The crew of HMS Prince of Wales have undertaken small arms practise.

F-35 Lightning stealth jets recently embarked on HMS Prince of Wales as the carrier prepares to join NATO allies on its biggest exercise in decades. For the first time, the 65,000-tonne ship will host UK Carrier Strike Group battlestaff as she takes a central role in Exercise Steadfast Defender.

According to a Royal Navy statement:

“The F-35 fighter jets of joint RAF and Royal Navy 617 Squadron, ‘the Dambusters’ landed on the aircraft carrier while she was sailing in the North Sea after leaving their home base of RAF Marham, in Norfolk. The jets comprise just one element of the powerful UK Carrier Strike Group which also includes 11 helicopters deployed across the group, Royal Navy escort ships and support vessels from the Royal Fleet Auxiliary including frigate HMS Portland and tanker RFA Tidesurge.

It will lead an international task force taking part in Steadfast Defender – an exercise across multiple regions and domains from land and sea to air and space. Spanning several months and thousands of kilometres, it will see tens of thousands of personnel work together to showcase NATO’s ability to deter enemies and defend allied territory.”

Captain Colin McGannity, Carrier Air Wing and Strike Warfare Commander (better known as ‘CAG’), watched the F-35s landing. He said:

“It is always an exciting moment when F-35B Lightning join the Carrier Strike Group at sea. These fifth-generation aircraft are the main strike element of the group. Once again, we will be integrating them and the rest of the Carrier Air Wing with our NATO Allies and partners. There’s plenty of work ahead of us but I have every confidence that our talented and dedicated team will succeed. It’s winter in the North Atlantic and we will face harsh weather and freezing conditions, but we are well prepared and looking forward to demonstrating our readiness to fight, whenever and wherever we get the call.”

HMS Prince of Wales, which was deployed at short notice to replace HMS Queen Elizabeth, spent much of autumn last year working with F-35 jets off the Eastern Seaboard of the United States. However, Exercise Steadfast Defender will see the ship embark more jets than they ever have before.

Commander Martin Russell, Commander Air (also known as “Wings”) of HMS Prince of Wales has been preparing for the arrival of the aircraft. He was quoted as saying:

“I’m really excited to see the F-35B jets of 617 Squadon embark in HMS Prince of Wales, the first time we have seen this squadron onboard, and the most F-35B jets we have operated at one time. My team are keen to practise what they learnt about jets during our time on Westlant 23 last year. It’s the jets that really make us an aircraft carrier and bring the flight deck to life.”

HMS Prince of Wales and her escort ships will be operating in the North Atlantic, where temperatures are expected to drop below -10C and winds to reach upwards of 40kts – providing a real test of equipment and personnel.

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

190 COMMENTS

    • 😂😂😂 What’s the weather like at the moment? Any sign of when it will reach full-rate production?

      29 Jul 2023

      “Surprisingly, the F-35, often touted as the “wonder plane” by the U.S. Air Force and Lockheed Martin, is prohibited from flying within a 25-mile radius of a thunderstorm. Over the years, we’ve been promised that this ageing aircraft is just one fix away from being ready for full-scale production.

      The rationale for this undisclosed policy became apparent in July 2021, when two F-35Bs flying from their base in Japan had to make emergency landings due to significant lightning damage, resulting in millions of dollars in repairs.

      The lightning proximity restriction is even more debilitating than the F-35’s limitations on supersonic flight. With the inability to fly within 25 miles of potential lightning activity, adversaries could exploit this weakness, using lightning storms as cover for air, ground, and sea operations.

      They would be aware that F-35s could not be patrolling overhead or scrambled to areas where lightning poses a threat. Given that the F-35 is slated to replace the F-16s, A-10s, AV-8B Harriers, F/A-18E Hornets, and F/A-18F Super Hornets, this decision calls for a thorough reassessment.”

      • Mate…. Here in Cider Land, the weather is Pants….. I’ve been playing with my Italian Bike in the Garage most of the day, getting it ready for the Spring…. Glad I’m not off Norway to be honest……. F35’s will come good…… eventually.. 😎

        • ” Here in Cider Land, the weather is Pants….. I’ve been playing with my Italian Bike in the Garage most of the day”

          Fingers crossed the maintenance crew of the F-35/F-35s onboard take note and do the same thing on the hanger deck.

          Roll on TR3/Block and the 2030s, happier days await I’m sure!

        • Hello RON5, Who woke you up 😂😂😂Still operating in STEALTH MODE I see. Fingers crossed the F-35 can do a better job of it 😂Any news on the new power plant for the F35 and associated costs 😂

          “The U.S. military sees planned engine upgrades for all the variants of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter as critical because the Pratt & Whitney F135 engines that power all of the aircraft have been “under spec since the beginning,” according to the top officer in charge of the program.”

          F-35 Engine Running Too Hot Due To ‘Under-Speccing,’ Upgrade Now Vital (Updated)
          The F-35’s engine is having to work harder to cool and power the aircraft’s systems, leading to a logistical mess.

          https://

          twz.com/f-35-engine-running-too-hot-due-to-under-speccing-upgrade-now-vital

          • how much do you get paid to post that in every thread day after day? “modern aircraft faces delays” isn’t much of a headline anymore. name me a modern aircraft that hasn’t had delays in development and upgrades? thats what happens when you push the envelope and develop technology thats never been done before. hows SU-57 development/production come along?

          • I don’t, it’s just delayed year after year at great expense.

            Would you like me to post a bit more on that?

            “America’s F-35 fighter jet program is set to beat its own record as the most expensive in the world with the cost to develop and procure the planes soaring to $438 billion. Data from the Pentagon as reported by Bloomberg indicates the cost will jump by 6.5 per cent in 2024, equivalent to $26 billion.”

          • Nigel wrote:

            “America’s F-35 fighter jet program is set to beat its own record as the most expensive in the world with the cost to develop and procure the planes soaring to $438 billion.”

            It really does help to mention to the great unwashed that the costs for the F35 program refers to 3 different aircraft:
            F35A (land based fighter)
            F35B (STOL and VTOL aircraft)
            F35C (Carrier based version)

            and that as of the 18th of Jan 2024 over 1000 F35s (of all variants) have been built , in contrast 592 Typhoon Eurofighters have been built, as have 259 Rafale fighter jets . With the F35 being 15 years younger than the other 2, with sales figures only set to increase

          • Farouk wrote: ” It really does help to mention to the great unwashed that the costs for the F35 program refers to 3 different aircraft:”
            F35A (land based fighter)
            F35B (STOL and VTOL aircraft)
            F35C (Carrier based version)

            Who in particular are you referring to on here?

            Farouk wrote: ” and that as of the 18th of Jan 2024 over 1000 F35s (of all variants) have been built , in contrast 592 Typhoon Eurofighters have been built, as have 259 Rafale fighter jets . With the F35 being 15 years younger than the other 2, with sales figures only set to increase”

            In relation to the F-35: And still stuck in its initial operational testing phase waiting for full-rate production to commence after the first F-35 delivery in 2011, no sign of block 4 being finished before 2029 and counting, requiring a new engine because it was underpowered from the very beginning with no sign of Meteor of Spear 3 being installed until the early 2030s.

            “The first operational USAF F-35 on its delivery flight to Eglin Air Force Base in July 2011. The F-35 Lightning II was conceived from the start of the project as having participation from many countries, most of which would both contribute to the manufacture of the aircraft and procure it for their own armed forces.”

          • F35 has been a brilliant commercial success for LM. They miss every deadline, exceed every budget, retain ownership of the software that runs it, thus controlling the support function, and repeat.
            In a rational world, the US, who fund most of the neverending development, would call time on the aircraft. But LM have spread the supply chain so wide that pork barrel politics keeps it going.
            The first question for a small navy like RN, is whether the money spent on the carriers plus F35 plus Crowsnest (£7b+£9b+£450m) has been the best use of limited funds. The honest answer must be no. The second question is what to do to mitigate the damage done to overall naval capability and make the most effective use of what has been delivered or contracted.
            I don’t think a major uplift in defence spending is at all likely. We need to keep re equipping the army, recover at least some of the lost numbers of combat aircraft and speed up the build of replacement surface warships. That will leave little or nothing to fund carrier related assets.
            It is time to recognize that we cannot fund 2 strike carriers. Use one in an amphibious role and as the reserve carrier. Transfer all F35s to the RN so that even in an amphibious role, a half squadron for air defence could be embarked. Warn LM that we will order no more until they are capable of carrying the planned UK weapons on delivery. Follow Germany and Spain and order additional Typhoons to rebuild RAF combat strength.
            Reconsider the retention of the Albions which no longer seem suited to the new planned role of the RMs.

          • Long statement. Had difficulty finding anything there which made any sense. We are committed to F35. We may ultimately replace it with something homegrown but that is the plan.

          • I’ve re read what I posted. I think it makes perfect sense to review how we proceed with carriers whose build cost is a sunk cost but whose future air wing isn’t and isn’t likely to get any cheaper. The decision to go slow on F35 purchases isn’t an example of MOD brilliance but a necessity forced on them by issues of both capability and affordability.
            It is now 3 years since the RN RFI on an electromagnetic system to flesh out F35 with UCAVs. This initiative was driven by the near certainty that F 35 numbers would remain too low for years, with even contracted orders delayed. It appears to have been abandoned.
            The future equipment budget does include funds to increase numbers but these are are uncommitted and firm orders remain at 48 + 1. And,clearly, there is no alternative to F35 now or even in planning.
            With big commitments to Tempest and AUKUS, spending large further sums on carrier capability is not financially possible nor militarily sensible. Current operations suggest more Typhoons with a wider range of integrated weapons should have priority over F35
            which, to date, we have barely used.

          • Peter for the carriers F35 is the only show in town. Sure it is not perfect – what is? Tempest is an unknown quantity as yet and Typhoon whilst an excelent platform is a step backwards not forwards. UAVs are absolutely essential – a new type of platform certainly but in 5-10-15 years we will wonder how we ever managed without them. F35 is in my view a stopgap. It doesn’t have to be perfect it just needs to satisfy our limited needs in the interim. Pesonally I could think of a hundred ways to improve the UK defences before I would suggest tinkering with F35 or Typhoon.

          • “F35 has been a brilliant commercial success for LM. They miss every deadline, exceed every budget, retain ownership of the software that runs it, thus controlling the support function, and repeat.

            In a rational world, the US, who fund most of the neverending development, would call time on the aircraft. But LM have spread the supply chain so wide that pork barrel politics keeps it going.”

            Spot on and known for some time as I have posted many times on here. It’s worth reading in full. Full-rate production still hasn’t been agreed upon yet, but some on here would have us order more!

            @Breaking Defence

            “The F-35 program supports more than 298,000 direct and indirect jobs in America. Those jobs include many Machinists Union jobs, from the F-35 primary production facility in Fort Worth, Tex., to the engine manufacturing facility in Middletown, Conn.

            From suppliers in West Palm Beach, Fla., to locations across California, the F-35 program supports families and the communities they live and work in throughout America.

            These jobs must be sustained, and our defense industrial base preserved. If the procurement rate falls below 86 aircraft, it will result in significant job losses and degrade our defense industrial base and the supply chain that once built America’s thriving economy.”

            https://

            breakingdefense.com/2022/12/cutting-f-35-production-would-be-a-blow-to-skilled-american-defense-industry-workers/

          • I can’t suggest it would be advisable to give away the software or indeed the rights associated with it. Also deadlines and budgets do tend suffer when you are developing cutting edge kit. F35 is a stepping stone for LM and for the west. It can and will be improved.

          • LM announced there will be no more delivery of 35s until third quarter this year. Aviation analysts doubt that date. Fort Worth is now the destination I believe for aircraft built but awaiting the upgrade. LM also announced a 400 million hit to the bottom line as a result. My prediction is beyond our current contract no UK government is going to purchase anymore. Given the poor serviceability of the 35 you will only ever see one carrier at sea with some form of an air group. I think your original statement holds water but I would go further. As they say in the states its “Time to cut bait “

      • This is pathetic. Everyone is aware of your hatred for the F-35 but now you’re quoting bulgarianmilitary dot com. A website that has been designated as one of the main outlets for Russian disinformation campaigns. Sad.

        • “A website that has been designated as one of the main outlets for Russian disinformation campaigns.”

          Really? Says who???? Please show me where it says that.

          Try this one instead.

          In-flight lightning strike grounds 2 F-35B Lightning II jetsBy Philip Athey

          On July 13, two F-35B Lightning II jets based out of Marine Corps Air Station Iwakuni, Japan, were severely damaged after being struck by lightning in flight.

          Both planes were able to land safely and no Marines were injured in the incident, according to the Marine Corps.

          “After conducting our standard reporting and assessment procedures, the weather-related incident was labelled as a class ‘A’ mishap due to the combined projected repair costs exceeding two and a half million U.S. dollars,” Capt. Marco A. Valenzuela, a spokesman for Marine Air Group 12. told Marine Corps Times in an email.

          https://

          militarytimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2021/07/23/lightning-strike-grounds-2-f-35b-lightning-ii-jets/

          • Have you taken a look at their other headline articles on their website right now. “s400 intercepting a patriot missile” or that Yemen dealth a ruinous blow to Uk ships and american mq9 reaper.

            For someone who copies and paste websites as much as you do I’m sure you came across the article at the link below that adds context to the f35 thunderstorm issue all the way back in 2022.

            https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2022/02/03/air-force-to-upgrade-f-35a-gas-tanks-to-weather-lightning-strikes/

            The bottom line is no matter how much derision you aim at the f35, it’s by far the most successful 5th gen aircraft and continues on it’s path to be the dominant aircraft in american and european fleets. (11 european countries and counting)

            https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/analysis-lightning-strikes-f-35-continues-to-storm-europe

          • Yes, they did.

            US MQ-9 Drone Shot Down by Houthis
            Update February 21, 2024 7:46 AM

            Pentagon — The Pentagon has confirmed that Iran-backed Houthi militants in Yemen shot down a MQ-9 Reaper drone on Monday.

            “A U.S. MQ-9 was downed or went down off the coast of Houthi-controlled areas in Yemen, in the Red Sea. Initial indications are that it was shot down by a Houthi surface-to-air missile,” Deputy Pentagon Press Secretary Sabrina Singh told reporters in response to a question by VOA.

            Earlier, a U.S. official requesting anonymity to discuss national security issues had confirmed to VOA the U.S. drone was shot down near Hudaydah in eastern Yemen. It is still unclear whether the drone was armed at the time of the downing.

            Video circulating on social media allegedly shows parts of a busted drone on a beach.

            This marks the second downing of an MQ-9 by the Houthis. The first was in November in international airspace.

            Flight restrictions. do you happen to have a more recent update on this with a link please.

            November 21, 2022 at 1:38 PM

            “Although flight restrictions remain in place — and fighter pilots avoid training in thunderstorms regardless of what aircraft they are operating — there have been cases where F-35 pilots have found themselves flying in inclement weather and were struck by lightning.

            As of late January 2022, F-35 units across Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy had reported 15 lightning strikes that have caused damage to F-35s operating in midair

            “Lightning restrictions will be lifted when all safety concerns are resolved or acceptably mitigated.”

            “Due to additional findings earlier this year, this upgrade will provide an improvement, but is insufficient to lift the lightning restriction,” Olay told Breaking Defense.
            “Lightning restrictions will be lifted when all safety concerns are resolved or acceptably mitigated.”

            The JPO declined to comment on what caused the program office to keep flight restrictions in place, with Olay stating that “due to operational security reasons the JPO will not comment on the specific findings.”

            It’s also unclear if the program office has a plan to further improve OBIGGS or a timeline for when lightning restrictions will ultimately be lifted.

            “The JPO continues to take steps to address all lightning restriction concerns through all available means. Lightning restrictions will be lifted when all safety concerns are resolved or acceptably mitigated,” Olay said, without elaboration, in response to those questions.”

            https://

            breakingdefense.com/2022/11/pentagon-wont-lift-f-35a-lightning-restrictions-after-hardware-and-software-fix/

            F-35 Delivery Schedule

            And don’t forget, the F-35 production line is scheduled to close in 2035.

            If the new engines and Block 4 are completed in 2029 (I wouldn’t hold my breath), 1. when can we expect to see them installed on our F-35Bs, and 2. when will Meteor and Spear 3 reach FOC? There will be a very long queue waiting for theirs to be added too.

            With a backlog of aircraft already waiting to be delivered, and a statement from the Minister for Defence stating that we will not place any further orders until we can finally install Meteor and Spear 3 how can we expect to see any further deliveries before the line closes?

            WASHINGTON — Lockheed Martin’s production of the latest upgraded F-35 Joint Strike Fighters is slipping further behind schedule, and deliveries likely will not resume until the third quarter of 2024, the company said

            Tuesday.23 Jan 2024
            International F-35 Customers, Your Airplanes Will Be Delayed
            “According to the GAO, the program had seven test fleet aircraft, with four devoted to TR-3 testing and three able to test Block 4 capabilities as of last Spring. Plans called for incorporating additional test aircraft for a total of 14 flight test aircraft for testing Block 4 capabilities.

            According to Schmidt’s testimony last week, the program has the funding and other resources necessary to convert a further three production F-35s into the test jets. But he added that six more aeroplanes will be needed to perform all the required testing. Congressional authorization is required to make this happen.

            Without the additional test assets and with slips in the delivery schedule for Block 4/TR-3 capabilities, Lockheed Martin’s aircraft delivery schedule appears to be impacted. While that has implications for the U.S. military, it remains logically at the head of the line. Lockheed’s latest foreign customers may not be.

            Poland, Switzerland, the Czech Republic, Canada, Germany and Finland have bought F-35s scheduled for delivery between 2025 and the early 2030s.

            In 2022, Lockheed set a long-term objective to produce 156 F-35s a year. It delivered 141 aeroplanes in 2022 and will deliver 97 in 2023.

            But if, as it says, Lockheed is on target to produce 156 aeroplanes this year, then there will potentially be 59 F-35s with partial Block 4 and TR-3 upgrades sitting idly on the flight line at Lockheed’s Fort Worth facility or elsewhere as of January 1, 2024, awaiting software and hardware before they can be turned over to customers.

            In a 2023 delivery target and production rate statement (released Sept. 6, 2023) Lockheed Martin said, “We are producing F-35s at a rate of 156 per year and expect to continue at that pace while simultaneously working to finalize TR-3 software development and testing.

            Additionally, we remain focused on receiving the necessary hardware from our suppliers to deliver this critical combat capability for the F-35.”

            The company forwarded the same statement to me yesterday afternoon. Lockheed added that it has updated its F-35 TR-3 schedule projections “with a first TR-3 aircraft delivery between April and June 2024.”

            Given another annual 156-unit production run in 2024, that could mean that by June Lockheed will have assembled another 78 or so F-35s, bringing the total undelivered tranche of Lightning IIs to as many as 137.

            The delivery delays will almost certainly affect Lockheed’s latest European customers and possibly others. That reality was already manifest last August when Belgium joined the U.S. in refusing to accept F-35s while it awaited completion of the TR-3 updates.

            “It really depends on how flexible other customers can be with their delivery schedule,” he opined. “But given the geopolitics and requirements behind all the orders, very few are going to be flexible, and Lockheed is unlikely to get much beyond 156 in 2027.”

            How much of a delay particular customers may face is unknown, probably by Lockheed itself, but the company did not argue the point that F-35s will not be delivered on time in some cases.

            I specifically asked Lockheed F-35 program representatives what it is telling its international customers with fast-approaching delivery dates (Canada, Czech Republic, Switzerland, etc.) about their production allotments and delivery schedules.

            In a separate emailed response, a Lockheed spokesperson relayed its statement that, “Impacts will be informed based on the remaining TR-3 test schedule, and customers impacted in 2024 are aware of the delivery delays.”

            While Lockheed did not specifically say so, it’s reasonable to assume that customers with delivery dates in 2025 through 2030 and possibly beyond may need to be aware of delivery delays, TR-3 and Block 4 upgrade completion notwithstanding.

            If you’re a future F-35 operator sitting in Helsinki, Bern or Berlin, you’ll likely have to plan for that.”

            https://

            forbes.com/sites/erictegler/2023/12/19/international-f-35-customers-your-airplanes-will-be-delayed/

          • I do not want to imagine discussing football with you. Anyway I guess you should drop this subject, and adjust yourself the reasons no military agrees with you

          • It’s called panic buying Dorkis, and most European nations are purchasing them in small numbers and only after the completion of block 4 which will also require the upgraded engines.

            I suggest you read this article in full via the attached link to get the picture of where the F-35 is and what it has to offer us before the 2030s.

            I live in the real world, not fantasy fleet land wasting time and money on what is a failed project unable to deliver what it said it could when we signed up to the deal.

            Also, we will nor be accepting any addional aircraft over and above the original 48 until Block 4 is finished.

            “The Federal Office for Defence Procurement (Armasuisse) wrote that the contract for the jets between Switzerland the US government “does not include any contractual penalties”.

            Therefore, while the Swiss state-owned defence contracting firm Ruag had to pay CHF726,000 for the delayed delivery of the Cobra mortar, Lockheed Martin, the F-35A’s manufacturer, does not risk the same.

            The threat is impending because Lockheed Martin seems to be struggling with delivery problems in the first few countries, including Poland. However, Lockheed Martin promised to meet the Swiss delivery dates.

            “We expect the first Swiss jet to be ready for pilot training in the US in 2027,” it said in a statement. The first aircraft will be produced in Italy and they are expected to arrive in Switzerland in 2028.

            However, the US Department of Defense hasn’t officially awarded the contract to Lockheed Martin: until it does so, production cannot start.” 

            International F-35 Customers, Your Airplanes Will Be Delayed
            “Testimony from the USAF general leading the F-35 program indicates that software issues could halt production, delaying international F-35 deliveries. Lockheed agrees.

            Lieutenant General Michael Schmidt, Program Executive Officer and director for the F-35 Lightning II Program, provided written testimony to the House Armed Services subcommittee last week in which he affirmed that developmental and concurrency-related delays to major F-35 upgrades could force Lockheed Martin to pause F-35 production.

            According to Schmidt, the development and concurrency issues relate to two major upgrades the F-35 is slated to receive.

            A planned Block 4 software upgrade will broaden the menu of optional long-range precision weapons that the Joint Strike Fighter can carry, enhance its target identification prowess and most importantly, elevate its already powerful electronic warfare capability. But according to a recently released Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, the upgrade, which was supposed to be complete in Fiscal 2026, is now not expected to be completed until 2029.

            A simultaneous Technology Refresh 3 (TR-3) is updating F-35 hardware and software, bringing with it improved cockpit displays, more computer memory and more processing power. TR-3 underpins Block 4 which rests upon its improved memory and processing infrastructure. It was originally slated to be ready in April 2023 but maybe over a year late.

            “Development and production concurrency is Block 4′s most critical challenge, and we are dealing with its consequences today,” Schmidt said in his testimony. “The F-35 [Joint Program Office], Lockheed Martin, and other industry partners have identified high-risk concurrency in the F-35 Block 4 schedule, which would threaten to shut down aircraft production if development slips.”

            Defense News reported that at last week’s in-person hearing, Lt.Gen. Schmidt observed that slow production of some major elements for TR-3 has delayed the final assembly of some new jets at Lockheed Martin’s production facility in Fort Worth, Texas.

            Poland, Switzerland, the Czech Republic, Canada, Germany and Finland have bought F-35s scheduled for delivery between 2025 and the early 2030s. In 2022, Lockheed set a long-term objective to produce 156 F-35s a year. It delivered 141 airplanes in 2022 and will deliver 97 in 2023.

            But if, as it says, Lockheed is on target to produce 156 airplanes this year, then there will potentially be 59 F-35s with partial Block 4 and TR-3 upgrades sitting idly on the flight line at Lockheed’s Fort Worth facility or elsewhere as of January 1, 2024, awaiting software and hardware before they can be turned over to customers.

            In a 2023 delivery target and production rate statement (released Sept. 6, 2023) Lockheed Martin said, “We are producing F-35s at a rate of 156 per year and expect to continue at that pace while simultaneously working to finalize TR-3 software development and testing. Additionally, we remain focused on receiving the necessary hardware from our suppliers to deliver this critical combat capability for the F-35.”

            The company forwarded the same statement to me yesterday afternoon. Lockheed added that it has updated its F-35 TR-3 schedule projections “with a first TR-3 aircraft delivery between April and June 2024.”

            Given another annual 156-unit production run in 2024, that could mean that by June Lockheed will have assembled another 78 or so F-35s, bringing the total undelivered tranche of Lightning IIs to as many as 137.

            The delivery delays will almost certainly affect Lockheed’s latest European customers and possibly others. That reality was already manifest last August when Belgium joined the U.S. in refusing to accept F-35s while it awaited completion of the TR-3 updates.”

            https://

            forbes.com/sites/erictegler/2023/12/19/international-f-35-customers-your-airplanes-will-be-delayed/

          • Nigel shows his true colours when discussing F35. He doesn’t discuss at all.Just shouts at people. Greece will soon become the 19th F35 customer. Tats that are lost on Nigel.

          • Not wrong though am I. If you think his comments are acceptable. Then that is a very bad reflection on the site.

          • Robert, I’ve asked you both to stop interacting either directly or indirectly. Please respect that, I have a baby to look after and don’t have the time to step in here

          • I think we should have our next Destroyers named the Type 57’s. Weren’t destroyers called tin cans? Or was that American speak?
            No I’m not on the Heinz payroll but maybe they will make me an offer!😄
            They really did repair a Harrier in the Falklands with part of a tin can.

      • “Given that the F-35 is slated to replace the F-16s, A-10s, AV-8B Harriers, F/A-18E Hornets, and F/A-18F Super Hornets, this decision calls for a thorough reassessment.”

        Not entirely true!
        F/A-18E/F Super-Hornets to be eventually replaced by the F/A-XX in mid 2030’s. Only FA-18C/D legacy Hornets are being replaced by F-35C’s.
        F-16’s are still in production, and be still into the 2030s!
        Not many ANG units have replaced their F-16s, still 900 so in operation in U.S.

        Do ANG units really need to replace all their F-16’s with F-35As?

        • Eventually, yes, but as you may recall they were scheduled to be replaced by the F-35. What changed?

          The F-35 will be used by the Department of Defense (DOD), as well as seven international partners, to perform a wide range of missions.

          1 DOD aims to procure 2,470 F-35s to replace several other aircraft used by the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps. To date, the program has delivered over 900 aircraft to the U.S. services, international partners, and foreign military sales
          customers.

          The program completed development of the F-35’s original baseline capabilities in 2018 and is nearing the end of operational testing to evaluate whether the aircraft is operationally effective, suitable, and survivable. The program, however, is also more than a decade delayed and $183 billion over its original plans.

          https://

          armedservices.house.gov/sites/republicans.armedservices.house.gov/files/GAO%20Testimony.pdf

        • To be brutally honest in a benign environment a F35 is overkill. A F15/16 is perfectly capable to succeed in its mission most of the time. The problem comes when it faces a peer aircraft or a multi-layered air defence system. Which is why the F35 is crucial.

          So in reality being able to balance the mission needs vs mission success. Is where you analyse the mix of “4th and 5th” gen aircraft. The cost to purchase and support the 5th gen aircraft must be a huge driver. Not forgetting keeping your 4th gen aircraft up to date, so its avionics etc don’t suffer from obsolescence issues.

          In some respects Countries such as Norway, Denmark and Holland may have been better off upgrading and keeping their F16. But supplementing them with F35s. Thereby allowing the F16 to do benign support missions.

          The latest F15EX is a drive in this direction. Being an updated F15 avionics wise with digital flight controls, built on a F15E base design. With a number of ANG units looking at purchasing the EX version to replace their older C/D versions.

          The USAF would clearly love to rationalize their fighter platforms to two specific types i.e. the F35A and NGAD. However, when NGAD has been estimated at a unit cost of $200M each, and with possibly only 200 being purchased. Even the USAF will have to supplement NGAD with supporting aircraft including the loyal wingman platforms. Which is why the 4th gen aircraft will still need to be used.

      • Frank how do you define “full-scale production” ? LM are about to deliver their 1000 Airframe. Which is more than any European airframe in the last 30 years.
        Or are they all still in pre production ?

        • I think full production is defined when they meet the requirements set out. The testing and development was decided to be done along side the earlier production. Or it’s when it’s at full production speed and capability was specified. Can’t remember really.
          The problem of adding capabilities into program has been a problem and causes delays. Block 4 was meant to deliver 66 capabilities. It’s now at over 80 and keeps getting bigger.

          • MS Thanks for confirming my thoughts, production has been at nearly full capacity, (which is @130 pa), but full capability isn’t reached till Block 4 is finished. And then 🤞🏻the existing ones can be upgraded and re engined at £££££ cost.

            I think it is fair to say I am more than slightly fed up with relentless torrent of negativity about the F35 from a certain person. The fact is we and most of the West have committed to buying them and there is no viable alternative.

            But I’d be a lier if I said I wasn’t very nervous about LM delivery of Block 4. Its the US version of the Ajax project but on a vast scale, I’m a retired engineer and how the hell USDoD and LM ignored Moore’s law and didn’t design in a large margin for future power growth is inexcusable.

            But we are where we are and unless we were to take a decision to convert to CATOBAR then all our Eggs are in one expensive basket.
            The other thing that concerns me is the idea of the F35 staying in service for the QE class entire service life. No one seems to be asking what’s next for VSTOL after the F35B ?

            One bunch of people I’d love to speak to are the Israelis, they are the “Golden” customer in terms of adding their own weapons and EW software. So how are they getting on and could they offer an alternative upgrade path to LM ?

            In the meantime I actually understand why MOD aren’t ordering anymore at the Moment. But with the Typhoon Tranche 1 going OOS in 2025 I think we need to order another batch of 36/48 Typhoons. That increases capacity, capability and more importantly maintains the numbers of Fast Jet Pilots.

          • I’m sure they did design in a good margin for power growth 20 years ago. They just didn’t expect it would have to last for 25 years before upgrade. And you know how it goes over time, as requirements expand to fill the supply available. I expect there were idiots who told the programme office Agile means they can continously change their mind about requirements. So they did.

          • Totally agree. Despite a recent statement from a defence minister that our plan to buy 138 remains , I just don’t believe it. Tempest is 12 + years away from IOC even if development runs smoothly. Typhoons are being hard used. So, following Spain and Germany and buying additional Typhoons must be the best/ only way to restore some of the air power we have lost over the last 15 years.

          • A relentless torrent of reality helps to keep people up to date with the facts.

            And don’t forget, the F-35 production line is scheduled to close in 2035.

            If the new engines and Block 4 are completed in 2029 (I wouldn’t hold my breath), 1. when can we expect to see them installed on our F-35Bs, and 2. when will Meteor and Spear 3 reach FOC? There will be a very long queue waiting for theirs to be added too.

            With a backlog of aircraft already waiting to be delivered, and a statement from the Minister for Defence stating that we will not place any further orders until we can finally install Meteor and Spear 3 how can we expect to see any further deliveries before the line closes?

            WASHINGTON — Lockheed Martin’s production of the latest upgraded F-35 Joint Strike Fighters is slipping further behind schedule, and deliveries likely will not resume until the third quarter of 2024, the company said Tuesday.23 Jan 2024

            International F-35 Customers, Your Airplanes Will Be Delayed
            “According to the GAO, the program had seven test fleet aircraft, with four devoted to TR-3 testing and three able to test Block 4 capabilities as of last Spring. Plans called for incorporating additional test aircraft for a total of 14 flight test aircraft for testing Block 4 capabilities.

            According to Schmidt’s testimony last week, the program has the funding and other resources necessary to convert a further three production F-35s into the test jets. But he added that six more aeroplanes will be needed to perform all the required testing. Congressional authorization is required to make this happen.

            Without the additional test assets and with slips in the delivery schedule for Block 4/TR-3 capabilities, Lockheed Martin’s aircraft delivery schedule appears to be impacted. While that has implications for the U.S. military, it remains logically at the head of the line. Lockheed’s latest foreign customers may not be.

            Poland, Switzerland, the Czech Republic, Canada, Germany and Finland have bought F-35s scheduled for delivery between 2025 and the early 2030s. In 2022, Lockheed set a long-term objective to produce 156 F-35s a year. It delivered 141 aeroplanes in 2022 and will deliver 97 in 2023.

            But if, as it says, Lockheed is on target to produce 156 aeroplanes this year, then there will potentially be 59 F-35s with partial Block 4 and TR-3 upgrades sitting idly on the flight line at Lockheed’s Fort Worth facility or elsewhere as of January 1, 2024, awaiting software and hardware before they can be turned over to customers.

            In a 2023 delivery target and production rate statement (released Sept. 6, 2023) Lockheed Martin said, “We are producing F-35s at a rate of 156 per year and expect to continue at that pace while simultaneously working to finalize TR-3 software development and testing.

            Additionally, we remain focused on receiving the necessary hardware from our suppliers to deliver this critical combat capability for the F-35.”

            The company forwarded the same statement to me yesterday afternoon. Lockheed added that it has updated its F-35 TR-3 schedule projections “with a first TR-3 aircraft delivery between April and June 2024.”

            Given another annual 156-unit production run in 2024, that could mean that by June Lockheed will have assembled another 78 or so F-35s, bringing the total undelivered tranche of Lightning IIs to as many as 137.

            The delivery delays will almost certainly affect Lockheed’s latest European customers and possibly others. That reality was already manifest last August when Belgium joined the U.S. in refusing to accept F-35s while it awaited completion of the TR-3 updates.

            “It really depends on how flexible other customers can be with their delivery schedule,” he opined. “But given the geopolitics and requirements behind all the orders, very few are going to be flexible, and Lockheed is unlikely to get much beyond 156 in 2027.”

            How much of a delay particular customers may face is unknown, probably by Lockheed itself, but the company did not argue the point that F-35s will not be delivered on time in some cases.

            I specifically asked Lockheed F-35 program representatives what it is telling its international customers with fast-approaching delivery dates (Canada, Czech Republic, Switzerland, etc.) about their production allotments and delivery schedules.

            In a separate emailed response, a Lockheed spokesperson relayed its statement that, “Impacts will be informed based on the remaining TR-3 test schedule, and customers impacted in 2024 are aware of the delivery delays.”

            While Lockheed did not specifically say so, it’s reasonable to assume that customers with delivery dates in 2025 through 2030 and possibly beyond may need to be aware of delivery delays, TR-3 and Block 4 upgrade completion notwithstanding.

            If you’re a future F-35 operator sitting in Helsinki, Bern or Berlin, you’ll likely have to plan for that.”

            https://

            forbes.com/sites/erictegler/2023/12/19/international-f-35-customers-your-airplanes-will-be-delayed/

        • December 12, 2023
          F-35 JOINT STRIKE
          FIGHTER
          More Actions Needed to
          Explain Cost Growth and
          Support Engine
          Modernization Decision
          Statement of Jon Ludwigson, Director, Contracting and
          National Security Acquisitions

          “Joint Strike Fighter. The F-35 program is a family of fifth-generation strike fighter aircraft that integrates low-observable (stealth) technology with advanced sensors and computer networking capabilities.

          The F-35 will be used by the Department of Defense (DOD), as well as seven international partners, to perform a wide range of missions.1 DOD aims to procure 2,470 F-35s to replace several other aircraft used by the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps. To date, the program has delivered over 900 aircraft to
          the U.S. services, international partners, and foreign military sales
          customers.

          The program completed development of the F-35’s original baseline capabilities in 2018 and is nearing the end of operational testing to evaluate whether the aircraft is operationally effective, suitable, and survivable. The program, however, is also more than a decade delayed and $183 billion over its original plans.

          https://

          armedservices.house.gov/sites/republicans.armedservices.house.gov/files/GAO%20Testimony.pdf

      • Just to clarify the Lightning II has been cleared for all weather flying (including Lightning) by both US and UK certification bodies. Fact not fiction.
        Having previously been involved directly or indirectly and knowing the teams at PAX river and QinetiQ would make this very clear to all if it could not.
        I remember when Eurofighter had not been cleared for Lightning and was at the Farnborough air show and the team (Qinetiq) were watching carefully to ensure it went nowhere near the clouds 🙂

          • Again @Malcolm Rich, I would be greatful if you can provide me with a link and time these restrictions were lifted.

            November 21, 2022 at 1:38 PM

            “Although flight restrictions remain in place — and fighter pilots avoid training in thunderstorms regardless of what aircraft they are operating — there have been cases where F-35 pilots have found themselves flying in inclement weather and were struck by lightning.

            As of late January 2022, F-35 units across Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy had reported 15 lightning strikes that have caused damage to F-35s operating in midair

            “Lightning restrictions will be lifted when all safety concerns are resolved or acceptably mitigated.”
            “Due to additional findings earlier this year, this upgrade will provide an improvement, but is insufficient to lift the lightning restriction,” Olay told Breaking Defense. “Lightning restrictions will be lifted when all safety concerns are resolved or acceptably mitigated.”

            The JPO declined to comment on what caused the program office to keep flight restrictions in place, with Olay stating that “due to operational security reasons the JPO will not comment on the specific findings.”

            It’s also unclear if the program office has a plan to further improve OBIGGS or a timeline for when lightning restrictions will ultimately be lifted.

            “The JPO continues to take steps to address all lightning restriction concerns through all available means. Lightning restrictions will be lifted when all safety concerns are resolved or acceptably mitigated,” Olay said, without elaboration, in response to those questions.”

            https://

            breakingdefense.com/2022/11/pentagon-wont-lift-f-35a-lightning-restrictions-after-hardware-and-software-fix/

          • Not something I am allowed to supply, you may be talking about a recent restriction due new equipment on recent aircraft deliveries. This does not affect UK aircraft delivered and in service. All aircraft get lightning tested from sub-components up with a full aircraft test, if a recent modification has to still meet all these requirements then that affects these modified aircraft. If the modifications have not been retrospectively applied to ours then not applicable.

          • Open source suggests F-35 was banned from flying in lightning in early 2010s, unbanned in 2014, then the F-35A only was rebanned in 2020. The redesigned F-35As protection system (OBIGGs) that allowed the unbanning in 2014 was found to have further flaws leading to the 2020 ban. F-35B has a different version and the issues don’t seem to arise.

            I haven’t found any reports on permission for F-35A being restored and mention of it as late as the middle of last year, when LM revealed it was an issue that arose in the field rather than during installation.

            So just going off open source reporting suggests you are both right.

    • I think you can qualify for that remark when you correctly identify weapon systems and count correctly.

      Photos showed GPMG and video had 3 F35s. And it’s not like we’re being shown everything going on so you can only make deductions so far from open source.

      • I am pleased to be wrong about the number of aircraft embarked. I am also very impressed with PoW being at sea at such short notice. I stand by my comment that the ship itself is lightly armed.

      • Any chance you can share the link please, I’m dammed if i can find anything…. I did see a pic with 4 or 5 on deck though.

        • Post a link on this site!? Instead search

          Youtube Navy Lookout HMS Prince of Wales embarks multiple jets for the first time
          It’s in the video caption: 8 F-35 jets embarked on #hmsprinceofwales in the North Sea ahead of exercise Steadfast Defender 2024 in the High North

        • Now I understand why we have a full complement (8) of F-35Bs onboard.

          15 Feb 2024

          “Following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Allies have further strengthened NATO’s deterrence and defence, creating the most comprehensive defence plans since the end of the Cold War. Steadfast Defender 24 is the first large-scale NATO exercise to put these new defence plans into action.

          https://

          youtube.com/watch?v=–ihjSPi7mc

    • She was rushed out of port just 5 years after commissioning so there was no time to fit any 30mm or Phalanx …. there are more F35’s on her but no figures have been confirmed anywhere I’ve looked….. I think it’s just short of the Full load of 36……… 🙄

      • They could add a couple of 40mm, rear port and forward starboard, complement the Phalanx’s. Plus some Sea Ancilla type launchers that could take decoys, LMM, Starstreak. Might help. Might not, no idea. Hope something more substantial is in the planning.

        • The question is what the sponsons can take dynamically. When you fire a gun it isn’t just the weight of the gun and it isn’t a lot of good if the thing flexes due to the explosive forces and recoil? Although the effects can be calculated out there comes a point where the sponson will start to permanently deform.

          If they can take 40mm then that is all well and good. As I said below the issue with short range missiles is are they actually any better than 40mm range wise or in any other way?

          It is a lot easier and cheaper to make a pile of 40mm clips that it is to make a pile of missiles. You can have a 40mm line that runs one shift during peace time and can then run 3 shifts when tension is high.

          The problem with making more missiles is that long supply chain of bits and the lag time of cranking up the first stages to get to a fully manufactured item even assuming that the whole supply chain can run a 3-5x the peace time levels. That is a lot of cost to have sitting around not doing much in a lot of different factories all over the place.

          The question alway: what is the threat you are defending against and why?

          There could well be a reason to put a PODs Sea Ceptor system onboard when a QEC is in transit without a T23/T45/T31/T26 escorting. But I don’t see the purpose of it in a CSG context as there are so many specialist ships involved in that function.

          Bit OT It is a bit like saying why does QEC not have a sub hunting sonar? Because Invincibles has ASW sonars……that would be because Invicibles were primarily ASW platforms that were meant to sit in the Atlantic and have Sea Dart and Harrier for defence. Totally different concepts. Unless a QEC sat still, which you don’t really want a carrier to do, the sonar would be useless anyway.

          • In WW2 we fitten twin 4.5in mounts to the edges of our carrier flight deck (Some had flat roofs level with the deck, look them up it’s funny). Those must have had some serious magazines going on plus armour. A 3 tonne 40mm +ammo hardly compares.

          • I know but that AA was designed in from the start….

            I suspect that 40mm would be absolutely fine.

          • But that’s anti helicopter or anti drone with reasonable time to react and slow-moving targets. As a result, ammo size was prioritised with the funky rotating mechanism that needs time to spin up when firing.
            Bofors 40mm is meant at least in theory to deal with anti ship missiles using 3P or standard proximity fused, so it has a conventional mechanism.

          • That reply is actually referring to the CTA40 thread down below, I got mixed up with a reply there and didn’t check what the thing I was replying to referred to. Anyway, back to task.
            I doubt 57mm would be all that useful, at that range you’re shooting past the escorts and you don’t have the fire rate for CIWS. The best thing would be to have 4 40s, one at each corner, with a small mag each.

          • As I said upthread all of this is really for when a QEC is sailing solo or with a
            Tide.

            Or if it is sailing with a singleton escort that develops a fault.

          • Both carriers should have their four gun sponsons beefed up, so that they can carry the Mk110 57mm weapon system. As the 57 is a more flexible and effective weapon system.

            Perhaps more importantly is that the 57 can fire smart guided ammunition, whereas the 40 can’t. Using guided rounds the fire rate does not need to be as high, as you are using less rounds to intercept the target. Plus the 57 guided round gets to the intercept point much faster than the 40 mm round. As the rounds have a higher muzzle velocity and in the case of ORKA/MAD-FIRES, the guided section is a sabot dart. When firing guided rounds, the 57’s barrel does not necessarily need to line up with the intercept point, as the guided round can cut the corner. Therefore, the 57 should be able to engage multiple targets more quickly.

            If I had a blank cheque book, I would have all our escort ships (T23, T26, T32, T45 and T83) fitted with at least a single Mk110. Not as a replacement for the 4.5″/5″, but as a supplement. Where they would be installed on top of the hangar, to not only cover the rear blind spot, but also have a decent field of fire to port and starboard.

          • Good point re the 57, I had forgotten about the potential for guided rounds. ORKA especially seems to be a very useful kit (it isn’t a sabot, more like a stretched 3P shell taking up room in the cartridge for a guidance system and fins).
            MAD-FIRES seems to be the thing for missile defence but needs to be held separate from a joint/US project or each round will end up costing more than CAMM.
            T83 and future ships should use the 57 like the Italians use the 76 Sovraponte, as a secondary close in gun (not true CIWS) for missile defence and far out small boat. Say 1 on each side for T83.

          • Just checked ORKA, oops my bad, definitely not a sabot round. Though it should still have a higher muzzle velocity that the 40mm shell, due to the larger propellant volume. Again it will have an advantage over a standard 3P shell. As it uses semi-active laser homing to guide it towards the target.

            In a lot of respects MAD-FIRES is a step above ORKA. For starters it uses semi-active radar homing for its guidance. Which gives it a better all weather capability. It is a true sabot, where the smaller guided dart gets a better boost from standard size propellant charge. However, the big difference is that MAD-FIRES is also rocket assisted. The rocket is fitted inside the tail of MAD-FIRES. It gives it a significant acceleration boost, that significantly increases the rounds effective range. But as importantly it also reduces the time to target. Which makes it more of a gun launched missile than a rocket assisted shell.

            I am hoping that as the USN and US Coastguard are backing the development of MAD-FIRES. Where they both have a large demand for the shell, it will keep the cost per unit down. If the price starts to rise and gets close to the price of a RIM-116, then its pointless to continue. But at around $1M per missile. I am hoping MAD-FIRES comes in significantly less. Wait and see I guess?

          • We need to have 8 57 turrets, 2 on each corner, like in WW2! They will have no armament at all until then! And some A30s for good measure!
            Or, in the real world, we just put 4 40s on, which weigh less than Phalanx in a pedestal mount and leave it there.

          • And still take up less space and weight than Phalanx + 30mm!
            Given that we’ve bought them for T31 (the mounts are probably in a warehouse somewhere) it’s really a no-brainer to make use of this new calibre (which is presumably what the MOD are projecting to use in future) with more economies of scale.
            It probably won’t happen until firing trials with T31 though.

          • I might agree with you if we weren’t the only carrier operating country without any form of point defence missile systems whatsoever.

            Every other country seems to think they are still needed even with escorts – do we know something they don’t? I think not.

            The QE’s have no point defence missile systems due to a lack of money – period. All this spouting off about they will always have escorts, etc., is just a bunch of cobblers.

          • Yes, the 40mm mounts may well be too heavy in operation for where the 30mm spots are but they should be able to be strengthened. The forward port 30mm is in a very limited arc spot, looks kind of useless. The port Phalanx could be put on the forward port corner or they could extend a flange alongside the forward port area. But I guess if catapults are going to be put on the deck any weapon systems needs to be well away from these areas. Wonder if there’s any possibility of the UK putting its LMM /Star Streak on the sides (2*3?) or, hanging internally (10?), like the RAM, on the Phalanx’s? Lightweight missiles, might work well? Theres also been images of DEWs. It will be interesting to see the evolution of the Phalanx’s.

          • Pinch the forward 40mm off T31s, there’s five… Lol 😁 or, get building some more. T31 can have two forward MK41s, two back, 8 NSM and maybe squeeze in a 24 CAMM farm.

          • And how does that help now ? We have CIWS somewhere and I realise that given the fast swap over and out to sea they couldn’t shift them over from QE. But if they send POW to the Red Sea then they need to do so.

          • With JIT manufacturing I doubt they even actually exist yet and given the way MOD works they certainly won’t have bought any Ammunition beforehand.
            But somewhere or other we do actually have the CIWS and 30mm that they are designed to carry.
            QE will be going into Rosyth soon (I’d bet 11-14 March due to tides). I suspect she may be there a while as she is due a refit later this year. So she doesn’t need them !

            Personally if there was one thing I’d add to the QE class it would be 2 block sponsons each with 16 VLS for CAMM or even Aster missiles (just like France and Italy).

  1. Looks like a nice day for target practice. It’s just a shame that’s probably it !
    No CIWS, no DS30, no SHORAD whatsoever !
    I don’t know if they still have Miniguns or any M2 onboard but if not then it’s down to GPMG, SA80 and some 9mm handguns.

    So we have a £3 billion, 65,000 ton Carrier with the Firepower of an Infantry Section or less 😫
    Anyone know if an infantry section has Manpads these days ?

    • I’d be quite happy if they just put 4 x 40mm on her. The 40mm can do the combined job of 30mm (but much better) and Phalanx.

      The minguns are supposed to be out of service – it was announced.

      The do have GPMG and there have been articles on 50cal being gyro stabilised for close in swarm defence.

      The problem is that none of the lightweight missiles has a significantly greater engagement range than a 40mm and obviously costs singifcantly more than a 40mm clip.

      • But where do you get the 40mm guns from, they haven’t been in service for decades ? I know the T31 will have some but not yet.
        What I’d like to know is where are her CIWS and 30mm ?

        • The 40mm for T31 will be in a warehouse somewhere. Bofors 40mm are not that hard to find as they are in serial production.

          The 30mm are also in a warehouse somewhere.

          That is just penny pinching.

          The Phalanx thing is ridiculous as there are plenty in a warehouse.

          • Yep I know we have the 30mm and Phalanx somewhere, I seem to think they get maintained by Babcock at Devonport. And I actually like the 40mm Bofors for the future, but we don’t have them now.

            I wish I knew if they are still fitted on QE ?

  2. The whole aircraft carrier with no aircraft is an obvious myth. But it is difficult to not see that the whole, carrier, air wing and carrier group is in a poor state at the moment and it is an equally poor service to pretend otherwise. Quite frankly it’s a national embarrassment.

    • Think its more of a case the Navy doing there best really , Lack of aircraft and armament on the vessel is really down to lack of government Will and Investment and bad planing .In all three of the services ,it’s the government who should be embarrassed making our forces look under cut .🇬🇧

      • Oh the services and their personal always do their best and are a national treasure. Just look at how quickly pow crew got the ship turned around. Blame lay entirely with the government who continue to pretend we’re a major power, without being willing to fund what is needed to make that reality.

        • The forces just do has they told and to call them a national treasure and treat them as there do like bad housing under cutting etc is all wrong by the government .Yes to pretend were a world power is a joke ,I think we just try and keep our hand in with the Yanks and with out been funded properly it’s never going to be easy or work has it should .The Stain is on the men and women of the forces and like I’ve said there do the best they can.It’s the government who are the clowns.Have you ever served ?

          • Indeed. No other body off people would be allowed to live in the state that service personnel and their family are allowed. Its outrageous.

          • It was ever thus

            For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ Chuck him out, the brute!”

            But it’s “Saviour of ‘is country” when the guns begin to shoot;

            Tommy, Kipling 1890

  3. I’m sure George puts article photos like that by design, to enable a reaction. It gets people every single time judging by comments. Of course QEC have more than a GPMG. 🙄

      • Yup… should have four… one for each corner…. and the 30/40mm stuff others mention constantly….. oh and It would be nice to have the “Layers” as envisaged in the “Layered Defence”….. but at least on this exorcise, we have company…… Love the GPMG though….

        • Isn’t that the thing though. The carrier in war always has company, which constitutes it’s AAW defence bar it’s own planes.
          Doesn’t excuse the lack of CIWS but there are other vessels around it, if it’s using it’s close in guns, bar CIWS, it’s probably too late.

          • Yes mate… It does… in theory…. But i’m still living in the past I guess….. There were many good reasons to maintain the RN Strength before WW2, not least of these included the United States Red Plan….. Looking west towards Trump Land as I type…..

          • That’s assuming you only think about missiles. There are still threats from boat swarms and the reality of drones big and small.

          • But they are not always in company are they?

            What stops a crazy attack when it is in friendly waters in the Med?

            In a CSG it isn’t that big an issue: I agree. Even so CIWS is a must.

            Thing is these are prestige targets and we don’t need to find out what a ‘spectacular’ looks like.

          • Yes, which is why CIWS must surely be standard, and the 40mm you suggest. So cheap too I assume compared to other defence equipment. I also believe, based on many comments read here over the years, that Phalanx especially is not difficult to install nor intrusive below decks.
            I though the RN had 40 plus? Even with 2 per T45 and on other vessels are there really none spare?

          • Yes M8 they should have a sufficient escort force to fully protect them. But unlike every other single Carrier operator we don’t equip ours for the “just in case”.
            Which when he have a single T23 Frigate as an escort is just plain stupid. and they don’t carry CIWS.

          • Morning mate.
            Shortage of T45 is biting us. What other NATO vessels are in the group? I’m looking for some sort of mitigating circumstances for a sole T23.

      • Most nations arm their carriers with a 2 or 3 tier Anti art/missile/drone weapons systems. A medium ranged SAM, short ranged SAM, & CIWS. ESSM, RAM & Phalanx in the case of the USN, on both fleet carriers & Marine carriers, the USN having far greater escort availabilty than the RN. The Italians have Asters & 76mm or 40mm which all out range Phalanx by a long way. CDG has Aster & Mistral SAMs & Narwhal 20mm. The Chinese have their RAM equivellent & a several CIWS. Not yet sure what their latest carrier will be fitted with.
        In WW2, with a massive navy, it was the RN that lost a couple of big fleet carriers practically unescorted & today with shockingly few escorts I could see that far easily repeating itself.

        It is, as always, HMG post 1991 that recklessly neglects carrier self defences.

        • Yes we lost in action HMS Courageous in 1939 and HMS Glorious in 1940. Thereafter HMS Ark Royal 1941, HMS Hermes and HMS Audacity in 1942. 1943 onwards none!

          • Wasn’t Ark Royal in convoy?
            And Audacity, which hardly counts as it was an escort carrier with, I believe, 2 working aircraft when it sank

      • Russia’s ships are festooned with weapons. Doesn’t seem to help them much. But the carriers must surely have 3x CIWS and the cannons as minimum. Anything more, I get why the RN don’t think it necessary.

  4. There’s always a lot of discussion over the CIWS of our carriers, and I’ve often wondered if using a naval version of the 40CT would be a good option for not only our carrier, but other ships.

    The general consensus on here seems to be that 40mm guns would be better than the 30mm ones, and as France already has a naval version of the gun called Rapidfire, I think, what do people on here think about using something similar for our ships?

    • Looks impressive.

      RAPIDFire naval gun system with LMM missiles by KNDS and Thales
      https://

      youtube.com/watch?v=9Q7IEJiKtPY

      • I will assume you are aware of the successful test of the LMM on a 30mm gun. Yet, the RN chose not to integrate it because of the rocket flame. It’s not like they could have a bit of metal to redirect the flame. If it’s successful, CAN it. Even my comment is still on that video from 8 months ago. But this stuff would be nice to have.

        • Add a note: I watched a Dr in naval history talk about how certain weapons could have been taken off because of peacetime to reduce maintenance.

        • I believe Kraken have designed a 30mm us 4 LMM/Marlet RWS. I think this is a UK company too!? SEA, another UK company, have the trainable Decoy launcher that I think can take LMM /Marlet as well. You wonder why seemingly nothing is being done to fix these gaps with defensive gaps on the carriers when it is done on the RN ships? Not sure if the RFAs, Argus, Albions, Bays, Points, are fully covered, but most seem to have a Phalanx and 30mm.

      • CT40 can fire 6 or 7 different natures including programmable airburst and anti aerial airburst so very useful against UAV’s.

    • We’ve just bought into the Bofors 40mm system for T31 which is comparable with the CTA40 and has numerous advantages:

      • Ammo costs less
      • Can be used non-deck penetrating
      • No time needed to spin up mechanism first. (Bad for CIWS)

      The Bofors is just a much better gun, the CTA was designed to have penetration for light AT like the Rarden cannon before it.
      “Something similar” for the Navy would very much be Bofors 40mm mk4.

    • We are actually buying new up to date Bofors 40mm for the T31 so going for the French CT wouldn’t be a good idea as the ammunition is incompatable.

  5. In WW2 the main gun of the Flower class was so bad, if they forced a sub to the surface it became standard practice to ram the sub rather than shoot it. 65,000 tons of aircraft carrier could have all sorts of fun chasing small attack craft, don’t you think?

  6. When other countries are putting long range defensive and attack missiles on their main surface vessels Britain is playing tough with small arms training aboard their main surface vessels. Give me a break. Failed icbm tests, broken ships, woke, diversified equal opportunities armed forces is making us a joke. I’ve never seen our military abilities, might and standards slip so far as it is today. Heaven help our future.

    • I’ve been watching this guy for the past three weeks. He did a video on the launch. https://
      youtube.com/watch?v=d6ZncW2Kv1k&t=26s

  7. Surprised no one is as yet bemoaning the fact that the carriers doesn’t any grappling hooks, blunderbuses,and boarding ladders, nor have any 14 inch gun batteries fitted, you know, just incase it may need to carry out a shore bombardment 😉

    I’m no expert, but isn’t a carriers primarily role to be a floating airfield, not a Swiss army knife bristling with guns and weapon systems, isn’t that the job of the various war ships etc that accompany it, and if that’s all failed, you got far bigger issue that no amount of expensive weapon systems will fix

    • Excuse me, that’s a 14-inch gun ‘fitted but not with’ thank you very much. Tbf, the smaller Italian carrier ‘Trieste’ has a better armament.

      • Have you ever had a really good look at how the Italians arm their modern ships, they’re armed to the teeth. Just compare an Italian to a French FREMM ! They even like multiple gun mounts.

        • Yes, that’s what I said, didn’t I? The Italian Trieste is heavily armed. They seem to have more sense of preservation for their ships.

    • The RN is pretty unique compared to other carrier operators in its self defence armament. Just a CIWS(not even that currently fitted to POW) is a reckless gamble & needless vulnerability. It is short sighted penny pinching. By the time a missile is within range of a Phalanx CIWS it’s virtually too late anyway. That’s why many would like to see 40mm instead as that has double the effective range, plus a SAM system would be wise.
      People spin that carriers are always escorted, but so are all the other carriers across the world that all have 1 or 2 SAM systems & a CIWS. Nor does the debris on flight deck excuse stop them from fitting SAM systems.

      No, it’s purely head-in the-sand bloody mindedness by our useless, incompetant government.

      • As I said earlier we don’t have 40mm guns so it’s a non starter. Ship,is designed to carry 3 CIWS and 3/4 30mm. But they aren’t on board for some reason.

        • On Dr Alexander Clarke’s channel, he is spending this year going through this year looking at the history of the aircraft carrier. He is working his way up to the Queen Elizabeth carrier in November. He also did a great video on the Type 26. I can’t promote him enough, such an interesting channel.

        • I was watching Dr Alexander Clarke last night and he mentioned that weapons could removed because to reduce maintenance in peacetime.

  8. Bit like switching on the windscreen wipers to show of the power of your sports car! I suspect the point is rather that she’s shaking up ready for full ops, even though missing her CIWS.
    A few GMPGs would be extremely lucky to stop drones & hopeless against jets & missiles.

  9. What a wank headline by the shitty ukdefencejournal. Might aswel as said, HMS Prince of Wales opens fire on fish and thin air. Wank journalism.

  10. Right, Weapon engineer head on…click…booting…right ready to go…

    Yes it should have Phalanx. It hasn’t because of the short time between activation for the task and leaving the wall. The Fleet HQ would have put it in the risk matrix, sussed out it’s not going to war and said ok we will live with it not having phalanx for an EXERCISE!

    Force Protection fit is GPMG and 50cal with Wildcat Martlett. 30 would be nice with the EO directors but again its an exercise.

    Fit 40mm, RAM etc … (At least nobody said its plug and play….that would have triggered me!!)
    The mounts and foundations need to be up to the job which involves a lot of finite structural analysis for rotating load, recoil forces at elevations and arc, acceleration forces du to pitch and roll, stiffness for accuracy. You need control systems , cabling, directors ( EO or Radar) Command system integration, local control systems, maintainers, spares, the actual weapons themselves!

    I didn’t include resupply routes for the ammo, magazine lockers, resupply teams, ammunition risk assessments, safety firing arcs, drill, SOPs, training…

    • Oh, but we like Top Trumps! With a 50 year life left for the carriers, surely it’s worth upgrading now as Phalanx begins to go out of date?
      GB, how many heads do you actually have? You reply with such detail to comments, I sort of imagine you with a warehouse somewhere full of different heads to put on.
      You and DaveyB are two of the best assets of UKDJ

      • Phalanx is not the same as it was when it first came into service. New radars and trackers. Better processing power. TI EO sight on the side. Reloading system is on mount and way quicker to use. Its a completely different beast from the first iteration in the 70s.

        Bit like a T23…The only thing thats the same on them is the shape inside and kit wise they are completely different from when they first came into service.

        • It has been described on here that the entire Phalanx concept of firing a wall or metal at short range is obsolescent due to the speed of new weapons and insensitive munitions.
          You’d know more than me about that but there doesn’t seem to be anyone plugging the “Pure CiWS” any more; the Americans like RAM and the Europeans seem to be going for smart ammo in larger guns. Only the Russians and the Chinese are still going for rate of fire over all.

    • Hi GB, An engineer is a multi headed, re programable thinker with numerous hands and is presumed to never sleep. 😉 Just keep topped up with Tea / Hob Nobs and allowed to let off Steam now and then (preferably with a Pint).

      Do you know if QE is still fitted with her 3 CIWS and if POW is able to receive them ? The reason for my latter question is I’ve never seen any mounted on her and it would be silly to just assume MOD didn’t cut that bit out.

      Yes I used the ASSUME word and that’s dangerous.

      • You mean you think it wasn’t just a time thing but that the carrier is deliberately not getting CWIS as a choice? I don’t think that choice would be MOD, not unless they decided to retire all Phalanx on cost grounds. If you are asking has QNLZ ever had Phalanx the answer is definitely yes, and so has Prince of Wales.

    • Has the QE Class been tested for additional weapons seen onboard the Ford class Carriers?

      Gerald R Ford class
      Surface-to-air missiles:2 × RIM-162 ESSM launchers2 × RIM-116 RAM Guns: 3 × Phalanx CIWS 4 × Mk 38 25 mm Machine Gun Systems 4 × M2 .50 Cal. (12.7 mm) machine guns

      • HI Nige, If you look at the new USS Ford carrier. One thing you’ll notice straight away, is the large area turned over to self-defence. This area is right next to the stern landing area on the angled deck. The flight deck in my opinion has a lot of wasted space. If you compare the Ford to the QE Class, you’ll see the flight deck of the QE is very rectangular. Where the surface area has been maximised to allow for more deck space. The Ford looses a fair bit of deck space to the VLS and other self defence systems. The earlier Nimitz class wasn’t as bad as the Ford in this respect, as it also used sponsons to mount self-defence systems.

        In the design phase of the QE class. They had a small VLS farm near to the forward starboard area used for the Phalanx. I remember seeing at least two drawings with the VLS farm in this location. I don’t remember seeing any VLS down the port side. One of these drawings also showed the ship fitted with Sampson. So it probably had Sylver and Aster instead of CAMM at that time.

        • Many thanks, Davey, I was curious to see if it was a possibility that might be included at a future date provided there was the space available and the build could accommodate this without extra strengthening of the ship’s superstructure.

          • Mate, anything is possible, if there is funding available! As much as I’d like the carriers to get a CAMM farm. I doubt it will happen any time soon. The RN’s priority for funding will be building and fitting out the new T26/31 escorts and getting them into service ASAP to replace the worn out T23s. Plus up-arming the T45s with CAMM and NSM.

            There is a valid discussion to be had about putting CAMM on to the carriers. Yes, they will have UK and NATO escorts on Exercises and a proper task group when on Operations or a World Tour. The T45 will be the primary guard ship and will be much more formidable after its weapons upgrade. There is a good probability that the T31 will become the carrier’s goal keeper to complement the T45 or a pair of T45s. Thus allowing the T23/26 to be off the leash and actively hunt for subs, on the periphery of the task group.

            But with the T45 and T31 in close attendance, is there a need for the carrier to have its own missile defense system? More missiles, the merrier right?

            From the Carrier’s perspective, following a missile firing from the carrier. The ship’s company will need to carry out a FOD plod. Where you walk the complete area of the flight deck looking for foreign objects. When CAMM is launched, the nose plate that forms part of the environmental seal of the canister, is smashed through by the missile. This plate is precut so that the nose cone doesn’t get damaged. However the force imparted by the missile, can throw these pieces in many directions and pretty far. Plus there’s likely to be used propellant debris everywhere. Let me remind everyone how big the QE class flight deck is. The FOD plod won’t be quick!

            There’s also the issue of what happens to flight operations. To enable a FOD plod, all flight operations stop. What also must be considered, is that if the threat is on the port side and the missile farm is near to the forward island (starboard side). Then the missile after being lobbed up 30 or so meters, will have to cross over the flight deck. So if an aircraft is landing. There won’t be time for the aircraft to turn away and do a circuit. As the missile will be up and gone, before the pilot acknowledges the call. I’d imagine the French and other smaller carriers have the same problem. Where they have VLS and trainable launchers in front of the island.

            To enable some flight ops to continue. There will be a need to have two missile farms port and starboard. Thereby reducing the need for missiles to cross over the flight deck. Plus a number of software coded safe missile paths. To make sure the missile doesn’t pass over the landing spots etc. Having a number of defensive systems on the ship’s periphery is the only option. The CMS is then programmed to handle the safe zones etc.

            Fitting CAMM is not a simple solution. There are lots of variables to consider. However, if the task group is facing a barrage of simultaneous threats. The carrier’s missiles could come under the command and direction from the lead T45. Thereby enhancing the T45’s magazine.

        • One other point, If we combine the current proposal for installing EMALS onboard the carries combined with the Ski Ramp, is it possible to launch the F/A-18 Super Hornets from the carriers?

          It would appear from the video that EMALS might not even be required to do so.

          262 m Indias Aircraft Carriers Length

          280 metres QE Class Length

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wga-hHIYAa0

        • One other point, If we combine the current proposal for installing EMALS onboard the carries combined with the Ski Ramp, is it possible to launch the F/A-18 Super Hornets from the carriers?
          It would appear from the video that EMALS might not even be required to do so.

          262 m Indias Aircraft Carriers Length
          280 metres QE Class Length

          https://

          youtube.com/watch?v=wga-hHIYAa0

          • As far as I am aware there is no proposal to install US EMALS; there is an investigation on installing a lower powered catapult.

            You are quite right, it isn’t necessary to install a catapult of any kind to fly Super Hornets, Rafales and most likely F-35Cs from the QECs. You’d need arrestors of course as you don’t want to launch anything you can’t land. They would have to work to a restricted weight, and the range would also be limited unless the ability to do an immediate refuel after launch was available. Given the kind of bombs/missiles the UK uses, the restricted weight might not be much of a problem, and buddy tanking might take care of some of the range issue.

            You can’t fly an E-2D and you probably can’t work a fully laden MQ-25 refueller without a catapult. You should check out the difference in tanking capacity of something like land-based Voyager and the organic MQ-25. It questions the utility of MQ-25 and if it’s worth adding a catapult for that level of capability. Let’s face facts: even having catapults, we wouldn’t have bought E-2D on cost grounds.

            The choice was made to limit the carriers to V/STOL operations and F-35Bs. We don’t want to fly US-made 4th generation jets. We want to get 5th gen working properly. Doubling down on VSTOL is still an option. Like it or not, it requires spending more money, just in a different way.

          • Hi Jon, it was the lower-powered catapult I was referring too in my original post. Apologies if I did not make that any clearer!

            My train of thought is to allow as many NATO-friendly aircraft the ability to fly off and land onboard our carriers making them a more flexible platform.

          • I’m think the most important aspect is that the ship gets the angled flight deck, that includes the arrestor system and a safety barrier. This would mean any carrier qualified aircraft could at least land on the ship, if it’s in an emergency. Even the F35Bs if they have an issue trying to go into vertical mode. Currently an aircraft could probably land on the carrier conventionally but it is unlikely to stop before falling off.

            Both Rafale and the FA-18 E/F have shown they can take-off using a ski ramp. However, much like the Mig-29K and Su-33. They will either take-off which a much reduced fuel load or weapon load. For a full load, the catapult is the only option. It would be similar for a prop driven plane. The curve of the ramp and g loading compressing the suspension may cause a propeller tip strike on the ramp.

          • So, the combination of the angled flight deck and the proposed lower-powered EMALS would work in theory?

          • Yes, if we’re taking about a conventional fixed wing aircraft using the ski ramp. Bearing mind the reduced load the aircraft takes off with.

            Sadly the MoD’s specification requirements for the EMALs, is below the minimum take-off weight of Rafale, F18, Hawkeye and F35C. It won’t be man enough to launch these aircraft to flight speed.

  11. If an aircraft carrier with no air defence of its own, needs to fire a GPMG then its time pack up. All its fitted defences are last ditch close in. And its escorts lack SSM systems, and have limited long range air defence ammo. . As always big shinny toy just hope it never goes to war. It and the escorts might be found very lacking.

    • It was interesting to read over ‘Janes that they are looking to prioritise Frigates over their AEW&C programme. Clearly, we need to get ours into service ASAP..
      Singapore Airshow 2024: Indonesia proposes delaying AEW&C programme to fund frigates26 February 2024

      The Indonesian Ministry of Defense (MoD) has submitted a proposal to the country’s Ministry of Finance, requesting to cancel the foreign loan approvals allocated for an airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft and 15 other smaller procurement programmes.

      Instead, the MoD wants these allocations to be diverted to a long-delayed effort to equip the Indonesian Navy with Frégate Européenne Multi-Mission (FREMM) frigates, according to a 9 December 2023 letter between the two ministries. A copy of this letter was provided to Janes at Singapore Airshow 2024 by a government source.

      In 2023 the Indonesian government had approved for 16 defence procurement programmes to be funded with loans sourced from foreign lenders. These include an approval to take on up to USD800 million in foreign loans to procure an unknown number of AEW&C airframes.

      The 15 other programmes, for which approvals to take on foreign loans were granted, include a USD144 million plan to procure VL MICA anti-air missiles, presumably for the Martadinata-class frigates, and a USD48 million initiative to acquire self-propelled air-defence artillery systems.

    • GPMG and 50 cal is force protection against surface targets during high threat/risk evolutions such as entering leaving harbour. You cannot practise firing drills alongside in Portsmouth, the Gosport residence may get a bit grumpy…

      • Yes i have fired and carried the GPMG, and only fired the 50 cal, my point really was that the two carriers lack much self defence yes they have escorts but every thing on a carrier is last ditch/close in

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here