HMS Prince of Wales will serve as the command ship for NATO’s Response Force.

This role will see the vessel sailing to the Arctic, the Baltic and the Mediterranean Seas.

The Royal Navy assumed command of NATO’s Response Force from the French Marine Nationale on January 1st, 2022.

The NATO Response Force is a high readiness force comprising land, air, sea and special forces units capable of being deployed quickly on operations wherever needed.

Back in October, The Royal Navy said that a fortnight-long international exercise off the Scottish coast “put the stamp on two years of intensive training for the Portsmouth-based warship, 700-plus crew, the Royal Navy and RAF squadrons who will operate aircraft from her flight deck – including the fifth-generation F-35 Lightning stealth fighter – and thousands of military personnel and civilians who support and maintain the endeavour”.

Second British aircraft carrier declared operational

“We have excitingly jumped the final hurdle and are now a fully-fledged strike carrier, ready at 30 days’ notice for operations around the globe,” said HMS Prince of Wales’ Commanding Officer Captain Steve Higham.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

194 COMMENTS

    • Come in that record is wearing out.

      We have enough to make her a very lethal weapon.

      Who else can send say 12+ supersonic 5G jets anywhere in the world on a sovereign carrier? Other than USA: nobody.

      More planes are being delivered so depth only improves.

      IRL if it was a NATO deployment USMC jets would rapidly reinforce.

      • The Uk surely has enough aircraft to stand up 809 now, 24 F35B can easily make two squadrons of 8 surely
        I also wanted to know what the USMC are planning for their F35B as they are ordering over 300 and their LHDs can only carry a dozen or so so what will they do with the rest?

        • I agree 24 F35B is plenty to use one carrier.

          Some of the F35B are the orange wired ones that will never see use beyond maybe Boscombe?

          IRL we have maybe 20 usable F35B’s in the UK? 3 x orange wired 1 x lost overboard?

          I’d be interested to hear USMC tactics for their fleet of F35B.

          That said 300 may be the total program buy over the 50yr lifespan?

          • Has an F35 ever been to Boscombe? I assumed from comments here those 3 would never leave the US.

            As our trials location would love to see them there, I could pop down I’m quite close.

          • Sorry what I was saying was they will never go front line but if they were ever in the UK they would only ever be trials aircraft.

            As you say they may stay Sateside for joint tier 1 R&D with USMC.

          • Could those 3 orange wired airframes be turned into a support role aircraft such as a buddy tanker ?

          • The Air -> Air refuelling told is going to be drone.

            There are no plans for buddy refuelling.

            Given the cost per hour to fly an F35 the cost of a buddy would be eye watering.

            Using routine drone AAR may reduce running costs as fuel takeoff weights will be reduced as therefore engine stresses reduced and intervals increased.

            So may be very positive indeed.

          • Really good points, as you say drones are not far off now and spending money on a marginal capacity that cost a fortune to run is not clever.

            im looking forward to seeing the new world of drones, very exciting indeed.

          • QinetiQ was bouncing this around the other day, as a short-term solution that was discussed after CSG21. using a modified F35b to become a Buddy to Buddy. working out the outfitting of additional fuel tanks over Ordinance. Buddy won’t need self-defense as the main group would provide. SHORT TERM SOLUTION until drones come online. USMC interested as well. expensive and in conflict with air tanker

          • 24 Delivered to the UK, Does not include the 3 orange wired. The main issue is we don’t have 23 Pilots it’s around the 14 number currently. due to the slow training program

        • “they are ordering over 300 and their LHDs can only carry a dozen or so so what will they do with the rest?”

          Not every jet goes into a front line squadron. For every plane in the front line there will be others in reserve, in a training role ( our OCU ) in maintenance, either depth or line. trials, or just in storage to spread flight hours around evenly.

          • I still think if the UK could reach around 72 F35’s in the end they could have 4 squadrons plus OCU and a small reserve of aircraft. I know it’s a bit radical, but, how about 10 aircraft per squadron for the Typhoons and F35’s. There could be 7 squadrons of Typhoons and 4 squadrons of F35’s plus the OCU for each type and would leave a handy reserve.

            So if you had 10 F35’s per squadron, you could deploy two squadrons on a longer carrier deployment (20 F35 aircraft). Still leaves you two squadrons plus the OCU for training and the second carrier.

          • To be honest I have lost track of just how many jets an RAF Sqn is meant to have? 12, 13, 16 ?

          • RAF and RN aircraft are now largely pooled by fleet type, so a nominal number per squadron has become meaningless. What is important is the size of deployable detachments or “packages”. For fast jet squadrons (Typhoon and Lightning), the RAF has settled on this usually being 8 a/c. I expect that this is a compromise between having maximising the number of detachments available for tasking, whilst ensuring each detachment has credible mass and punch. A few people may remember that when the Sea Harrier FRS.1 entered service in 1980/1, the two frontline squadrons had just five aircraft each!

          • I think it can vary a bit these day’s. I guess I was just trying to work out a number considering there will be around 100 Typhoons and perhaps some 70 plus F35’s.

            But I do believe the UK could have 11 Squadrons plus OCU. There is also of course a lot of chat going on about the future Drone technology. Be interesting to see how that compliments the Typhoons and F35’S in the future.

            Happy Sunday All !!!

          • They tend to manage aircraft and aircrew as a fleet these days – Squadrons seem less important as operational formations than the force packages that are used for specific tasks – e.g. QRAs or forward deployed packages for Op Shader etc.. The the arrival of loyal wingman UAS will change the definition of a squadron / force package considerably I should think – it will be x fast jets + x2 UAS.

          • Yes, as CAS said, to create the missing mass.
            I wish they would get on with it and stop talking of it. Yes, I know these things take time.

          • It has been 12 front-line aircraft in a fast jet squadron up to now. That was the case with Tornado ADV, Tornado FGR4, AV-8B, Typhoon and planned for F-35.

            Now we hear that there are 7 Typhoon squadrons, which means their front-line strength can not be more than 8. I won’t go through the detailed maths again, but a total of 131 Typhoons gives you about 66 front line aircraft, hence 7 sqns of 8 That will inevitably fall to 5 understrength sqns now the tranche 1 F2s are being scrapped without replacement.

            This strikes me as more political fiddling and spin by HMG.
            The RAF was cheerfully talking three years ago about increasing to 10 squadrons, at that time they would be 12 front-line a/c, and the Air Cdre in charge said to a RUSI meeting that he had the plans in his pocket.

            Not any more he hasn’t. The remaining 107 Typhoon FGR4s would give you 4 squadrons and the Falklands flight. 48 F-35s add 2 squadrons, with maybe a third added if numbers increase to 60-72.
            That is 6 squadrons in old money, maybe increasing to 7. Not the promised 10, which would anyway be wafer-thin and the smallest fleet since the RFC was formed.

            BUT if you reduce sqns to 8 front-line a/c, well you can boast we have 9 or 10 squadrons, even though allies and opponents alike can see that they are piss weak in numbers.

            The UK’s boast about having one operational aircraft carrier and being a global power only fools (some of) the British public, we are rapidly morphing into a bit if a paper tiger on defence.

          • Yes, its smoke and mirrors in many areas. So whatever changes?

            I could add the previous strength of 5 Typhoon plus 3 Tornado GR4.

            Then Tornado is retired early, and 5 Typhoon squadrons are expanded to 7, plus 1 F35 sqn, to retain 8 sqns.

            It is artificial, yes.

            But we are where we are. I try to look to capability and the positives.

            Squadron numbers are all very well, like RN escort numbers. It’s what you do with them too and whether they are usable.

          • For fast jets, yes!

            10 seems fine. What do I know? Weren’t they split into 3 flights of 3 plus COs flight once?

            We’d all like more squadrons. As James also adds, non FJ fleets have been pooled for years.

          • Hi Daniele, Happy New Year.

            My thing is pick a number and stick to it. I know what some on here are saying that it’s just fudging the numbers to say we have more operational squadrons with fewer aircraft per but with no actual increase in the number of airframes – and they’re right.

            However, every country has fewer aircraft today than back say 30yrs ago in Gulf War 1 (for reference, the RAF had 31 fast just squadrons back then) – and this includes the US.

            The cost of modern fighter aircraft is eye watering these days so anyone expecting us to have a huge fleet is delusional. Just keep the same number per squadron and let the numbers speak for themselves.

            Ok – I will get off my soapbox now 😁

          • Hello David. And Happy New year to you too!

            You’re not wrong, I’m one if those often saying exactly that. 31 sqns down to 23 in 97, 98, including the FAA Sea Harrier sqns of 800 and 801.
            Down to 12 by 2010 after Labour were booted out.

            I know capability and professionalism trumps all, but there must be some mass, it’s got too small in my view.

            A balance is needed.

            Cheers.

          • Typhoon Sqds are the only ones left that still have 12 op aircraft each so please don’t give them any ideas.

          • I have been advocating something similar to what your saying for nearly three years John, including the ten aircraft per squadron along the lines of the USN and USMC. but the complacency of some bloggers here is mind boggling.

          • Don’t think of the USMC as a purely marine orientated force, they often deploy to land bases, they are a whole army in themselves.

          • What you are saying is that the USMC understands the conceot of fleet rotation and holding some sort of attritional reserve. Unlike the MOD.

        • Just because the Americans have LHD car’s doesn’t mean their Ship’s and Planes are all LHD too LOL !

        • Louis
          This has already been dealt with by HMG. The US MC has already signed defence agreements to virtually permanently deploy a squadron of 12+ F35Bs on board either POW or HMS QE. This could with UK providing upto 24 aircraft give the carrier 36 F35Bs. A very potent and capable airforce in its own rights.
          The biggest elepgant in the room is RN warships eg destroyers and frigates to make up a CSG. Here the RN will definitely need NATO allies support. Our destroyer and frigate fleet is down to just 17. A ridiculously low number. Ditto numbers of SSNs.
          HMG need to light a torch under warship construction and get some large numbers of ships in the water pronto.
          Summary much to do. Situation perilous at the moment. Might be better by mid to late 2020s.

        • The Issue is Pilots, as the training Program was or still is some 24 months behind the program, through one thing or another. so Airframes is not the problem

      • The complacency is incredible. We have two aircraft carriers manned and ready and if we take all sixteen airframes currently available that’s it. Five are either in the U.S. or on trials. Five more are due in two years. There is no current date for the rest. If people think that is the best use of nearly ten billion pounds worth of expenditure I really do not understand it.

        • Hi Geoffrey.

          Would you have gone for the FA18 instead? To get the force built up with an in service type faster? With all the carrier qualification issues that entails?
          Or would you buy F35 in bulk now despite the costs of upgrade later?
          For me the biggest issue is not the slow rate of F35 buy, reasons for which are known. But the lack of Merlin and FSS vessels to replace F Victoria.

          • Hi Daniele.. I’m surprised by the question. I have never advocated the F18 or a CTOL carrier. All I want is for the UK to concentrate on getting one huge part of it’s defence commitment right and to my mind that is the Royal Navy getting the best in a sensible time frame
            As you know I have outlined my thoughts on the carriers a number of times and I still do not understand that with the potential threat from China and Russia and others, that so many bloggers seem to think it’s alright for us to wait ten years or more before equipping the carriers properly.
            I agree with you about Merlin’s and the FSS and for that matter acquiring LSS but without the carriers as the centre piece there is not a lot of point worrying about any of these.

          • Hi Geoffrey.

            No worries, but sorry for asking.
            Thanks for clarifying.
            I think at the end of the day we’d all like things moving faster.

        • I don’t disagree we need to ensure there is no complacency but as long as we get to around 80 35Bs within a reasonable time frame I think that is ok, what will be a problem is if we stall out the purchasing or stop at 48.

          • I agree it would be mad to buy F35A with its marginal gain in range when you consider the strategic mobility advantage of the F35B on our carriers. Especially when you consider how easy and quick it is to carrier qualify an RAF F35B pilot and how many jets could be carriers as an air wing. Even one carrier can take 50 jets + ASW and EW cabs if one of the commanding offices can be believed. If we did a full buy of F35B we could have a carrier force that could take apart even some of the smaller peer airforces.

          • The likely time frame at the moment is 27/28 by 2025 and 48 some time towards 2030. At our present buy rate it’ll be fifteen years before 80 are with us and by then attrition will have taken it’s toll.

    • As a NATO flagship I assume for deployments particularly in the Med the ship could host Italian F35Bs, they completed deck trials on their own ship last November and depending of certified a nice photo op with Spanish Harriers? USMC may also make an appearance along with AH64.
      QE may need some maintenance after CSG?

    • Possibly more! On a serious note, I would expect Tempest to be a consideration for future carrier ops, manned or unmanned.

      “utilizing few of the Tranche 3 features, such as thrust vector nozzles, conformal fuel tanks, and spoilers at the leading edge wing roots, designed to minimize landing speed.

      Unlike the Super Hornet and Rafale using catapult launch which requires significant strengthening of the landing gear and airframe, Typhoon is considered for ‘ski-jump’ equipped carriers only (like QE2 and India’s future indigenous carriers).”

      “According to Paul Hopkins, Vice President Business Development (Air) at BAE Systems, simulation tests of a ‘navalized Typhoon’ show the aircraft can takeoff and land with full mission payload, including two ‘Storm Shadow’ cruise missiles, four BVR missiles, two short range missiles, a centerline fuel tank and two conformal fuel tanks – something no other navalized aircraft can perform.

      A navalized Typhoon will be new built aircraft, fitted with strengthened airframe and landing gear. The British decision to switch from STOVL F-35B to F-35C conventional take off Lightning could pave the road for reconsideration of use Navalized Typhoons by the Royal Navy, on QE-2 aircraft carriers.”

      https://defense-update.com/20110210_naval_typhoon.html

      • OMG the navalised Typhoon again!

        Who else here remembers “Martin” on DM.com and his obsession with a RN Typhoon? Maybe he is amongst us still….?!😀

        • Clearly, Martin was a sensible chap given the article was posted in 2011 and Typhoon could fly from the QE carriers with a decent loadout of weapons and extended range!

          And like Martin, an opportunity missed in my opinion given the NATO countries that have Typhoons which could have added to the aircraft flying off the POW in 2022.

          Do you think this was not a good idea Daniele?

          “We found that the program continues to delay full-rate production because of lingering issues with completing initial operational testing. After the program’s 2012 rebaseline, DOD expected to wrap up initial operational testing in August 2018.

          However, as of March 2021, it was unclear when that testing will be completed. The program did not complete its planned initial operational testing in 2021 due to delays in developing the F-35 Joint Simulation Environment, which we refer to as the aircraft simulator.”

          https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-105282.pdf

          I’m sure you read UKDJ’s post on airframe strengthening recently re Navair? what do you make of their comments on maintenance?

          Navair Projects F-35 to Need 50 Maintenance Hours per Flight Hour

          https://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/179243/navair-projects-f_35-to-need-50-maintenance-hours-per-flight-hour.html

          • I would have welcomed a navalised Typhoon Nigel.

            As for the article, no, not read as yet.

          • Always better to have more than one egg in your basket, just in case one breaks. Plus, Meteor, Spear, AESA Mk2, savings on maintenance costs and spare parts but there you go!

            One or two on UKDJ may disagree of course!!!

            “It will equip RAF pilots with the ability to locate, identify and suppress enemy air defences using high-powered jamming. They can engage targets whilst beyond the reach of threats — even when they’re looking in another direction — and operate inside the range of opposing air defences, remaining fully protected throughout,” BAE Systems wrote. The radar will also enable the aircraft to “link up with future data-driven weapons to combat rapidly evolving air defences.”

            https://www.thedefensepost.com/2021/09/16/italy-uk-eurofighter-radar/

            “LONDON — The high costs of supporting F-35s and a failure to quickly integrate the MBDA Meteor missile to the aircraft could slow British plans to buy more of the jets, defence secretary Ben Wallace warned June 23.

            Wallace told Britain’s Parliamentary defence select committee that he had the budget to buy more than the 48 jets the military has already ordered, but wanted to see progress controlling maintenance costs and fair treatment for integrating Meteor.”

            https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2021/06/23/two-reasons-britain-could-slow-its-purchase-of-the-f-35/

          • Radar 2 will be a fantastic capability for Typhoon with parallel capability with the AN/APG-81 currently in service. Which will also receive many enhancements over the coming years. But it doesn’t take a genius to figure out why a maritime Typhoon didn’t go ahead. Development cost, and purchase cost alone for what would have been small numbers. And if NATO had more carrier’s, it would have had major competition from F35C, Rafale & Super Hornet. And as F35 is cleaning up in the fighter market, Naval Typhoon would have been a huge cost blow to BAE. It was a nice idea, but a none starter.

          • So you think it’s good idea for countries who operate Typhoon, but don’t operate aircraft carriers, should have bought a very expensive but less capable version of Typhoon, just incase they fancy putting a few of them on the POW, and pay for all the extra traning that would be required to keep the crews trained and current. And we would still have an aircraft less capable than F35. As ideas go, that’s a pretty awful abd expensive one. Very good reason why navalized Typhoon didn’t happen. Over 700 F35’s delivered globally. Pretty impressive for low rate production. Wait till they really ramp up. Canada probably next.

          • Wouldn’t that mean STOBAR operations and slowing the maintenance cycle to accomodate multiple aircraft types? I think that might reduce sortie rates.

        • 😂😂👍 Yep that one again, just a few mods needed, airframe totally reworked, avionics, engines, landing gear … Basically an entirely new aircraft that looks something like a Thypoon.

          All to build 60-80 aircraft … Can you imagine the unit cost!!! £250 million a piece I should think…

          • Sounds a bit like the F35B, Spiariling costs, New Tyres, Airframe modifications (Still no test article for lot 15 and above yet 2024 I believe), new software “Lockheed Martin F-35’s Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) has reported several small improvements, but the system is still plagued by about 4,700 open deficiencies”) Block 4 delayed again until 2026 and counting, (No sign of Meteor or Spear 3 until then), Availability, (Availability, Reliability, and Maintainability Although the fleet-wide trend in aircraft availability showed modest improvement in 2019 and early 2020, the average fleet-wide monthly availability rate for only the U.S. aircraft, for the 12 months ending in September 2020, is below the target value of 65 percent.

            Not replacing the F16 then as originally planned.

            “In an ironic twist, the F-35 has become the kind of dilemma it was initially supposed to resolve. Now, a new fighter jet is needed to meet the needs of the US Air Force. 
            Running the F-35 for 66 years is expected to cost $1.182 trillion, on top of its already hefty development cost of $397.8 billion. The F-35 costs slightly less than $100 million per plane. But cost is the least of its concerns”

            https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/us-admits-f-35-failed-to-replace-f-16-as-planned-needs-new-fighter-jet-44483

            The list is endless but I would suggest you read the links below to start with, let me know if you require more! 😂😂 👍

            https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2020/dod/2020f35jsf.pdf?ver=C5dAWLFs4_N3ZLrP-qB0QQ%3D%3D

            Typhoon TVC

            Plus the advantages of course!

            “According to Eurojet, TVN could be retrofitted to the existing EJ200 without the need for structural changes to the engine or airframe.”

            https://defense-update.com/20110209_typhoon_tvn.html

          • Morning Nigel, I simply don’t buy BAE Systems ease of modifying Typhoon.

            The aircraft would need extensive and expensive modifications, re the TVN, it’s never progressed out of workshop prototype stage, that alone would be ‘extremely’ expensive to develop into a production system, again, especially if it’s for a small number of aircraft.

            The partners and operators simply don’t require TV, it’s wider usefulness in the real world, remains questionable.

            I certainly won’t defend the F35 programme Nigel, it’s been a nightmare and it’s going to be block 4 and above, before the majority of the issues are finally addressed.

            I definitely get the impression that the B model will be dropped by 2030 ‘ish’ (when USMC orders are fulfilled).

            The fact that the proposed new engine won’t be handicapped by having to be integrated into the B model, tells you that quite clearly.

            LM want to concentrate on an advanced A model, with a new engine and refreshed avionics for 2030 onwards and would happily drop the B and C, in my opinion.

            The F35 will come good, but it’s still a way off….

          • Hello John,

            Here is an update on the new engine, as I mentioned in my original post, Tempest will be the next option for the carriers but I somehow doubt that will happen apart from Loyal wingman, I was simply making the point that if we went with Typhoon from the beginning then we could have been in a far better position than we are now given the limitations and spiralling costs of the F-35 programme.

            I tend to think of the modifications that could have been included on the Typhoon would benefit users overall rather than just the marinized version.

            Thrust vectoring and LEREX for example offer vastly improved performance on their own.

            https://tacairnet.com/2015/07/15/improving-the-typhoons-aerodynamics/

            https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADP011109.pdf

            Due to the delays and cost overruns not to mention the fact that potential adversaries have caught up with us, The F-35 will continue to sell in small quantities until the arrival of their next-generation replacements.

            After all, that’s what the F-35 was designed to do, keep us ahead of the competition!

            The programme that is developing an engine for the US Air Force’s sixth generation fighter won’t be fit to the F-35 because of vast differences in technology. 

            “AETP technology will most likely apply to USAF’s NGAD fighter and other futuristic platforms, including a replacement aircraft for the F-16, White said.

            These new comments contradict previous statements that the F-35’s engine will be replaced eventually by emerging technology from AETP, and indicate the F135 engine that powers the fifth-generation fighter will be improved instead.”

            https://www.aero-mag.com/sixth-generation-fighter-jet-engine-17082021

          • Hi Nigel, I would agree that the German developed Leading edge extension, would have been a noteworthy and useful addition, at a reasonable cost, with some tweaking of the FCS to override the automatic stall recovery system with high alpha, slow manoeuvring…

            Here’s the problem, even that useful addition was unfunded and stalled.

            Modeling

            Tempest (if it proceeds) will be purely Land based, they are aiming for a rather large F22 sized airframe and don’t want to hinder the design with carrier features …. That said, let’s hope Mosquito and Sea Vixen ( parts of the Tempest ‘system’), come to fruition and end up being a useful UCAV assets, perhaps dovetailing into a single type….

            Thanks for the update on the proposed F35 re engining, looks like LM are keen to shift to Gen6 asap too.

            I would imagine LM and others, are sweating a bit, as Tempest gains momentum.

          • There have been a lot of reports on the AETP. They all seem to mention the same thing, that it will only be compatible with the F35A and C versions. Apparently the swivelling exhaust precludes it. However, with a potential of over 300 F35B in use. There is a definite case of a need for an enhanced engine in the future. P&W have said the current F135 still has a lot of growth in it. But, they have not said if this takes into account the replacement fan stages that have been suffering hairline cracking. The replacement stages are said to not only improve the reliability but also performance. Though I’ve not read anything about hot end upgrades.

            Perhaps there is a case for both GE and RR re-opening their collaboration on a derivative of their F136, specifically for the F35B?

          • “Perhaps there is a case for both GE and RR re-opening their collaboration on a derivative of their F136, specifically for the F35B?”

            That could very well be the solution, but at what cost?

            I noticed that the F35C has taken to the skies after launching from the USS Abraham Lincoln, the first carrier deployment for an F-35C squadron.

            Also in the news.

            South Korea grounds F-35 fleet after emergency landing 10 JANUARY 2022

            https://www.janes.com/defence-news/terror-insurgent-group/latest/south-korea-grounds-f-35-fleet-after-emergency-landing

            F-35, Eurofighter ECR back in the mix for Germany 10 JANUARY 2022

            https://www.janes.com/defence-news/defence/latest/f-35-eurofighter-ecr-back-in-the-mix-for-germany

          • I have struggled to see the rationale behind why operators of the Typhoon, haven’t included the Airbus developed aerodynamic enhancement program let alone the TVNs, in new build Typhoons or through a modification program – apart from cost that is?

            If we look at what Airbus researched for their aerodynamic enhancement package (leading edge root extensions, longer trailing edge flaperons, redesigned lift strakes) and then prototyped it on a test Typhoon aircraft. The results were not only a 25% increase in lift, but the potential fuel savings at 9%. This wasn’t just a fuel saving at subsonic speeds but also through transonic and supersonic regimes. It not only raised the fuel efficiency, but also increased the supercruise speed at full load. Try that in a Rafale!

            The aero package also massively increased the aerobatic performance of the aircraft, especially the “pointability” of the nose. In the new age of very high off boresight air to air missiles, this may not seem pertinent, but it actually is. As it allows the missile to retain more forward momentum derived from the parent aircraft. But also means it makes it easier for the Typhoon to remain inside your enemies “one circle” turn, thus making it better defensively, but crucially also offensively. It then allows you to point the nose off the turn radius, whilst maintaining the turn.

            Then we come to Thrust Vectoring Nozzles (TVNs). There is a lot of misconception about the worth of TVNs and that they are really just an airshow gimmick. This is not true. It is true that you can pull off some absolutely awesome aerobatics, that would make a Pitts Special jealous. But by doing so, you dump all you forward energy, making it easier for an enemy to get you. No, TVNs have other benefits ranging from supercruising, lowering you IR signature to allowing the aircraft to operate at higher altitudes.

            By using a 2D TVN, you can alter your thrust line, either in pitch or roll (twin engine). or with a 3D TVN pitch, roll and yaw. By integrating the TVN with the flight control computer, you can reduce the amount of deflection required by conventional flight control surfaces, which means less drag is generated. This helps with your fuel efficiency, but can also reduce your radar signature. It will also help with supercruising.

            When accelerating the aircraft (jet), it will naturally want to pitch up. By using a TVN and altering the thrust line you can negate the need to counter the movement with normal flying controls, again minimising additional drag creation and thus raising you supercruise speed.

            By using a rectangular 2D TVN you can help reduce the aircraft’s IR and to some degree the radar signature. The rectangular nozzle produces a beavertail shaped exhaust rather than a cone. The wider surface area helps the hot exhaust flow mix with the surrounding air quicker and thereby reduces the IR signature. It can also from a rear aspect view, help to reduce the visible amount of engine turbine disc a radar can see.

            When a standard aircraft wants to change direction, it will use conventional flight control surfaces. Depending on quickly you want to change direction governs how much these surfaces will move to deflect the air. The greater the deflection the more it adds to the aircraft’s radar cross section (RCS). Seen from the side, when the surfaces move above the wing line, they will present a 90 degree flat plate to a radar. Which is a fantastic radar reflector. By integrating the TVNs with the flight control computer, less defection will be needed, thereby minimising the increase in the aircraft’s RCS.

            But perhaps one of the biggest advantages it gives is allowing the aircraft to operate at a much higher altitude. If we consider the F22 Raptor, it has been said to be capable of operating some 10,000ft higher than a F15. There is no magic aerodynamic process here. It boils down to a combination of better higher thrust engines and TVN. The engines are not massively larger than the F15s, just built better.

            It is the TVNs that play a major part in allowing the aircraft to operate higher. As the air gets thinner more surface deflection is required from normal flight controls. At some point and at maximum deflection, they will no longer be effective. This is where the TVNs help. Although the F22 only has 2D TVNs the flight control computer can use these to control pitch and roll at altitude. It can also be used to generate some yaw through differential thrust.

            The Typhoon by comparison with its single large fin, will run out of yaw authority quicker than say a F15 at altitude. However, with differential thrust augmentation it could get some back. It won’t be a lot, due to the close spacing of the engines. But, with TVNs the aircraft would be able to operate a lot higher, as the TVNs would take over the responsibilities of the flight controls at altitude.

          • I agree re the aerodynamic enhancements Dave, a missed opportunity at a reasonable and affordable cost, yet the dithering partners still couldn’t agree and so a really promising enhancement stalled….

            The thrust vectoring aspect I’m not convinced of, the development costs to de-risk to a production standard, would also be ‘very’ substantial.

            Let’s hope Tempest, unshackled from endless European procrastination, storms along at speed…

          • To get a first hand understanding of the F22’s flight controls and the interaction with the TVNs. I can’t promote the lecture by Lt Col Randy “Laz” Gordon. PHd, USAF enough!

            See link below:

            Special Lecture: F-22 Flight Controls – YouTube : CECIA (reddit.com)

            The problem with Typhoon was/is that any modification, however small, needed to be agreed by all partner Nations before it could be actioned. I was surprised by the AESA split between Spain/Germany and UK/Italy. In the past one of the partners vetoed previous types of moves, saying that commonality must be maintained. Something clearly has changed!

          • I think the main reason the new aero package hasn’t been adopted (apart from cost) Is the RAF simply doesn’t see a real need for it. Typhoons performance in it’s current configuration is a match for all comers. And most pilots would ask for improved situational awareness or improved radar performance instead of any agility enhancements. Typhoon certainly isn’t lacking in performance. And with very capable Helmet Mounted Displays, that also reduce the need for really extreme agility. With Radar 2 AESA coming, wide area display, and Striker 2 HMD, Typhoon will be very well equipped for the future

          • I agree totally and fully understand that finances are limited. Therefore, with the avionics enhancements the Typhoon will be staying in the premier league for quite a few more years. But it could be better still!

          • You still at it Nigel. Shame so many countries Air Force’s disagree with you. Maybe you should listen to the subject matter experts in these nations ministry’s of defence who select it over other fighters available. They have all the figures, all the costs, all the capability data, and they still select it. Because once pilots have flown it, they wouldn’t want to go to war in anything else.

      • I think it was 2 to 3 years ago I worked out the maths for Typhoon being capable of taking off using a ski ramp. But then it was at a 3/4 max load. If they are now saying it can do it at max all up weight, then they have been fibbing about the engine’s power figures (Quelle surprise)!

        • I wonder if they had the EJ2x0 engine in mind? Yet another useful addition to the Typhoon when you include TVN and LEREX, especially now that the USA is looking for a 4+ gen clean-sheet design to replace their ageing F-16’s.

          Typhoon would have been in a league all on its own!

          Stage 1:

          • The EJ2x0 with 20% growth compared to the original EJ200. The EJ2x0 engine will have dry thrust increasing to some 72 kN (or 16,200 lbf) with a reheated output of around 103 kN (or 23,100 lbf).[15]

          Stage 2:

          • The new engine plan to increase the output 30% more power compared to the original EJ200. The engine will have dry thrust of around 78 kN (or 17,500 lbf) with a reheated output of around 120 kN (or 27,000 lbf).

          • This all does go to some lengths in raising my hopes for the future Tempest engines. The Typhoon’s current EJ200s are famed for their reliability and responsiveness. There were plans to modify them with new hot end parts. These would have allowed the engine to run at much higher temperatures and thereby increase their power output. I know that they are currently “dumbed” down to make them more reliable and that is all controlled through the engine’s FADEC, so in theory more power is just a software change away.

          • With the current in service EJ200, a 15% increase in dry thrust, and 5% increase in reheat is only a RR engineers click on a laptop away. But so far, it simply hasn’t been needed.

          • And for Tempest.

            “Conrad Banks, chief engineer for future programs at Rolls-Royce, said the current concept is for Tempest to have a hybrid engine.

            There are now 500 engineers working at the company on the program, he said.

            ”We are embracing gas turbines and electrical systems as an integrated power system,” he said, describing the concept as a “flying power station.”

            It could generate 10 times the electrical power as the Eurofighter Typhoon, another aircraft developed by an international consortium.

            That power could be used for sensors, avionics and directed energy weapons, he said.”

            https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2021/11/3/uks-tempest-jet-fighter-program-embraces-digital-revolution

  2. I am very much glad that the personal of the UK’s Armed Forces, do Not have the same attitude as the Pro-Russian gaslighters that have been on this site recently. Crews will just get on with their jobs defending UK and NATO interests. Cheers to them!

    • Hello. Why do you assume that all UK military personnel think the same ? they are individuals. A person with a balanced opinion should not be dismissed as “Pro-Russian gaslighters”. Are you one of those that swallowed the crock about Iraqi WMD or that Iraq was somehow involved in 9/11 ? Did you condemn those who expressed scepticism ?

    • What pro Russia? This carriers are designed to intimidate third rate countries by the way they are lightly armed ! Russia may not have a carrier that functions but it’s warship fleet are the most heavy armed ! This carriers Few F35 can’t be sugar coated ! Both must have 30 jets on board period ! Or you will be taken not seriously at all by those that you are trying to deter. When Finland is buying more jets than you than you know you have a problem

      • Finland intends to buy 64 which is more than the UK currently operates but we will be buying more, even if we back track on our previous plan to buy 138.

      • The Russian surface fleet is a paper bear. Small groups of vessels managing small deployments to the Med and occasionally one in the Gulf that require friendly nation basing and don’t have the support infrastructure to maintain and supply a blue water fleet.

        The current northern fleet is aimed at bastion protection of the nations boomers around the Artic Ocean, Kara and White sea. The pacific fleet is struggling even more than the Northern fleet.

        Where the Russian Navy is doing well is the Caspian, Black and Baltic seas where the shore side bases and missile systems make those areas shooting galleries against any allied forces.

        • I don’t agree with you entirely, some of their platforms are quite modern and, in an asymetric way, challenge us – look what happened when a Rus spy ship tyrned up to harvest info on QE initial take offs – pilots voices recorded, match to London Gazette and now you track their progress and options for elimination in the event of war; drew Northumberland off station.

          The Sovs are Grade A manure but as Radaykin AND the CO Northumberland said – don’t underestimate them.

      • You really are not a “James” in the western sense are you?

        “This carriers are designed to intimidate third rate countries by the way they are lightly armed !”

        They are not lightly armed. Their air group could be better armed, yes, and it will be. It will not happen overnight.

        “Russia may not have a carrier that functions but it’s warship fleet are the most heavy armed !”

        Several answers come to mind.

        It’s warships need tugs alongside many of them.

        Further more, their fleet is constrained by the Black Sea, Baltic Sea, Straights of Japan, and the GIUK gap, which can be closed up by allies. So they cannot deploy effectively.

        Even if their vessels are heavily armed, that is often because one they needed to be due to unreliability and two that is Russian mentality. Neither would save them being sunk in short order if they tried to go toe to toe with the USN, Japan, or NATO.

        In any case, their threat IMO, and probably theirs, comes from their submarine fleet and their missiles. Much as in Cold War days.

        “This carriers Few F35 can’t be sugar coated ! “

        If you built your house would it take a day or months to build? Regenerating the capability takes years, and so will furnishing the jets for the carrier.
        There are also Block IV issues. This has been explained many times here.

        “Both must have 30 jets on board period !”

        I agree! But not instantly out of thin air. Has Turkeys Aircraft Carrier appeared out of thin air magically formed with an airwing?

        “Or you will be taken not seriously at all by those that you are trying to deter.”

        Possibly not by Russia and China, as on its own the UK’s armed forces have been ridiculously hollowed out.
        But we will not be facing them alone, we have allies in this world. That is key. God forbid we won’t have to face them at all.

        “When Finland is buying more jets than you than you know you have a problem”

        Shall I list for you the assets the UK has that Finland does not. A pointless comparison.

        I look forward to your detailed replies to each point.

      • “This carriers are designed to intimidate third rate countries by the way they are lightly armed ! ”
        So why was the QE deployed last year to the Far East nearby a peer nation with USMC F-35B’s on board?

      • I believe that is what Finland is buying over program life so comparing apples to apples we are buying80ish to 138!

      • Sorry I can’t agree with that our carriers are not designed to intimidate 3rd rate powers, they are designed to protect British interests by projecting power where needed and maintaining open seas. There is no power on the planet that would not consider the Uk carrier force and RN generally as anything other than one of the most capable navel forces anywhere.

      • ‘Most heavily armed’? From what I can gather once all those weapons have been fired off that’s about it for that ship! No reloads till it gets back to port.(if it hasn’t been sunk)

        • Deterrence? Bollards!

          The, ahem, Invincible Class took the fight to the Falklands and won; generally, with the exception of one or two extremely lucky Americans, that’s what the Royal Navy do.

      • Not at all, the carriers are there to be used by this country with/for NATO or in an independent operation, with whatever we, or our allies want/can put on and in it! How do you see the carriers? Useful or a waste? I bring you back to the Sea Harrier and it’s maximum all up numbers (31 I believe give or take) As for Finland buying more, are we going to war with them? No more likely next to them so well done to them for spending the money and buying the F35.

    • The only gaslighter the Russians need is the one following the Admiral K everywhere to turn it back on when the pilot light goes out 😎.

    • I’m not a pro Russian gas lighter, I’m Pro my country which is the U.K. But I’m a firm believer that it this the duty of an individual with sufferage that I understand Geopolitical threats to my nation and for that I must understand why the tensions are there as the best way to remove a threat is for it not to occur. That fact we are facing off with Russia is an existential threat to our country, one I believed could have been avoided. I do t like Putin or his politics but then I don’t like the politics of the government of Saudi, but that’s their business and we can be allies with them and have a relationship that works, we could have and (still may have in a few decades) a stable relationship with Russia.

      So although Russia is an immediate geopolitical threat I personally think that can be removed with very good foreign policy and not a counter productive war that would fix Russia as an enemy for a very long time ( the Russian character is one that remembers threats to the motherland).

      Because the reality is Russia is a peer and therefore is not ever likely outside of a mutually destructive war, threaten our independence as a nation. Unlike the real geopolitical threat that really scares me, China.

      China is well on the way to complete domination of pretty much most of the world through a very clever use of the Mercantile play book. Now if you think I’m gaslighting on this, consider the last power that was a masterful player of this game, it was a small island of 20million people with a negligible army who went on to create the greatest empire ever known, not by force of arms but by a mercantile strategy that effectively lead to most wars or battles being won before they started.

      Most of the world is now in ecconomic bondage to China ( including us) they are levering this to gain a technology edge as well as a manufacture and wealth edged, they have secured there resource needs using soft power, everyone exports raw materials and food to china then buys the stuff they make….this is being converted into a hard power military force to protect its future access to these resources and markets.

      I actual find it difficult to find a way out of the steel jaws of this Mercantile trap and think possibly the only way is major war ( I’m talking about a total war here not a small regional war).

      I think the West needs decide:

      1) will it accept Chinese hedgmony in the future ?
      2) is it willing to fight a major war of destruction with China ?

      If its one we need to start all making like good little client states, if not we need to bring in a many nations as possible including a major power like Russia to the idea that chinese hedgmony need to be challenged.

        • You should have read Js replies on the unacceptable Russian behaviour thread, down towards the bottom.

          In fact, they were so good inevitably the trolls have had the whole section removed. Made them look ridiculous. Either that or a tiny, weeny swear word delivered in the nicest way but tinged with sarcasm caused it.

        • Yes, I thought the same. Very well summarised. I think the freer democratic world needs to keep on demonstrating that it’s values are a better, but definitely not perfect, alternative to the CCP world.
          We’re worth defending aren’t we?! Yes we bloody well are!!
          On a lighter note, glad the Poms salvaged the 4th cricket test down here in Sydney.

      • I think a lot of what you said in this comment makes sense. I do Not see this as gaslighted at all.
        But as for Russia under the present criminal leadership, I see confrontation is unavoidable. So the West needs to prepare for war in the immediate future. Yes I agree Russia will be different under a future democratic leadership.
        As for China I think conflict is only a few years away.

  3. As I understand it NATO Respnse Force runs on 12 month rotation. Does this mean that HMS PoW won’t be available for other things this year, and we can expect no overseas deployment?

    • Hi Jon,

      I think we will see the RN carriers focus on the NATO area for a while. Big deployments like last year’s globe trotting expedition takes a lot of hard work to set up and involves hundreds of people who probably haven’t even seen the carriers. I’m talking about the supply chain, the UK and foreign diplomats who set up the visits and conferences. The RAF transports flying supplies and spares around the world.

      Several other navies exercised with the CSG as well, all of which would require detailed planning which would soak up limited resources, especially for the smaller navies that were involved. All of these people will need to get back to their day jobs…

      If we see big CSG deployments like this one again, and I sincerely hope we do, they will only ever happen once every 3 to 5 years I think. Hopefully, smaller deployments such as being undertaken by the OPV’s, frigates and perhaps a more focused / limited duration CSG deployment will be able to build on the impact and maintain our presence effectly until the next big event.

      There is also the point that the RN had a considerable number of its people away from their families for 7 months. They need time at home to rebuild relationships and rest, take courses, etc.

      Meantime it is back to the day job for the RN. The Russians are still probing at NATO’s defences and threating us and our allies close to home.

      Cheers CR

      • The RN plan is to deploy PoW to the Far East next year(2023), with 809 Squ. And most likely Australia this time as well.

        • Hi Meirion,

          It will be interesting to see how extensive the deployment is. I would be pleasantly surprised if it was on the same grand scale as CSG21. I would also be a bit concerned about whether the RN could keep the pace up going forward, given the limited pool of trained and experienced people it has. Retention has long been an issue.

          Time will tell.

          Cheers CR

      • Agreed.

        Long deployments like CSG21 are not necessary every year anyway. The idea was to show to friends, allies and enemies alike we can do it if we need to. The capability needs to grow now, slowly but surely.

        • Hi Daniele,

          Slowly, but surely is the only way it can grow given it was shelved completely for ten years.

          I realise that core knowledge was maintained with the help of our allies, but that is not the same as doing it on your own. Which makes the achievement of the QEC in general and CSG21 in particular all the more impressive.

          The RN and the wider MoD, services and supply chain contribution has been a signicant success story, accepting that it was and will remain a bumpy road 🙂

          Cheers CR

      • Thanks. That makes a lot of sense. I was surprised by the MoD tweet a few weeks ago suggesting both carriers would be involved in a Carrier Strike Group 22.

        Perhaps that was just badly used branding.

        • Hi Jon,

          I agree that it might be a bad use of branding.

          I would not be surprised if we see the two carriers operating together in home / NATO waters, perhaps for an exercise. I doubt that they would operate as a group for an extended period of time as such concentrations require a lot of planning and support. So I wouldn’t call CSG22 – I would hope that tag is retained for expeditionary deployments as these are fundmentally a different level of effort for so many people who contribute.

          Cheers CR

  4. I wonder what ships make up the NATO response force? I have seen a few times now that the PoW is the heaviest ship in the fleet, does anyone know what extra work was done on the PoW over the QE?

  5. So a two carrier fleet will exist after all 😉

    Nice to see the RN seriously back into the big carrier world again. Obviously, the fully capability is still being regenerated, but it is an impressive achievement for all involved. I hope the RAF / RN have enough people to rotate fresh personnel into the air wing and give those who were on the CSG21 deployment a chance to do other stuff, like that course they wanted to do, for example…

    Cheers CR

  6. So both QE & POW will be deployed this year the fly boys will be getting lots of flying hours and time away this year then. IF QE is on CSG22 and POW is needed for NATO tasking what will be on deck?

  7. At a guess, some Merlin from 820, and whatever UAV types they want to trial. At least, thst is what 1SL alluded to previously.

    It’s not a USN NAW, it’s not meant to be, never will be, and the F35 force is still growing, very slowly.

    The entire UK F35 force is what, 23 planes? Or 22 now 1 has crashed. It won’t be greater for a few years yet until the initial 48 are in service.

    • 24 down to 23, though this includes training aircraft and ones on trials. As time goes on the total fleet will not only expand but a greater proportion of them will be operational for front line use.

  8. It is great to see the AC is operational but would not she be far more efficient with a catapult and C variant. Just been reading an American report on the longevity of the B version. So not only more expensive ,less range, less capacity, etc but also? less flight hours. Another great decision by the Cameron Government

    • Yes ,ordered by Labour but I was only talking about F35b, cat and trap and their performance. My memory is that Osbourne and Cameron spent great deal of time “shilly-shallying” between VTOL and Catapult but after being quoted £1 billion came down on ramp , despite the fact it was the least desirable of the three but suited that years budget. Now we have the situation that they cost £10+ million more each. The performance is down , in all respects and they dont last as long? I know the MOD are looking into a catapult so why dont they make it strong enough to launch an F35.AND whatever they say I am sure the Navy and RAF would rather have the A and C version
      Mine was not at all a political comment, just my view on the subject

  10. Poor old POW can’t see many good jollies ashore unlike her sister had oh well at least they’ll get their Blue nose Certificate

    • Have to admit, difficult to suggest an alternative use for a the there’d UAS despite its obvious shortcomings!
      Perhaps it’s a first step towards a totally autonomous UAS? If so, begs the question of how Crows nest performed on CSG 21 deployment? Then again might just be reading to much into it and it’s just baby steps in a evolutionary process to get to where the RN wants with a AEW drone.

    • Thanks for posting the link to Patrick Benham-Crosswell’s evidence to the Committee. This ex-British Army officer’s evidence epitomises the poor procurement procedures that blight the MoD and result in the profligate waste of countless billions of taxpayers money. Many of my contributions to the discussion og MoD waste have now been moderated. This gives me great satisfaction, as obviously my criticism has been effective.

      • It’s really interesting that his take is basically the route to go is a light, fast go anywhere vehicle with a high mast for recon equipment. See the enemy pop smoke and run fast. Use a 30mm cannon if needed against suitable enemy. Not sure they could fit the 7 tons of equipment that the Ajax carries could fit in a stormer 30 hull. Ajax doesn’t have a raised mast. Is to heavy and big for recon.
        The armor that Ajax has is not required for a recon vehicle, it makes it to big and heavy.
        The army is in a big mess with it wheeled and tracked mix ups. Basically keep you tracks and wheeled units separate. As tracks need support vehicles.

  14. All these people reassuringly saying “24 aircraft is plenty on this carrier”, ask yourself why on Earth have we spent billions on two 65,000t carriers designed to carry three times that number? We can deploy 24 aircraft for months on end with 20,000t Invincible class carriers. In fact that worked rather well if I recall. The fact is we do NOT have anywhere near the aircraft on order that these carriers were designed for. And all this guff about “American reinforcements” what tripe. Hey let’s not have any aircraft at all; the Americans can “reinforce” the entire lot. Why have such large carriers in the first place if you clearly cannot deploy without foreign planes? And if you think the Americans are automatically going to see their millions-worth aircraft lost and their dear pilots killed then think again. American foreign policy does NOT support our management of the Falkland Islands. And like it or not, and it may now be 40 years ago, but that was the last time that Britain fought a peer-to-peer war against a sophisticated enemy. It is well known that British foreign policy is now sure that the main future threat will move away from asymmetric warfare against terror groups or militarily inferior states and instead to Russia and China. See if either of them are scared by “24 F-35s”. I don’t think so.

    • Hello Nicholas, I tend to agree with most of what you said, the QE and PoW were designed to carry 70+ airframes each, so for the foreseeable future they will only be glorified helicopter carriers with the ability to put up there own CAP.
      That only changes if they go to sea with foriegn air assets on board similar to the CSG21 deployment. So may be this NATO deployment might see the Italians position their F35b’s on PoW along with the USMC to give the NATO strike force a bit more teeth. If both the QE and PoW deploy this year the stress on the pilots and airframes might have a influence on the life expectancy of this batch of aircraft. The one saving grace in the not so distant future we could see the few F35’s teamed up with Loyal Wingman on the carries this would effectively double or triple the amount of airframes carried on board.

      • Hi Steven. The 70 airframes were never intended to be fast jets. That number also includes airframes for ASW, AEW, commando transfer, ground support and attack helo’s, cargo transfer as well as the jets. 36 seems to have been the planned surge number for Lightnings.

        • I agree Derek but we are a long way off (if we ever get there) to having 36 deployable F35’s and if both carriers deploy at the same time ! I personal believe we will never have enough F35’s to put both carriers to sea at the same time unless they deploy with foriegn assets on board or augment the F35 numbers with the loyal wingman concept. I would also like to see the carriers have a flight of Ospreys for each carrier for COD and personnel ship to shore transfer as the osprey has now been cleared to carry the F35 engine and has a rang of 1500 miles giving the carriers more stand-off capability.

    • There’s so much wrong and requiring correction in your post, and if I may say so, eductaion and subject matter research, that it’s hard to know where to start.

    • The carriers are designed for 50+ years service. Would you buy 138 block 3 f-35’s now and then pay for the upgrades later? Where are you getting all the pilots and ground crew for these aircraft. More importantly wheres the billions of ££ coming from. If we got that many aircraft they would just be in hangers(presuming there would be enough hangers to keep them in.
      This is the navy/airforce/uk government plan. Buy a steady stream of aircraft over next 20 years presumably waiting for block 4 before another large buy.
      The whole training system is not able to train loads of pilots or other roles in one go. There’s not a lot of Hawk T2 aircraft or instructors. Especially on the F-35 training. It’s so easy to say buy more aircraft and I would love it to be that simple but the reality is so much more complex

      • Another way of thinking about it would be look at previous carriers. Invincible came with 5 SHAR at the beginning.
        Ark royal and the ww2 carriers were continuing on the aircraft and squadrons operated by previous aircraft and it was war time. They were very different from entry in to service and when they retired.
        Drones are going to play a big part in carriers future and investment is required in this area.
        If in 10-20 years time the carriers still only have 8 F35’s then that will be an issue.
        Currently only the USA can field more 5th gen stealth aircraft On carrier. I’m for one am very proud and hopeful for future

  15. We can talk all you want about airframes but its having the crews and support for them that really matters. Shar units had a war footing of 8 aircraft and at least 1.5 pilots per airframe that was more space related than airframes available of course. Note also many airframes are in different stages of update so your best numbers are even smaller than the whole of course. The QE is a big platform and 50 aircraft would not be an issue its having them in the end and supporting them. So lets get the 4 frontline + OCU and make it 12 per unit and work to FAA ways of doing things which were and are far more efficient (The FAA has the fast jet pilots ready to handle them).
    Perhaps we should look to getting simpler aircraft as a one that can do all is still only one and and numbers do have their own advantage to. I saw a SHAR unit go to the US and everyday all were available to fly when the USN could hardly muster enough to go up against them from the huge numbers they had at the base. Says it all I think.

  16. Tom you need to see the bigger picture and understand the capability and role of both carriers, they are not only a national asset but a NATO asset….and still quite a few more airframes than the Invincible class, which incidentally no one seems to moan about. The carriers will be cutting about for say 50 years and in that time they will prove to be able platforms for pretty much anything we can put on them in the future.

    • Bigger picture? Which one would that be? The one where there will not be enough aircraft for both ships, for some years yet? It’s a British asset first and foremost. It was not built for NATO.

      • That doesn’t change the fact it can be utilised by numerous NATO allies and is also a NATO asset, regardless if you agree or like that fact or not!

        • I’m not overly interested in arguing with you. You believe what you want to believe, and we will leave it at that!!!

          • Who’s arguing, I’m stating factual information, take it or leave it, depending on your view, and of course experience.

          • You cannot make this up, “as long as it’s friendly in a civil manner” hilarious, I refer you back to your replies to me! I challenged you in a reasonable way, you didn’t like it, you then sent 3 replies which were rude and childish closely followed by a fourth abusive one, now we all have this 5th one to see. It would seem when your challenged or you view is questioned you get angry and abusive. That’s something you need to sort out at your end and deal with. Other than that I honestly thought you were drinking when you sent those replies!! But be aware at your age, not shy of 60 or so, you need to try to grow up and learn to debate on a mature way!

          • And I notice that your 3rd and 4th abusive posts have been deleted by George and the mods! That says something about your methods and posts don’t you think!

          • I will take that reply as tacit confirmation that you acknowledge your inappropriate comments, and hope you have learnt from them. Well done.

          • That’s not very nice, as the offensive comments were started by yourself and I have not actually given any offensive comments or phrases back. Therefore lets hope you have learned form this interaction.

          • See once more, offensive and abusive post number six, albeit two have been removed. You call me a bully, yet you write six abusive posts to me, I do not respond in kind or reciprocate, but challenge your inappropriate behaviour. Then when it clicks that you are embarrassing yourself, you then ignore any content of my posts and call me a bully. The simple thing is here pal, you were, and are, still being abusive and now you decide you don’t want to carry on the conversation any longer, and call me a bully to try to extract yourself. Please learn from this, don’t give it big licks if you are unable to converse and debate the issue.

          • You need to stop, you have been taken to task and you need to learn from it! Move on, be less abusive and act your age.

          • More name calling, as you say others can see this exchange, and they will see that all the child like name calling and abuse (some posts from you which have been removed by the mods) have all come from YOU. None have come from me, I am purely replying in an effort to understand why you want to continue to be rude, and then want to finalise this exchange when you realise you have over stepped the mark. Is it just you who is allowed to have their say then demand to terminate the conversation? I have to say it seems very strange to me.

          • Sigh!… if you cannot see what you have wrote to me, many which have been removed by the mods, and recognise it as online abuse, then there is little to be done. Please do some research on acceptable behaviour online, thank you.

          • Message after message, day after day, … does this site have any form of Moderation? O.E.D: – Harassment; an act or instance of harassing; torment, vexation, or intimidation: the condition or fact of being harassed:

          • Oh we are being civil again 😉 …
            To be honest I’m not overly familiar with modern artillery platforms. When I served, the 55’s were out, and we got the 105mm. Later that went to F870’s, but the ‘stock’ platform gun was the Abbot. (which was 105mm as well)

            However, I have heard there’s a good Korean piece of kit out there, that out performs most of that class of weapon supposedly.

          • I’m always civil but don’t like sillly one liners, like most of us I suppose! Anyway that would be the K9, supposed to be the best on the market but whatever is chosen, not many will be purchased as only x 3 RA Regiments will be re-equipped. (Daniele is the man for more in depth info) But methinks it will be a wheeled platform as the mixing of wheels and tracks is the only way possible now due to the numerous cuts! The RA are the future battle winners and we need to be looking still both tube and Missile for precision strike at depth.

          • Hi Tom, we have day jobs. Users are advised to use our reporting system to report anything we miss.

          • Pardon? What an angry person, and one who cant quite stick with the programme. Disrespectful? You need to re-visit the posts to me, as it would seem you get angry and rude when challenged in a reasonable way. But, your final line is most amusing, as you seem not to even understand that I was actually shocked that you wrote “Don’t go looking for a fight” blah blah….that’s what I was saying when I spoke about cannot believe you writing that on an internet forum….keep up please.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here