The UK’s Carrier Strike Group (CSG) is preparing for its most ambitious deployment since the 2021 global voyage of HMS Queen Elizabeth, as HMS Prince of Wales prepares to lead Operation HIGHMAST—a months-long mission to the Indo-Pacific and back.
The Carrier Strike Group 25 deployment will feature, for the first time, two full squadrons of UK F-35B Lightning II jets embarked aboard a British aircraft carrier, marking a significant leap in the UK’s ability to project airpower at sea.
According to Defence Minister Maria Eagle, the deployment will showcase the full operational capability of the Lightning Force, comprising 617 Squadron (The Dambusters) and 809 Naval Air Squadron, the latter having been re-formed in December 2023.
In a letter to the Defence Select Committee, Eagle confirmed:
“The focus now is to prepare for Op HIGHMAST, where HMS Prince of Wales will deploy with two embarked UK Front Line F-35 Squadrons … This Operation will display our global Carrier Strike reach, demonstrating the ability to deploy, operate and command a Carrier Strike Group consisting of two UK Lightning squadrons, with associated support.”
The mission will take the strike group through the Mediterranean, Middle East, Indian Ocean, and into the Pacific, conducting high-end exercises with key allies including Australia, Japan, and New Zealand. The deployment is intended to reinforce the UK’s commitment to the international rules-based order and demonstrate its support for freedom of navigation in contested waters, including the South China Sea.
Speaking earlier this year in the House of Lords, Defence Minister Lord Coaker described Operation HIGHMAST as a critical signal of Britain’s intent:
“We will lead a carrier strike group out into the Indo-Pacific to demonstrate that the law of the sea, the international rules-based order, is something that is important to us.”
The carrier air wing will include 24 F-35B Lightning jets, in line with a commitment made by the Royal Navy’s Carrier Strike Group commander last year. These will be supported by Merlin helicopters for anti-submarine and airborne early warning roles, as well as Wildcat helicopters for surface strike and maritime security.
Additional assets, including Type 45, Type 23 escorts in addition and Astute-class submarines and Royal Fleet Auxiliary and allied vessels, are expected to form the broader strike group.
Eagle’s letter also provided updates on the broader F-35 programme, noting that the UK had taken delivery of 36 of the 48 aircraft in the first procurement phase, with the final batch due before March 2026, when the programme is set to graduate from the Government Major Projects Portfolio. Full Operating Capability for the force is scheduled for no later than 31 December 2025.
Despite global production delays, the UK’s F-35 deliveries remain on track following a resolution of software issues by Lockheed Martin and the US-led Joint Program Office. Eagle confirmed that UK deliveries resumed in July 2024, with additional aircraft scheduled to arrive in May 2025.
Looking beyond 2025, the government say that it remains committed to expanding the fleet to 74 aircraft, with the eventual establishment of a third front-line squadron by 2033. Upgrades under the Block 4 sub-programme—currently being reviewed by the US Congress—will include UK-requested enhancements such as the integration of Meteor beyond-visual-range missiles and SPEAR 3 stand-off weapons. These upgrades are seen as essential for maintaining the F-35’s survivability and lethality in high-threat environments.
Operation HIGHMAST represents not only the culmination of years of investment in carrier strike capability, but a political and strategic statement. With threats rising globally, and tensions simmering in the Indo-Pacific, the deployment of a UK carrier group—complete with its own advanced stealth fighters—sends a message of deterrence and solidarity with allies.
Most 5th gen aircraft operated by any country on a carrier?
Likely the case for a single carrier.
I am making a good salary from home $4580-$5240/week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now its my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
Here is I started_______ 𝐖𝐖𝐖.𝐖𝐎𝐑𝐊𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐑𝟏.𝐂𝐎𝐌
God is good. Can you share you blessing. You were jobless and horrible a year ago now you’re happy.
Thanks God every day for blessed you. I’m happy for you Sarah K.
Dick, having only one carrier makes no sense. I don’t see how the French justify it. It could only be available for about a third of the time. We should have built three.
Just like when we had Ark Royal, Illustrious and Invincible.
Dam right!
Charles de Gaulle alone is most available than 2 QE.
And CDG have more planes and “awacs”.
CDG is a tool of océanic control and deepstrike. QE are limited to coastal ground action.
The question, is how UK justify QE program. For less than QE program, UK should have 2″CDG” like it was planned.
I think so. You’d have to check progress of the F-35C on the Nimitz class to be sure, but it beats the 20 on the USS Tripoli a couple of years back.
Yes but apparently we are shit so it can’t be true 😀
I believe so, 24 will be the most so far.
The closest I can think of is when USS Tripoli operated 20 F-35Bs (usually LHAs and LHDs operate 6).
As far as CVNs go, I saw a relatively recent shot of USS Carl Vinson with 16 F-35Cs on deck, some were visiting from USS George Washington’s F-35C squadron. That’s the most Cs I know of on a US nuclear carrier up to this point.
Hmmm…24 of the 36 (actually 35 existing UK ac?) deployed for multiple months on Op HIGHMAST? Three test ac still at Edwards AFB?Ummm…the cupboard will be relatively bare in Blighty, although apparently some additional ac will be delivered during the Op. Wonder whether some will return to UK, after capability has been demonstrated? Wonder whether the Italians would be able/willing to deploy a few for ops w/in Med? ME? Does JMSDF have any delivered F-35B currently available to cross deck? Will HMS PWLS deploy w/ 30 mm AA
mounts installed? All will be revealed relatively soon! Fair Winds and Following Seas for all to be deployed.
The DS30 and optical directors have not been fitted. I recall seeing the sensor brackets on the deck edges near the intended mounts a few years back, but have not noticed any recent 2025 pictures showing this illogical omission in self-defence capabilities will be rectified.
.
.
The F-35B order for 48 deliveries aircraft is scheduled to be completed this year (note total will be 47 after the crash on the last deployment). Negotiations for 26 additional aircraft continue (a bit to go for whole-of-life 138 aircraft / ability to overload a CVF, muted at 72 Bs – Hanger and flight deck mockups suggest this is possible, but the true ‘test’ is what the fuel and munitions stores hold for x-number of sorties before RAS’ing is necessary.
.
.
Japan has I believe 6 aircraft on delivery, with that schedule slipping to this year, with trials in home waters, a cross-ship test would appear doubtful. Italy, has a couple of Bs, they do seem to be following the UK lead (sic) and taking it slow 🙃
Thanks for updated SITREP. 👍😊
I think you’ll find that the Swordfish is first generation.
Possibly but it’s a shallow milestone.
It’s going to require an artificially created alignment in maintenance in order to have 24 deployable jets, they’re lacking critical capability in meteor and spear 3, they will leave a huge gap in the RAF’s capabilities to respond to unforeeen events and its beyond questionable as to whether we should be allocating escorts to such a deployment especially in current circumstances.
In reality the USN has more than 100 F35C’s delivered, if they wanted to fully load a carrier with them they could but they don’t because they aren’t fully integrated, the F18 is a mature platform that can fulfil key roles like electronic warfare, buddy refuel, lower cost/maintenance that compliment the F35C.
They have constantly deployed carriers, well planned maintenance cycles and their carriers can and do respond to threats that emerge globally.
They also do not leave the air force deficient when they deploy a carrier group.
I know there is enthusiasm here for the carriers, they do have the possibility to bring huge capability to the British armed forces but in reality we are not well enough resourced to be deploying them without taking considerable risks, the F35B is not mature enough neither does it have wide enough weapons integration to deploy as a significant threat to a well resourced adversary which places the carrier group at considerable risk.
We are presently stuck with the delivery schedule of the F35B’s and weapons integration timescale, we should be focussing resources in Europe right now and if the ambition is to deploy carrier groups to the other side of the world independently of the USA a realisation that it will require significantly higher sustained defence spending.
The threat in Europe is presently from Russia and we should be testing and probing them constantly to spread their resources as thin as possible while they wage a land war in Europe.
24 F35.
Will we still hear the same old, tired, no aircraft white elephant snipes, or will they turn to something else.
I predict the latter.
I predict we will still hear how there are no planes on them and they are not proper carriers.
Haters gonna hate hate hate 😀
Very much so. Oft stirred by the Army and its supporters in the media, sadly.
Pity the RFA has fallen apart and there are too few Escorts.
Who is responsible for that is clear.
I’m glad this is going ahead, as I myself was very sceptical of Labour’s willingness to do this deployment if you recall, and thought they would can it. I was wrong. So credit due there.
I wasn’t 100% sure either, but on balance I thought it would go ahead because there was too much to lose on the international stage and the Labour Party claims at least to be an internationalist.
Not easy trying to predict what our politicians will do mate. After all the Labour Party cut the CVA01 class carriers in the ’60’s and reintroduced fleet carriers in the ’00’s… Go figure.
In the end I think the decisions are made with in the context of the time, and times they are always changing – and boy are they doing so now…
Cheers CR
👍
Correction: RAF supporter’s – they are virulently anti-carrier. See Bagwell.
Danielle, who are these senior army officewho denigrate the carriers. Do we know their names. Shameful. We need the carriers. Two is barely enough. Ideally we would have three plus an LPH replacement for HMS Ocean.
Why do you say ‘haters’ Jim? That is sort of MAGA-speak for anyone who disagrees with the imposed part line.
There are many who doubt the value of the carriers on operational.and survivability grounds. Others think.that the money would have been better spent on some more Astutes, which pose a far greater threat and thetefore detterent to an enemy navy. Others who.see the range of the F-35b as too short to be of any value against Chinese S2S missiles. Others who recognise that we can’t from a carrier strike group.wothout removing the very fre escorts needed for the North Atlantic. And others who see the whole carrier thing as the UK and RN posing on the world stage, aka fur coat and breeks, as the Scots say.
Whether you agree or disagree, these are all valid discussion points on a defence forum. Dismissing all who don’t share your opinion as ‘haters’ doesn’t add anything to the debate, is MAGA-childish and raises some doubts about the efficacy of your critical faculties.
Leave it out M8.
.
They will just start on about not having a proper AEW fixed wing option meaning that even having the most 5th generation fighters is irrelevant…..
Jon, I am sure they will, but the endurance of Merlin/Crowsnest is not far off a fixed wing AEW.
You are proud of 24? Its really small. And UK have to proove that 24 aircraft is an operationnal permanent capacity . Not just a one shot.
24?! Should be 36!
In all seriousness this is a great effort by the RN and Lighting Force. Equivalent of a Divisional deployment for the Army (sort of)
Good news, do we know if there are plans to deploy a USMC squadron again? If so we could actually see 36 F-35’s.
Under other circumstances, that should be the next step, although not this year, I think. Maybe we’ll get a couple of extra planes cross-decking on the way. Italy, China or the US could easily participate in a short exercise. I would love to see a proper 36 F-35 surge test at some time. I hope we get to see published sortie rates from a test once all the pilots are fullt trained up. I think even with 24 and no overload of pilots or engineers, it could be pretty impressive.
Meanwhile, I’m very pleased we seem on track to reach the target this year, and not just for an exercise, but the full deployment! I was worried that it might be a lot fewer.
Oops, I meant Japan, not China. If that was Freudian, I don’t know what my subconscious was thinking.
Japan does not have any F35bs as yet, one of the plans for this deployment is that the FAA and RAF actually play around on the Japanese carrier so the JMSDF can play around practicing carrier battle group stuff with some real jets on board.
@Jonathan: I hadn’t realized how far back the delivery of the first F-35Bs to Japan had been pushed (again). I still had in my mind they were coming this month.
Yes they have a long old wait.
I’m in two minds about the sortie rates and the time it takes to do a 12 jet scramble for example. My first thoughts were would this give too much information away about the carrier’s capabilities? But then the USN have published the expected sortie rate for the Ford Class so why not. My second thoughts are wouldn’t this make great viewing, seeing a massed sortie generation, with all the jets idling at the back of the deck queuing up for their slot for take-off. be like Top Gun, but with Tea and biscuits….
During peace time, deterrence is one of the main functions of the military, and you have to give some information away if there’s to be a deterrent effect. The point of a CSG is to radiate power. If you haven’t already, I think it’s worth looking at the declassified reports of the Nimitz surge tests of the mid-1990s. You’ll see that the headline number covers a multitude and it isn’t always indicative of what would go on during a war. Nevertheless it gives enough of a feel for the potential of the CSG.
It would also show the US that we have some stick, and can contribute if necessary. That means a lot more at the moment than it should have to.
“a months-long mission to the Indo-Pacific and back”
That does not make sense
months long, not month long. I think it does make sense, as there is no apostrophe.
My only comment is that a total buy of 74 is, I think, probably 22 short.
I think it’s 26 too many.
Where I think it is just right.
The Goldilocks zone.
We could put some on both Carriers with 74, augmented by UCAV as when available.
The only thing I really don’t understand is why they don’t stand up 4 squadrons with 74 jets…you can stand up 3 with 60 jets..
In a way, they are doing that … 207 squadron (OCU), 617 & 809 squadrons, plus one other unit by 2033.
The 74 F-35Bs will sustain a frontline combat force of 36 aircraft (three squadrons of 12 F-35Bs) until 2069.
So for every aircraft in the front-line, there is another with the Operational Conversion Unit (207 Squadron), or in maintenance – or as part of the sustainability fleet.
We’ve budget to increase to 74 for 2033.
Obviously, no budget after then has been allocated. I’m sure that there will be more orders in the next equipment plan.
I agree that another couple of dozen would be a good use of funds. 74 is just about going to be enough to surge two carriers in an all out war scenario, but that would leave the RAF with none. Typhoon is good at many things, but it’s also much more vulnerable than the F-35. Having another squadron or so available for high risk missions inland would prove to be a very useful option. Their mere presence would keep an enemy on guard, in a way that I don’t believe the Typhoon can match. That being said, the Typhoon’s weapons suite is currently superior and another batch of them would bring some much need vitality and mass to the fleet.
If it were my decision, I’d take any budget available, split it down the middle, and buy as many Typhoons and Lightnings as I could get.
Fly Navy!!!!
YAY!!!!
What if they bomb, and the SSN TLAMs, the Houthis on route through the Red Sea? Pathetic Europeans!
I’m I the only person on here that thinks deploying the very cream of our navy to the far side of the world isn’t a good idea at this time? Would prefer to keep that much firepower closer to home.
They aren’t going to be more than 2 days or so flight away from home at any time. If the worst happened and they were in the Indian Ocean say, they could easily route home through friendly nations and Diego Garcia. Voyagers based in Cyprus or even UK could deploy to Diego Garcia to support that. And I’m sure we’d have allies who could help with a2a refueling too.
They wouldn’t remain on the carrier, bar maybe a small flight of four or six for self defence, trudging it home over several weeks.
Some of the planes could fly back if they are needed, but what stealth operations might they be needed for? For anything else, there’s the Typhoons.
Yea, but not many of them. And the early stages of any conflict would be when stealth aircraft are most needed and effective, primarily for SEAD and deep strike.
Really good piece (as ever) on Navy Lookout that considers your question in detail – dated 17 Mar.
Oh, there may well be a few others that have private reservations re the advisability of ops in the SCS, but are w/holding judgement and hoping for a favorable outcome. The ChiComs will supposedly not be prepared for war before 2027. 🤞🤞 Reasonably confident the Houthis will be preoccupied ducking and covering from USN/USAF on the outbound leg of CSG25 through Suez/Red Sea. 🤞
To be honest I’m not sure there is anything much bar a full WW3 effort of one of the world powers that could do much to a battle group with 2 T45s , 2 T23s, an astute 24 F35Bs and a good handful of Merlin2s…
I still can’t believe it will be 24. My guess is 2 x 9 aircraft squadrons. Matches the 2021 deployment, but with sovereign aircraft.
36 – 3 in US -1 lost = 33
20% in deep maintenance leaves 27.
Split across 3 squadrons, with 2 front line.
That was my first thought too. But George seems pretty confident in the 24 figure, so I’m minded to believe him.
They’ve been planning this for a long time, and the fleet is relatively young, so maybe the 20% in deep maintenance is a bit high?
Perhaps they are counting on aircraft deliveries this year to top up the OCU
Agree, but in reality, an even tighter margin (36-3-1=32). Would be a remarkable feat, if RAF/RN able to deploy 24 a for duration of Op. Would predicted an extended and punishing post-op regeneration period.
…deploy 24 for duration…Would predict…🙄
It’s 24, it’s always been 24.
76 (+2) surely would be best –
Gives you ;
– OEU (17) x 4 aircraft
– OCU (207) @ 12 no.
– 4x squadrons of 12 (617, 809 and hopefully, 800 and 801…..) plus
– 1×12 spreading the hours, deep maintenance and rotation of airframes
In a maximum effort that 2 carriers with 24 on each, plus spares,,,,, or a 3rd squadron
Maximum effort should be 36 aircraft on each carrier.
By the time we could get close to fielding 36 F-35s on each carrier, there should have been plenty of opportunities to gain mass through collaborative platforms. So perhaps a full carrier might field 18 F-35s, 24 collaborative platforms and 6 rotaries (or even some tiltrotor AEW). Other CSG rotaries could be distributed on other ships.
I’d want to see 36 F-35s on one carrier at least once, just because that was what it was designed for, but it probably won’t represent the future.
This is very good news and a powerful message in regards to the UKs ability to project power..we all know the navy is hollowed out in regards its ability to maintain all its commitments as a blue water navy, but still because of its composition if it’s concentrated it can put together one of the most powerful navel battle groups on the planet. An Elizabeth based CBG with 2 T45s, a pair of T23s and an astute with 2 squadrons of F35bs can only be bettered by a U.S. carrier battle group.
It’s worth remembering that if HMG decided the RN need to causes serious pain to another nation that nation would feel that pain anywhere on the planet. That is a deterrent worth having..because it could move into the high north and at any time support the tearing of a hole straight through Russias Barents Sea bastion and Russia knows that.
The true beauty of the Elizabeth’s is that unlike a U.S. CATOBAR carrier an Elizabeth’s combat power can be packed away on an airbase and the Elizabeth just wander around in safe waters with nothing in its hanger..this saves a fortune in airframe hours, fatigue to airframes, pilot and ground crew fatigue etc…because the Elizabeth’s airwings can spend most of its life in a nice airbase…. While the CATOBAR airwing must spend its life at see flying just to stay qualified.
In regards to the order of 74 F35, to be honest I don’t quite why that number if you are only having three squadrons, 74 would support 4 squadrons very well but wastes jets if you don’t as 3 squadrons only needs 60 jets … x 3 squadrons of 12 jets is 36, an OCU of 12 that’s 48 jets then 20% sustainment fleet 9 for 57 jets + 3 in the trial and evaluation squadron. So the 74 gives you an extra 13 jets ( -1 that sunk) over you needs or a sustainment fleet of 22 jets.. which is a huge number for only 3 squadrons.. ( when you think only 96 single seat typhoon tranche 2-3 will support 5 front line squadrons, OCU, test and evaluation, Falklands flight and joint squadron.. for around 86 deployed jets and a sustainment fleet of around 10)…so I think the should either drop the total order of F35B to 60 or if they do order 74 then have 4 squadrons.
Hi Jonathan,
I read somewhere recently that there are global issues with F35 availability due to failings of the ALIS support software. It’s replacement ODIN is still some way off. Also just in time delivery of spares isn’t going too well either apparently..!
Cheers CR
That’s not a good look if you need 70 aircraft for 3 squadrons..due to all those issues.
No it isn’t and there is no guarantee that ODIN will work any better than ALIS..! Worse still is the ‘just in time’ delivery model for spares. That will require a whole different approach to logistics if for now other reason you will need to manage and keep supplied stockpiles of spares scattered around the globe.
One advantage is that buys up front spares often leaves you with stuff that just sits on the shelves because, well it just doesn’t break as often as you thought it would, so having a just time supply system up until now should have provided enough data to actual profile the spares stockpiles rather more in line with what is actually needed – until you make major changes or updates to the platform of course..!
Cheers CR
As the threat level rises, so should the stockpiles.
74 would be just right to equip 3 squadrons Jonathan, not 4. We have been through this before. Your guesstimates are not how it works.
Whatever the total number of aircraft, only 50% will ever be frontline. The other 50% are deployed in squadron maintenance, OEU, OCU and a small wartime and attrition reserve. That is how the RAF operates.
If there are 72+2 aircraft, the planning will be
– 3 sqns of 12 frontline aircraft = 36
– 3 aircraft per sqn in the garage fot maintenance = 9
– 3 in the OEU for trials and tests = 3
– 8 in the OCU = 8
– War and attrition reserve = 16. You need the attrition reserve because some aircraft will inevitably be lost to accidents in peacetime over the 30 years of the fleet’s life. You need a small war reserve to replace combat losses in the first days/weeks of conflict.
That totals 72.
So no, we will not get 4 squadrons out of 74 aircraft.
–
There is no such thing as a wartime attrition for fast jets it does not exist..they have a sustainment fleet of 20% so for a 3 squadrons and an OCU that’s a sustainment fleet of 9…just add up how any typhoon squadrons and the Falklands flight we will have for a fleet that will number only 96…so yes you can build 4 squadrons with 74… because your min number is 12 for the OCU then 12 for each squadron + 20% sustainment…you don’t have an attritional reserve..just the sustainment fleet.
You don’t seem to realise that ‘Sustainment fleet’ is just MOD shorthand for those aircraft not in frontline service. That is nothing to do with how the fleet numbets are planned, which I have set out above. Your sums remain wide of the mark
You can prove this to yourself. Here is a little exercise for you.
Q: Why would the RAF order as many as 138 aircraft to field 6 squadrons?
In detail, how would these aircraft be allocated?
Note to students: ‘Sustainment fleet’ is not an operational category, merely a broad term to summarise those aircraft not in frontline service.
Will be intrigud to see your answer!
Because a large number of those 130+ were actually 2 seater versions and at the time the RAF was running its squadrons with 12 single seat typoons and 2-3 two seaters.. it’s OCU at that time was also 18 aircraft 12 single seat and 6 two seaters..
The RAF at that time also ran a large sustainment fleet than they do now..
Also it was not 6 squadrons it was 6 squadrons + the Falklands flight + the joint squadron.
Interestingly the RAF did at one point publish a complete airframe by airframe breakdown of which squadrons had which airframes and which airframes were in the sustainment fleet..
My question to you is how do you think the RAF will be able to run 5 front line typhoon squadrons, the joint squadron, the Falklands flight, OCU and test and evaluation squadron’s with 96 airframes, because in a few years that is exactly how may single seat typhoons they will have.
HMG publishes data on HM Forces equipment. The 2024 data (latest update Feb 2025) contains figures for ‘total’ and ‘in service’ equipment. For fixed wing a/c, the ‘in service’ figure is the total ‘active fleet’ which includes aircraft that are in maintenance and may also be in storage to preserve airframe hours. The data does not differentiate between ‘forward’ and ‘sustainment’ fleets. The Typhoon ‘in service’ figure is 102 which serves 7 frontline sqns (1,2,3,6,9,11 and 12), the OCU (29), the OEU (41) and Falklands flight. The aircraft are pooled at the 2 UK MOB and clearly a certain number will not be available on any given day. So yes, given an adequate sized fleet you can create sufficient squadrons. However it looks like those that are UK based would not all be able to generate a full 12 a/c complement at the same time necessarily.
Incidentally, in contrast, the rotary wing ‘in service’ figures do relate to the ‘forward fleet’. For example they show for the Wildcat the AAC and RN ‘in service’ number is 45 in total, with 17 in the ‘sustainment fleet’. That represents 27% in reserve.
74 – 3 US -1 lost = 70. 20% in deep maintenance = 56.
I’ve read that the future plan (it’s been a while ago now) is that it will settle down to 4 x 14 aircraft squadrons. One of which will be the OCU.
Frontline would be one RAF heavy one RN heavy and one shared.
24 F35Bs! This will be a real showcase deployment for the Royal Navy.
Good to see and all will hopefully go well. If and when other continental countries re-arm, particularly Germany backing up Poland, then the the Royal Navy must surely be the way forward once again for the United Kingdom.
Should have built two smaller carriers to replace two of the Invincible’s with 12 F35B’s and a mix of Helo’s each and a replacement for Ocean. This would have given a potent force with flexibility and ability whilst not putting pressure on the glacial purchase process. That way it wouldn’t have been so embarrassing to some of us who cared.
You would not get 12 F35Bs and a mix of hellos on a carrier the size of an invincible. The min size Smaller carriers are more efficient
Both Italy and Japan have 30,000 ton carriers that can carry at most about 14 F35b and a couple of rotors. With inflation up to the point the Elizabeth’s were built the Italian 30,00 ton carrier cost the equivalent of around 1.5 billion..the Elizabeth a 70,000 ton carrier that can carry up to 60 aircraft coat 3 billion… essentially it’s massively more efficient and effective to build a large carrier.
Only issue is the Lighting 2 missing key weapon integration.
No anti ship or land attack misses and no long range air to air.
The aircraft might be highly capable but it only has Medium range AA missiles and bombs to date, with limited range and internal payloads.
Even though the F35B can currently only carry AMRAAM for BVRAAM. That version is the latest D variant, which has a bit more range than the C variant, though not quite as much as Meteor. However, the key thing to remember is the F35’s stealth and how that adds to the capability in an air to air engagement. To be blunt the F35 will be able to get a lot closer to a target before it is discovered, compared to say a Typhoon, which will easily bring it within the AMRAAMs maximum effective range. Which means they have a far greater chance of firing at another aircraft, before they can be fired upon.
However, to raise the missile’s pK value, you really need to get as close as possible, as that means the solid rocket powered AMRAAM retains as much energy as possible for the interception. Where it still has the energy to overtake the target if it turns and runs for it or if the target tries to evade the missile. The norm for the opposing fighter would be to fire a missile along the reciprocal heading of the approaching missile. As by doing this you are hoping the other pilot will react to your missile and that they break away to evade. However, as the enemy pilot will be too busy trying to evade the AMRAAM before they can detect or get a decent missile solution on the F35, they won’t be able to send the missile any mid-course updates. Whereas the F35 just needs to get out of the way and stay out of the basket of the approaching enemy missile’s active radar, whilst still giving mid-course updates.
Informed post as always. Meteor will be good but AMRAAM 120D is not too shabby. Also, I suspect the Paveway – F35B combination is a more effective stand off capability than is commonly supposed.
I read somewhere recently that the Paveway iv that we use has a potential 30km stand off range (launch altitude and speed dependent). So with the stealth capability and that stand off range I think you would need a pretty good GBAD and radar combination to engage our aircraft. It should also be remembered that ‘pretty GBAD’ systems are expensive so even countries like China probably don’t have enough to put a ‘water proof’ ring of steel around every possible target. So still room for doubt in everyone’s mind – i.e. deterrence.
Hopefully.
Cheers CR
In the end Paveway is the munition of choice of the RAF even on typhoon which has lots of options.
Flight Global had an article earlier this month about the start of the Meteor integration, with a dummy Meteor being carried internally in a USMC F-35B. It looks like early days, but there’s movement.
Come to think of it, there was an article here too.
i did not realise the nearer D version had such a long range thank you.
Never mind that the type 45 only have basic anti ballistic missiles cap, and none of our ships except the astute have significant long range land attack capabilities. Also only crows nest for radar, a very poor second to Hawkeye.
Too many big holes in the carriers strikes group cap the Chinese would run rings around it currently.
True enough, but I would suggest that those considerations will be front and center in Commander UK Strike Force’s (COMUKSTRKFOR) mind whilst deployed and RN planning assumptions before they even leave.
Although the US do not appear to be participating overtly in CSG25 it would not surprise me if they are still providing satellite intelligence cover. I don’t think it is any accident that our Sec Def. was in Washington recently talking to his opposite number. Much is changing at the moment, but much more will be business as usual, sort of. The adding risk is that this new US administration isn’t afraid to switch support off at a moments notice if it feels it wants something NOW!
Cheers CR
An impressive and credible carrier battle group; and with enough F-35B on order to put 2 carriers to sea in an emergency. Most important thing is to support Australia where the Chinese are getting too close.
We do not and will not have enough escorts to protect 2 carriers at the same time. We don’t have enough Astutes to ride shotgun on 2 carriers. We don’t have enough helicopters either. Nor.two full crews.
That is why HMG, MOD and RN.have said from the outset that there will be one operational carrier, one in reserve.
The RN mustn’t forget that its primary task is ASW in the North Atlantic, for which it needs its escorts. They cannot be in two places at once. If they are off with the carrier in the far east, then we are bare in Eastlant.
To be fair Paul said ‘ in an emergency’ , yes you are right too in that there just isn’t enough Escorts and Support Ships to sustain Two Carriers simultaneously ATM,but if these could be provided by Allies then that could,if needed solve that problem.I would have thought that both Ships do currently have Crews but again that could be subject to change.Also the ‘honeymoon’ period of having Two relatively New Carriers available at the same time will shortly be ending anyway,with POW off on it’s travels next month and QE soon to undertake a significant Docking/Refit period it could literally be years before this situation repeats itself.
I couldn’t agree more.
I have argued that RN needs enough escorts to cover not only carrier and amphibious strike groups but to also be able to escort / protect our Sea Lines of Communication (SLOC). 65% of the UK’s GDP is derived from international trade (25% for the US) and 40% of our food is imported. We are one of the most connected global trading nations on the planet and most of it comes in by sea. We need a much much bigger navy. Even the USN with ‘just’ 90ish escorts IMO doesn’t have enough to do the job and that’s without the global responsibilities they have.
SSN’s are the best ASW asset, no doubt about it, but they are not a magic bullet and with only 7 when the last of the Astute class arrives there will be way too few to stop the Russians ‘leaking’ some of their SSN / SSGN into the North Atlantic before hostilities start. It should also be remembered that given the huge ‘efficient’ container ships/bulk carriers that are bobbing around the world’s oceans they wouldn’t have to sink many to cause us real hardship on the home front, especially in context of ‘just in time’ delivery systems. Tesco et al maintain a few days supply in their warehouses, not a resilient context to go into to hot war with.
We need the ability to stockpile millions if not billions of tons of basic food stuffs (and we sure as hell need to stop shafting our own farmers!) as well as a much much bigger navy and air force. All of which is being thrown into a harsh new light given the new reality that is emerging.
Cheers CR
Yes and it’s actually an easy calculation to make really for a permanent deployment you need a 3 to 1 mass and for a surge capability like the carrier you can manage with a 2 to 1 mass.
So for one carrier battle group with the minimum required 2 AAW destroyers, 2 ASW frigates you need 4 destroyers and 4 ASW frigates
A permanent Amphibious group needs an AAW destroyer an ASW frigate and a GP frigate needs 3 destroyers, 3 ASW frigates 3 GP frigates
Home waters ready escort and TASS of 1 frigate needs 3 ASW frigates
GP frigate presence western Indian Ocean requires 1 GP frigate for 3 GP frigates
North Atlantic tasking 1 GP frigate for 3 GP frigates
1 Red Sea AAW destroyer deployment for 3 AAW destroyers
So for:
1 Carrier battle group that is ready to surge
1 permanent amphibious group
1 ASW frigate deployments
2 GP frigate deployments
1 AA destroyer deployment
You would need
10 AAW destroyers
10 ASW frigates
9 GP frigates
Essentially spot on what the 1997 defence review said the RN needed 10 Destroyers and 20 frigates ( 50% GP 50% ASW).
Essentially the planned fleet of 6 T45 , 8 T26 and 5 T23s is totally inadequate for what is asked of the RN and it need 4 more AAW ships, 2 more ASW ships and 5 more GP ships.
Nice post Jonathan; and worth exploring some of your numbers. They do illustrate why so many folks are suggesting a second batch of , say 3 ASW Type 31. With a bit of double hatting these would go a long way to addressing the ASW and GP gaps. The AAW gap is more problematic. In the short term before T83, maybe CAMM-MR and a better radar on the later T31s could deliver a few second tier AAW ships?
Indeed I honestly think the RN will need to go for a high low mix on area AAW destroyers.
Italy has really set the bar for the size of a very cutting edge next generation AAW carrier escort, and that’s a 13,000 ton hull ( which is what’s needed for the weight and power needs of the next generation top end radar and 100 missiles. ).
But the RN cannot build 10 of those so I suspect the T83 will actually be a batch of 3-4 13,000 bleeding edge AAW ships.. as the AAW screen command node. The T45 can in reality go on well into the mid 2040s so I suspect that they will end up running the 6 T45s and small number of t83s together then after the T83s are launched start on a direct T45 replacement ( say the T46) a 7000-8000 ton medium capable AAW destroyer as an almost direct analogue and 1 for one replacement for the T45…. That is how you could by the end of 2030 have the AAW fleet up to 10 and have that new generation exquisite radars and deep missile silos.
Understood. That said, what with the US focus on China and the Pacific it looks like we will (continue) to assume NATO responsibility for Atlantic with Norway and Canada – lots Type 26 frigates – maybe we can construct a rota 🙂
I think that is probably a sensible Pacific policy for the UK.” Support Australian if china get to close. That essentially sets our linen if engagement in the pacific as south of the equator…which is well away from what china considers it area of influence and near abroad.
In reality Indonesia is the big demarcation between Australia and what china considers its core area of concern. Finally Australia and china are profoundly linked in trade..with Australia exporting 200 billion in goods to China..and china exporting 100 billion back.. they have quite a mutually supportive relationship…China will likely do everything it can to keep Australia on side or neutral if it thinks it’s possible…
You overlook one thing Paul: the F35B fleet is being acquired to fulfill TWO roles, viz:
1. Close air support for the land forces
2. Naval sir support via the carrier air group.
They are NOT all being purchased to adorn the operational aircraft carrier!
They will also be needed for RAF SEAD (suppression of enemy air defences, such as Russia’s S400), to enable the Typhoons to operate in the tac air role, to open up space for an amphibious landing, etc.
If there are going to be 36 frontline, as looks to be the case, that means 18 for the RAF and 18 for the RN. Enter Robert B at this point no doubt to say it is a joint force and they will allocated as needed etc. The bottom line is that the RAF is extremely short of fast jets and the idea that 40% of our air power is going to sail off on the back of a carrier while the main threat is likely to remain in Europe is not likely to be a viable wartime proposition.
–
Well, that’s a fair point. We wouldn’t be able to deploy both carriers with a ‘full’ F-35B complement without help from allies or buying more of them. That said, I think the war gamers will be contemplating possible 2 carrier scenarios.
Well with 24 F35bs on board plus Helicopters this is how a full air group should be 🇬🇧 However it’s the rest of the jigsaw needs to be done.But still good to see 😏
Seems ridiculous to send all our F35b aircraft to the other side of the world with what is going on in Ukraine and the Middle East. The UK displaying delusions of grandeur again.
I’ve got a nasty feeling that we must now operate on the basis that the USA is – at best – an unreliable partner. therefore their is a huge risk in the short-term with this deployment. With this world re-alignment I think the UK should be rethinking its relationships. My ideal scenario would be as follows:
1) The UK forms a “Commonwealth Defence Force, made up of UK, CAN, AUS, NZ plus any other Commonwealth country that wants to contribute.
2) It also forms a “World Defence Force” made up of the Commonwealth, Japan, Northern European/Baltic Nations who are willing.
3) It invites Ukraine to become a full member of the Commonwealth and join the CDF.
Then the CDF and or WDF can join/interact with any elements remaining of NATO, EU or the USA on a needs basis. If the joint CDF can then invest in their defence industry it can eventually become a counter to Russia, China, even the USA and the EU (particularly southern countries).
Well that’s my solution 🙂
…sorry a few typos THERE.
Hi Albert. My only reservation is your suggestion that Ukraine join the Commonwealth. There have been some new recruits in Africa notably Rwanda and Mozambique. Although never part of the British Empire both have some tenuous links with former colonies and Dominions-Rwanda adopted English as one of its languages and Mozambique, surrounded on all sides by former Brit colonies drives on the Left plus some other relic influences, but the Commonwealth should ONLY be open to membership to former members of the British Empire with English as one of their official languages. If you allow countries such as Ukraine to join, the Commonwealth ceases to have any real meaning in terms of cohesion and mutual qualities that give it its Raison d’etre. Ireland should rejoin the Commonwealth and even the USA could be a Candidate!!(when Trump goes)
To be honest, I find the whole idea of the UK trying to play a role in the Indo Pacific is, in practical terms, a non-starter. We simply do not have the aircraft or the warships to do so.
We don’t even have enough to do our minimalist role in ENATO and the North Atlantic.
The RN only has 15 escorts, of which 5 will normally be at sea, 5 alongside, 5 in maintenance, repair or refit.
We need 4 or 5 of them to do ASW in the North Atlantic and one riding shotgun for the SSBN. We need another couple for overseas patrols/guardship duties. That is them just about used up already. If we want to do carrier strike, we then need another 4 or 5. Basically, (a) we don’t have them and (b) one small carrier group is likely to get blown away by the Chinese navy in short order, unless serving as an adjunct to a powerful US fleet.
We have to be careful about trying to pose on the world stage. We do not have the ships, the aircraft, the money or the service personnel numbers anymore, that time is well past a century ago.
–
I mostly agree, which is why I suggesting a new, bigger set of relationships with reliable partners and all making serious investment in their defence industries, and certainly not doing any Starmer-Grandstanding.
I understand the issue with so-called “new” Commonwealth countries.
I’m absolutely against though, any thoughts of USA joining under any circumstances. It was they who destroyed the Commonwealth’s economic market in the first place, by getting the UK to relinquish access in exchange for WWII debt.
Hi Albert. My suggestion regarding the USA was semi-tongue in cheek. To me. the essential minimal requirements that make the Commonwealth a meaningful organisation are that members should be former constituents of the British Empire, should have English as their official language or one of them(as in e.g. South Africa) and recognise the British Monarch as titular head. Without these, we might as well just all be members of the UN
I doubt Australia will want to unhitch from US. I can see them replacing us as the new No.1 ally if the US retreats from Europe.
So our AUS cousins really would hitch themselves to the “new” USA? I have a bit more trust and respect for the Australians and their ethos and sense of fair play in the world. Also the MoD always seems to be awash with AUS uniforms, so our militaries are already very close – let alone our shared history.
Aus is not hitched to the US, it and NZ very much have a do what we like splendid isolation policy.
In the end there primary economic tie is with china and they are not going to spoil that by becoming to overtly US centric.
As an example Australia exports over 200 billion dollars worth of exports to China and only 14 billion to the US..that means China supports about 33% of Australias ecconomy.
Yes Australia gets a bit twitchy about Chinese expansionism.. but they have 5000KM and Indonesia between them and China.. Indonesia is probably Australias most important strategic partner.. 250 million people, high growth economy that is building a respectable regional navy. And most importantly Indonesia and China get on well.. so China and Indonesia are not going to war that means in reality Australia is only getting dragged into conflict with China if it felt it had no choice.
Marshall Islands?
I wonder if the carrier group will conduct some of their own diplomacy as they pass Houthi controlled territory.
“…We do not have the ships, the aircraft, the money or the service personnel numbers anymore, that time is well past a century ago…”
Misguided opinion.
We would have the money to buy the ships needed, only if the foreign companies or subsidiaries operating here, paid their tax here, not to tax havens.
…apart from UK Gov not investing in our defence industry, it has also atrophied due to the UK stock market allowing short-selling. This has caused so many valuable UK defence companies to become artificially undervalued, making them prey to hostile, overseas buyers. Solution: ban short selling, and for certain, critical key strategic defence companies, limit the amount of overseas ownership. That would solve your tax problem too.
Ditto for UK land too. like other countries we could limit the amount of foreign ownership of land and property. That would bring down prices in the UK and stop China’s acquisition of such.
👍I Agree with your proposals, to limit foreign ownership of land and the industrial sectors of the economy.
Is there any news if RFA Argus will head off with the CSG? I think she was going to use it as a means of protection to transit the Red Sea on her way back to Bahrain?
Not as interesting as the Carrier and F35 chat but does anyone know will RFA have defensive weapons fitted? The are always a weak spot. 30mm’s and Phalanx. Sending it to the opposite side of the world means it’s a long way from a quick fit out in an emergency.