operational, with any reasonable numbers (2 escorts and 12 f35 would stretch us to breaking point for anything other than an occasional duty), integrating with the US is effectively being used to hide this issue, and it will of course not come free, the US will have expectations on us as part of the deal.
I would prefer that we had our own task force that was clearly was weak from jet numbers and escorts to force the discussion around putting the money required to make it work.
This is about closer operations with the US Navy and Marines, we are not going to give them a aircraft carrier. It’s about a QE class bring able to take on a operation a Nimitz class could undertake, such as the US carrier stationed in the gulf. This has always been the plan. Could you imagine the Americans buying a foreign aircraft carrier, not a chance. This is good news that we finally have a capability that can match it’s peers in the US Navy, this was never a option with the Invincible class.
Thank God someone finally talking sense in this comments section, instead of Scottish Nazi Oarty members and conspiracy theorists thinking the Royal Navy is going to be put on eBay… ?āāļø
? thanks Sean, I try to keep it real, and look past the I’ll informed newspapers, and the many who use this site, who have some rather interesting views shall we say ?
I would dismiss most articles in the Mail however, the Sunday Times is another matter!
Isnāt this no news we were always going to embark US Marines F35s, so thatāll mean spares maintenance personnel etc, US will want to ensure the carrier with US personnel is adequately protected so supply the escort or majority of it, US marines need to be resuppied so carrier needs to integrate with US military logistics. For me this news has been around for years and people just didnāt realise what it meant. Now should the UK get reimbursed for providing what is basing for US personnel? Youād like to think so. If the US army was using UK base facilities weād be reimbursed.
Defence cuts reported today in the Times & Mail. Lease PoW and we lose all year round carrier capability. Cut the escort fleet and the one carrier we have becomes vulnerable. Cut the Army to 60,000 and we can’t field a division. Cut the RAF jets and we lose control of our own air space let alone be able to have an influence abroad.
The Armed Forces are operating at the minimum at the moment, cuts now would remove the UK from any military ability to influence events. Put the defence cuts together with the loss of influence created by Brexit and we lose our seat on the UN security council. This is self inflicted damage to the nation of the highest order. No party can be seriously considering this retreat from world affairs; it would leave a hole that would be filled by Russia.
I’m hoping these MOD leaks are nothing more than the Defence Chiefs putting defence issues into the election and getting their retaliation in first prior to the new Government coming to power.
“No party can be seriously considering this retreat from world affairs;”
You think? That is EXACTLY how I read the ideology of the people currently running Labour. I hope I am wrong. But I feel even the hint of Great Britain being involved in the world geopolitical game offends.
Under Corbyn we would retreat into ourselves, the armed forces hollowed out into a pure self defence force with no offensive or power projection capacity. Our only involvement abroad would be purely humanitarian.
What is needed is for someone to link our defence budget with our foreign policy. We are no longer a world power like the US or China, but we are still a significant player on the world stage, and we need the military force to back it up.
“We are no longer a world power like the US or China, but we are still a significant player on the world stage, and we need the military force to back it up.”
Agree Steve. Big time.
Probably below minimum already, certainly in the RN. Our carriers are already very vulnerable. Minimal(below that I’d say) self defences, an escort fleet so tiny that other vessels do many jobs & so small any losses would be catastrophic for the fleet & country. So few shipyards that we can’t build replacements promptly. Recruitment at crisis levels & now handled by an incompetant private company. When we have “capability gaps” that means we’ve dispenced of essential warfighting systems & that is below minimal.
Foolish & reckless cuts caused the Falklands war & will only embolden our adversaries & diminish us as a nation.
I think this is usually the lazy news period. The UK will not drop our defence budget below 2% of GDP which is enough to fund the two carriers. Interoperatibility and integration is a wise idea given almost all peace keeping in the western world is done by the US and UK in partnership. As for reductions in the army to 60,000 I think again this is a lazy news period it simply won’t happen.
Most well informed military observers are aware we’ve not spent even 2% GDP on defence for over a decade, probably two. HMGs claims are based on accountancy tricks to give a misleading spend figure. It’s just government spin.
Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, has catagorically refuted the Sunday Times and Daily Mail claims via twitter: https://twitter.com/BWallaceMP
So please everyone calm down. It’s fake news from both papers and they should be ashamed for scare mongering and fake news. Ben Wallace states he is planning to increase the numbers in the army.
Yes this is just politics. Conservatives = funded effective military and Labour = pointless toothless military blah blah blah but this article to me is more about our position if the EU Army goes ahead. We integrate with the Americans and to produce a mini NATO partnership. Might be necessary.
The irony being, of course, that it was a Labour administration that ordered the carriers in the fist place. And, Cameron would have cancelled them if he could!
hmm the days when Labour was a proper party. As for the Conservatives I hope they have learnt not to elect a leader until they have checked that he or she has a proper job first. Too late for the lib dems.
In fairness to the Lib-Dems, they didn’t have much to choose from!
Good point!
Yes but Blair and Brown are not Corbyn heās a different animal. To be honest itās like comparing apple with cheese when it comes to defence.
Given the increasing anti NATO stance of the EU, with France as usual in the lead on this, a mini NATO of USA, Canada, UK, and Norway might be a very good idea.
He only mentions the strength of the army. Not the flogging off of PoW. In any case, no one wants to join the army. They can’t even hit recruiting figures.
Many want to join, numbers remain the same for recruitment as a percentage of serving, the issue is the recruitment process and Capita. Look it up, try to do some research first before posting chuff. Good lad!
With all the goodies being promised and no tax increases the obvious something has to be cut so a defence review with the new aircraft for the carriers and ships cut and people cost money don’t believe a word Ben Wallace says
Except, when you consider the Army is already undermanned has medically downgraded (not fit for ops) into several thousand and calls recruits undergoing phase 2 training as soldiers trained, then 60k is an actual number however, the Army won’t release the PIDs to the Royal and the RN – that is the fight!
Def sec refutes the claims, so cuts are confirmed then.
This is the normal game plan, leak massive cuts and then refute them, paving way for smaller cuts that by comparison don’t look so bad.
Excellent news on the US/UK integration.
Less than excellent to be reminded of the dismal number of UK F-35’s. Come on Boris, buck up the numbers!
I see interoperability already. Scroll down, the F35B photo in this piece is a UK bird :D.
https://defensemaven.io/warriormaven/sea/new-f-35-armed-navy-amphib-completes-trials-WluOFAz3QUu4alDRB75W5w/
Cheers
Pretty sure thats a picture from the QE…
Taking off from QE
They need better editing on these pieces…
š
Aside from the main thrust of this article, I must admit that the two photographs of twilight operations on the QE are amazing!
Might be a bit mistaken but I seem to remember when ordering 2 carriers POW carrier being touted for loan to the French when the CDe Gaulle was to be refitted if the USA want to lease it for a period of time and the money recovered goes to the Mod budget so what .Unless in an emergency I don’t think we could run2 carriers at the same time in the foreseeable future.
This really is nothing new.
This is the only way that these carriers will be kept, once we make an arrangement with the US we will have to keep it. There is no way that these carriers will replace a US carrier, but they could be used in such a way that the ever decreasingly available US carriers will be released for more relevant jobs.
Or, if the US wants to guarantee our involvement.
As US forces are on-board, if the US requires that we deploy them – we are involved in that operation, like it or not.
I suspect your take will be the price to pay for the short term benefit of having a full compliment of aircraft.
Pretty normal stare of affairs, just doing it better and more streamlined in the future with the yanks. And if anything, more like we will work even closer with the French (despite that moron Macron) when the CDG is unavailable, which will be in for extended periods of maintenance and refit.
Airborne, whether you think Macron, Johnson, Corbyn, Trump or Merkel are idiots, they’re all relatively replaceable, this is where a bit of tolerance comes in, call it diplomacy if you will. While dealing with some governments/regimes is a bit unpalatable at times, at least the ones who have the ability to change the corrupt B’stard at the top from time to time means we can get someone we like at least some of the time.
But confused what your reply is directed at. My post is that we work with the yanks and the French, and that while the CDG is in refit we work closer with the French! Despite the irritant Macron sounding off for domestic consumption.
Hi Airborne, you were criticising Macron, my point is that Macron will be gone relatively soon and the French will get someone different. Our working relationship with countries continue whoever is calling the shots. Trump is a pretty unpopular President with most UK residents but we still have to play the game as we are closely tied to the US and he’ll be gone at some point.
This for me is where Corbyn showed his lack of statesmanship when he made a point of not seeing The Donald when he was over here, its not the man (or woman) its the position you have to respect but he put his own feeling first.
You have the story wrong. Corbyn requested a meeting with Trump but Trump refused to meet with him.
Wasn’t that after Corbyn refused to go to the palace for the state dinner because of Trump? Possibly because of the Queen too since he is a republican (as in anti-monarchy) rather than GOP?
Corbyn refused to go to the state dinner after Trump snubbed him. He couldn’t very well show up and have Trump turn his back on him which Trump probably would have done or made some snide comment. In any event, Corbyn came out the loser in this.
Completely agree, just that Macron likes to talk tough for his domestic audience and I personally think he is a bit of a preening bell end! Cheers mate.
The whole point is strategic reliance. Make the americans reliant on our carriers like they are GCHQ, our vote on the UN security council , BAE , potentially reaction engines , special forces and SIS.
Is that reliance, or just exploitation. History would suggest the latter!
Reliant? What on earth are you smoking?
Not reliant….reliance! See the post above mine…twit!
Sorry, difficult to tell who is responding to who on this websiter!
I posted this as a reply to an earlier piece here, but this is my take on this subject for what it’s worth…
IMO the QEs are not a one for one substitute for the USNās carrier force. The QEs have the limitations of being non CATOBAR capable vessels which puts sharp restrictions on the force projection capabilities they possess. They wouldnāt do well in a fleet on fleet strike carrier role in the Pacific, which just by the sheer vastness of that ocean, demands CATOBAR equipped carriers for deep, blue water operations where survivability is dependent on āgetting lostā in all of that empty space and having the range in their air wing to overcome that distance
Also, although they are well equipped for littoral operations, the need to be close inshore due to lack of aerial refueling capability puts them at great risk in a high threat environment. The RN simply does not have enough escorts to provide the dense, multilayered, defensive environment demanded during such operations ā itās doubtful the USN does either with the huge strides in ASM technologies weāve seen over the past decade. Another mission they would do well in would be as the dedicated air cover for dispersed surface action groups operating within the umbrella of the QEās F35 range.open water
IMO, the QEās are excellent platforms for lower threat environments, near littoral operations supported by ground based assets, and in restricted waterways such as the Persian Gulf and the Med where the CSG can see the threats coming at them. The QE class will also function well in single mission open water roles such as dedicated CAS, CAP, and ASW platforms as a specialist carrier as opposed to the multipurpose USN CVNs. For a QE led strike group to conduct truly independent operations it MUST possess long endurance AEW and refueling capabilities. Without them, the class will never reach their true potential. JMHO
Cheers!
Hmmmm posts going missing again!
Oh puleeze, the UK carriers will have 100% 5th gen jets, an excellent AEW, and top notch Type 45 & Type 26 defensive escorts that more than match the US equivalents.
I’m an American too but not quite so blinkered.
You’re absolutely correct on your points, that doesn’t change the fact that they don’t have high altitude, extended surveillance range AEW or an air to air refueling capability that drastically reduces the combat range of thire fast jets…
Our America class LHAs, which can theoretically stand to sea with up to 22 F35Bs, along with CV22s, and Choppers face the same constraints on independent operations despite having a potent all 5th gen air wing and no doubt AB and Tico surface escorts. This isn’t a barbed arrow shot at the class, it’s merely pointing out some very basic facts…
Cheers!
I get it, I think QEC was meant to be way beyond invincible class but still someway short of US CVNs. Lack of range, size and strength in depth of air wing in comparison make that clear. In terms of innovation, automation and bang for buck, perhaps still a clear leader and better than any other carriers away from USN currently
You’re right mate, we haven’t gone for full fat super carriers because we simply can’t afford to have one that big, let alone 2, so we’ve gone for a decent semi skimmed mid size carrier design that we can afford and is pretty bloody good actually.
We just need to get the F-35 production process sorted to speed it up a bit, I’d like to see a decent number of aircraft on the decks of both ships.
We’re almost there, but not quite…. We’ve fallen short of where the 2 new Carriers could’ve been, we should’ve been that little bit more brave and just gone for it. Had we done it, the Carriers would’ve had more range, we could’ve had the more capable and longer range “C” version but as we’re British, we always seem to sell ourselves short…..which is a shame.
Still, they’re 2 pretty decent, pretty capable flat tops……as long as we’re not too far away from land….
If we had gone with the ācā, wouldnāt we still be waiting for them?
No-one is saying that we’re not happy with our 2 carriers or our nice, shiny new F-35B’s but as it’s a VSTOL aircraft it does have limited range due to fuel, weight, weapons load etc….there’s no substitute for a catapult or a long runway..
Even though the UK test pilots have invented a unique way to land on the carrier without having to either bomb the shit out of somewhere or dump the unused fuel and weapons in the sea….which is expensive, the VSTOL carrier and aircraft lacks the range, fuel load and weapons load of a CATOBAR carrier and aircraft. The USN even uses the Greyhound as a refuelling platform which is a capability we could’ve had if we’d been a bit braver and gone for a traditional CATOBAR system and that’s without think about the price difference between the VSTOL B and the standard C…money saved again!!
It’s just a little frustrating that we’re sort of 95% of the way to where I think we should have been…..it’s a shame.
Good post as always
Thank you Julian.
Cheers
Helions,
I don’t think this deep blue water, in the middle of nowhere operations was ever in the pipeline really which in my opinion, is a shame as it could’ve provided the Royal Navy with huge capabilities but, for one reason or another, someone up high in Whitehall decided against it. Maybe it was after discussions with the Pentagon, maybe it wasn’t, I don’t know but now we have a couple of flattops which will only ever be useable in locations that aren’t too far away for the B version to operate.
You could argue that after seeing what a smaller carrier could do in somewhere like the Falklands with an even less capable aircraft, the Harrier, that we might’ve made the right choice going for this combination after all….but you could also argue that had we taken the older carriers we had before, with the Phantoms and Buccaneers, we could’ve achieved an even more successful victory….. earlier or maybe Argentina might have decided against invading in the first place had we still got the longer range, more dangerous F-4’s and Buccaneers.
The fact is we have 2 VSTOL carriers which will deploy a mixture of 24+ US/UK F-35’s and to be honest, that’s a pretty potent deterrent to any potential adversaries and if we do have to use them, we’re probably going to deploy alongside carriers of varying size from the US of France or maybe both. Mixing it up, having more escorts from numerous close NATO Allies will make our contribution well worth while in the end but……….. people like us will always have that thought niggling away in the background going…”If only we had been a bit more brave, gone for a conventional CATOBAR carrier and bought the cheaper, yet more rangy and capable “C” version”……
I canāt really think of a conflict we would fight in far away from land. Effective force projection to land from sea is the primary reason for the carriers rather than any kind of blue water strike, we can use the Astute boats for that.
This is something the US Navy has already been working on with the French Navy, operating Rafale-M squadrons from the Harry S Truman and even doing an engine change onboard.
USN and USMC AWACS and F/A-18 Hornets have landed and taken off from the deck of the Charles de Gaulle, and C-2 Greyhounds operating in the Carrier Onboard Delivery role have made operational deliveries to the French flattop in the Med, Arabian Sea, and Persian Gulf.
The concept of interoperability with Royal Navy carriers is a leap that wasn’t possible until the introduction of the F-35 into British service. The French and US navies are the only two that operate carriers in the CATOBAR configuration: Catapult Assisted Take-Off But Arrested Recovery.
The British, with the introduction of the Harrier, introduced the STOBAR configuration carriers: Short Take-Off But Arrested Recovery. These carriers are visually marked by their “ski-jump” bows that allow the Harrier to launch under it’s own power.
While the United States Marine Corps operated Harriers, the systemic differences were such that the limited space onboard the British carriers precluded any operations.
But the introduction of the F-35 on a broad scale has largely brought that to an end: the US, French, and UK have the 1st, 4th, and 2nd largest carrier fleets in the world by tonnage AND airframe size, the capability of the Marines or Navy to operate from every deck between them could be an incredible boon to our operational capability.
We’ve either made the decision ourselves or it’s been made for us by the Pentagon…I don’t know which one it is…that we will work with the USMC and support them with our Carriers. It’s a good idea but it’s still a shame that we weren’t a little bit more brave and knocked out 2 65,000 tonne CATOBAR carriers with the more capable and more rangy “C” version.
We could never afford to go to the full fat 100,000 tonne Supercarriers but a couple of semi skimmed ones with the C on board would’ve been phenomenal in my opinion…….
Never mind, eh?
Carriers and task group make UK a power with global reach. That is politically significant. Politicians like being significant. I would imagine in a post EU world having the capability to impress the Americans and also having the ability to “kick in the door” of potential adversaries might be something government would want to retain.
It doesn’t give us quite the global reach we could’ve had if we’d gone for 2 CATOBAR carriers with the “C” version on board…..the VSTOL B has limited range and weapons load unfortunately mate. The aircraft would be able to achieve more if the QE Class had a catapult to launch them, there’s no denying that fact mate.
I don’t see why anyone should be surprised here, it’s been common knowledge ever since the Carriers started taking shape that they would be fully integrated with the US Navy, in particular the USMC Carriers that share the same aircraft.
Both Navies have done, currently do and will provide escorts for each others Carriers, the US Navy like to use our Type 23’s as specialist ASW duties and our Type 45’s as air defence for obvious reasons. I’m sure they will have their eyes on the build progress our Type 26’s when they enter service as the World’s most capable ASW platform, surpassing our Duke class 23’s.