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

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

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

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

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

Second British aircraft carrier declared operational

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

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
194 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
hogstable@hotmail.com
10 days ago

Just wondering what aircraft she had, don’t we only have 617 Sqn with the F35B ?

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
10 days ago

Come in that record is wearing out.

We have enough to make her a very lethal weapon.

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

More planes are being delivered so depth only improves.

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

Louis
Louis
10 days ago

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

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
10 days ago
Reply to  Louis

I agree 24 F35B is plenty to use one carrier.

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

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

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

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

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
10 days ago

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

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

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
10 days ago

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

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

andy Reeves
andy Reeves
9 days ago

i’d be happier to see them painted with the traditional roundels

Johan
Johan
9 days ago
Reply to  andy Reeves

Affects the Radar absorbent coatings

Johan
Johan
9 days ago

sadly the Orange Wired will never leave the USA no point. not much good for anything

Jonathan
Jonathan
10 days ago

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

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
10 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

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

There are no plans for buddy refuelling.

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

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

So may be very positive indeed.

Jonathan
Jonathan
10 days ago

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

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

Johan
Johan
9 days ago

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

Johan
Johan
9 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Orange Wired have little to 0 Spare Room due to the old systems

Geoffi
Geoffi
10 days ago

I thought the orange-wired were those 3 or 4 still in the US ?

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
10 days ago
Reply to  Geoffi

They are.

Johan
Johan
9 days ago

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

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
10 days ago
Reply to  Louis

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

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

John Stevens
John Stevens
10 days ago

I still think if the UK could reach around 72 F35’s in the end they could have 4 squadrons plus OCU and a small reserve of aircraft. I know it’s a bit radical, but, how about 10 aircraft per squadron for the Typhoons and F35’s. There could be 7 squadrons of Typhoons and 4 squadrons of F35’s plus the OCU for each type and would leave a handy reserve. So if you had 10 F35’s per squadron, you could deploy two squadrons on a longer carrier deployment (20 F35 aircraft). Still leaves you two squadrons plus the OCU for training… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
10 days ago
Reply to  John Stevens

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

louis
louis
10 days ago

I think 12 is the current number

Richard B
Richard B
10 days ago
Reply to  louis

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

John Stevens
John Stevens
10 days ago

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

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

Happy Sunday All !!!

James William Fennell
James William Fennell
10 days ago

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

Last edited 10 days ago by James William Fennell
Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
10 days ago

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

Cripes
Cripes
10 days ago

It has been 12 front-line aircraft in a fast jet squadron up to now. That was the case with Tornado ADV, Tornado FGR4, AV-8B, Typhoon and planned for F-35. Now we hear that there are 7 Typhoon squadrons, which means their front-line strength can not be more than 8. I won’t go through the detailed maths again, but a total of 131 Typhoons gives you about 66 front line aircraft, hence 7 sqns of 8 That will inevitably fall to 5 understrength sqns now the tranche 1 F2s are being scrapped without replacement. This strikes me as more political fiddling… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
10 days ago
Reply to  Cripes

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

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

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

It is artificial, yes.

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

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

David
David
10 days ago

Agreed Daniele. That said, I think calling 8 aircraft a squadron really is a stretch!

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
10 days ago
Reply to  David

For fast jets, yes!

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

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

David
David
10 days ago

Hi Daniele, Happy New Year. My thing is pick a number and stick to it. I know what some on here are saying that it’s just fudging the numbers to say we have more operational squadrons with fewer aircraft per but with no actual increase in the number of airframes – and they’re right. However, every country has fewer aircraft today than back say 30yrs ago in Gulf War 1 (for reference, the RAF had 31 fast just squadrons back then) – and this includes the US. The cost of modern fighter aircraft is eye watering these days so anyone… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
9 days ago
Reply to  David

Hello David. And Happy New year to you too!

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

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

A balance is needed.

Cheers.

David Steeper
David Steeper
10 days ago
Reply to  John Stevens

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

John Stevens
John Stevens
10 days ago
Reply to  David Steeper

Lol

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach
10 days ago
Reply to  John Stevens

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

Bob
Bob
10 days ago

Don’t forget, many USMC aircraft operate from forward airfields rather than from carriers.

Jay
Jay
9 days ago

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

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
9 days ago

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

Rob Michael Gale
Rob Michael Gale
10 days ago
Reply to  Louis

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

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
9 days ago
Reply to  Louis

Louis This has already been dealt with by HMG. The US MC has already signed defence agreements to virtually permanently deploy a squadron of 12+ F35Bs on board either POW or HMS QE. This could with UK providing upto 24 aircraft give the carrier 36 F35Bs. A very potent and capable airforce in its own rights. The biggest elepgant in the room is RN warships eg destroyers and frigates to make up a CSG. Here the RN will definitely need NATO allies support. Our destroyer and frigate fleet is down to just 17. A ridiculously low number. Ditto numbers of… Read more »

Johan
Johan
9 days ago
Reply to  Louis

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

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach
10 days ago

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

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
10 days ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

Hi Geoffrey.

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

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach
9 days ago

Hi Daniele.. I’m surprised by the question. I have never advocated the F18 or a CTOL carrier. All I want is for the UK to concentrate on getting one huge part of it’s defence commitment right and to my mind that is the Royal Navy getting the best in a sensible time frame As you know I have outlined my thoughts on the carriers a number of times and I still do not understand that with the potential threat from China and Russia and others, that so many bloggers seem to think it’s alright for us to wait ten years… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
9 days ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

Hi Geoffrey.

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

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach
8 days ago

No need for an apology Daniele. We agree on an awful lot as seasoned bloggers! Take care.

Jonathan
Jonathan
10 days ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

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

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
10 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Yes, that is exactly why I oppose the hypothetical buy of F35A.

Jonathan
Jonathan
10 days ago

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

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach
9 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

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

andy Reeves
andy Reeves
9 days ago

depends how many aircraft make up a squadron. from searches it seems to be between 12 and 24?

Colin Goff
Colin Goff
10 days ago

Commanded by an RN officer!

David
David
10 days ago

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

Daveyb
Daveyb
9 days ago
Reply to  David

The Italians have already operated from HMS QE. So building up to full operations shouldn’t be a major headache. Though they will need to get some decent coffee!

Italian Navy Stealth Jets Operate From HMS Queen Elizabeth | World First! Full Highlights | HD – Bing video

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
10 days ago

Possibly more! On a serious note, I would expect Tempest to be a consideration for future carrier ops, manned or unmanned. “utilizing few of the Tranche 3 features, such as thrust vector nozzles, conformal fuel tanks, and spoilers at the leading edge wing roots, designed to minimize landing speed. Unlike the Super Hornet and Rafale using catapult launch which requires significant strengthening of the landing gear and airframe, Typhoon is considered for ‘ski-jump’ equipped carriers only (like QE2 and India’s future indigenous carriers).” “According to Paul Hopkins, Vice President Business Development (Air) at BAE Systems, simulation tests of a ‘navalized… Read more »

navalized_typhoon11.jpg
Last edited 10 days ago by Nigel Collins
Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
10 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

OMG the navalised Typhoon again!

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

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
10 days ago

Clearly, Martin was a sensible chap given the article was posted in 2011 and Typhoon could fly from the QE carriers with a decent loadout of weapons and extended range! And like Martin, an opportunity missed in my opinion given the NATO countries that have Typhoons which could have added to the aircraft flying off the POW in 2022. Do you think this was not a good idea Daniele? “We found that the program continues to delay full-rate production because of lingering issues with completing initial operational testing. After the program’s 2012 rebaseline, DOD expected to wrap up initial operational… Read more »

Last edited 10 days ago by Nigel Collins
Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
10 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

I would have welcomed a navalised Typhoon Nigel.

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

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
10 days ago

Always better to have more than one egg in your basket, just in case one breaks. Plus, Meteor, Spear, AESA Mk2, savings on maintenance costs and spare parts but there you go! One or two on UKDJ may disagree of course!!! “It will equip RAF pilots with the ability to locate, identify and suppress enemy air defences using high-powered jamming. They can engage targets whilst beyond the reach of threats — even when they’re looking in another direction — and operate inside the range of opposing air defences, remaining fully protected throughout,” BAE Systems wrote. The radar will also enable… Read more »

Last edited 10 days ago by Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
10 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

I wonder how long others will take to catch up? 2025/26? I’ve been saying this on UKDJ for many years.

Flying at supersonic speeds, CAMM missiles can destroy modern air threats including stealth aircraft and high-speed missiles.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain-and-poland-to-work-together-on-polish-air-defence-system/

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
10 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Radar 2 will be a fantastic capability for Typhoon with parallel capability with the AN/APG-81 currently in service. Which will also receive many enhancements over the coming years. But it doesn’t take a genius to figure out why a maritime Typhoon didn’t go ahead. Development cost, and purchase cost alone for what would have been small numbers. And if NATO had more carrier’s, it would have had major competition from F35C, Rafale & Super Hornet. And as F35 is cleaning up in the fighter market, Naval Typhoon would have been a huge cost blow to BAE. It was a nice… Read more »

Robert Blay.
Robert Blay.
10 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

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

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
10 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay.

Agreed.

Jon
Jon
10 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

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

John Clark
John Clark
9 days ago

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

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

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
9 days ago
Reply to  John Clark

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

Last edited 9 days ago by Nigel Collins
John Clark
John Clark
9 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Morning Nigel, I simply don’t buy BAE Systems ease of modifying Typhoon. The aircraft would need extensive and expensive modifications, re the TVN, it’s never progressed out of workshop prototype stage, that alone would be ‘extremely’ expensive to develop into a production system, again, especially if it’s for a small number of aircraft. The partners and operators simply don’t require TV, it’s wider usefulness in the real world, remains questionable. I certainly won’t defend the F35 programme Nigel, it’s been a nightmare and it’s going to be block 4 and above, before the majority of the issues are finally addressed.… Read more »

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
9 days ago
Reply to  John Clark

Hello John, Here is an update on the new engine, as I mentioned in my original post, Tempest will be the next option for the carriers but I somehow doubt that will happen apart from Loyal wingman, I was simply making the point that if we went with Typhoon from the beginning then we could have been in a far better position than we are now given the limitations and spiralling costs of the F-35 programme. I tend to think of the modifications that could have been included on the Typhoon would benefit users overall rather than just the marinized… Read more »

Last edited 9 days ago by Nigel Collins
John Clark
John Clark
9 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Hi Nigel, I would agree that the German developed Leading edge extension, would have been a noteworthy and useful addition, at a reasonable cost, with some tweaking of the FCS to override the automatic stall recovery system with high alpha, slow manoeuvring… Here’s the problem, even that useful addition was unfunded and stalled. Modeling Tempest (if it proceeds) will be purely Land based, they are aiming for a rather large F22 sized airframe and don’t want to hinder the design with carrier features …. That said, let’s hope Mosquito and Sea Vixen ( parts of the Tempest ‘system’), come to… Read more »

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
9 days ago
Reply to  John Clark

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

Quite possibly.

US legislation moves F-35 sustainment, acquisition away from the Joint Program Office 29 DECEMBER 2021

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/terror-insurgent-group/latest/us-legislation-moves-f-35-sustainment-acquisition-away-from-the-joint-program-office

Last edited 9 days ago by Nigel Collins
Daveyb
Daveyb
8 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

There have been a lot of reports on the AETP. They all seem to mention the same thing, that it will only be compatible with the F35A and C versions. Apparently the swivelling exhaust precludes it. However, with a potential of over 300 F35B in use. There is a definite case of a need for an enhanced engine in the future. P&W have said the current F135 still has a lot of growth in it. But, they have not said if this takes into account the replacement fan stages that have been suffering hairline cracking. The replacement stages are said… Read more »

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
8 days ago
Reply to  Daveyb

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

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

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

Also in the news.

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

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

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

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

Last edited 8 days ago by Nigel Collins
Daveyb
Daveyb
9 days ago
Reply to  John Clark

I have struggled to see the rationale behind why operators of the Typhoon, haven’t included the Airbus developed aerodynamic enhancement program let alone the TVNs, in new build Typhoons or through a modification program – apart from cost that is? If we look at what Airbus researched for their aerodynamic enhancement package (leading edge root extensions, longer trailing edge flaperons, redesigned lift strakes) and then prototyped it on a test Typhoon aircraft. The results were not only a 25% increase in lift, but the potential fuel savings at 9%. This wasn’t just a fuel saving at subsonic speeds but also… Read more »

John Clark
John Clark
9 days ago
Reply to  Daveyb

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

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

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

Daveyb
Daveyb
9 days ago
Reply to  John Clark

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

See link below:

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

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

Robert Blay.
Robert Blay.
9 days ago
Reply to  Daveyb

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

Daveyb
Daveyb
8 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay.

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

Robert Blay.
Robert Blay.
9 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

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

Daveyb
Daveyb
9 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

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

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
9 days ago
Reply to  Daveyb

I wonder if they had the EJ2x0 engine in mind? Yet another useful addition to the Typhoon when you include TVN and LEREX, especially now that the USA is looking for a 4+ gen clean-sheet design to replace their ageing F-16’s. Typhoon would have been in a league all on its own! Stage 1: The EJ2x0 with 20% growth compared to the original EJ200. The EJ2x0 engine will have dry thrust increasing to some 72 kN (or 16,200 lbf) with a reheated output of around 103 kN (or 23,100 lbf).[15] Stage 2: The new engine plan to increase the output 30% more power compared… Read more »

Last edited 9 days ago by Nigel Collins
Daveyb
Daveyb
9 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

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

Robert Blay.
Robert Blay.
9 days ago
Reply to  Daveyb

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

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
8 days ago
Reply to  Daveyb

And for Tempest.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meirion x
Meirion x
10 days ago

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

Jack
Jack
10 days ago
Reply to  Meirion x

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

Meirion x
Meirion x
10 days ago
Reply to  Jack

Where is your evidence I supported invasion of Iraq in 2003??
I did Not actually! But I still supported the overthrow of Sadam in other ways!

Last edited 10 days ago by Meirion x
Jack
Jack
10 days ago
Reply to  Meirion x

I did not make an assertion, i asked a question. Thank you for answering.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
10 days ago
Reply to  Jack

His reply was telling…..or lack of one with the point made.

David Barry
David Barry
9 days ago
Reply to  Meirion x

It was a question?

dave12
dave12
10 days ago
Reply to  Jack

Do you have conspiracy theories on Salisbury Ivan? , sorry jack.

Jack
Jack
10 days ago
Reply to  dave12

No, i believe Russian agents and therefor the Russian state are responsible.

dave12
dave12
10 days ago
Reply to  Jack

Then now I shall call you jack lol.

James
James
10 days ago
Reply to  Meirion x

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

Jack
Jack
10 days ago
Reply to  James

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

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
10 days ago
Reply to  James

The Russian surface fleet is a paper bear. Small groups of vessels managing small deployments to the Med and occasionally one in the Gulf that require friendly nation basing and don’t have the support infrastructure to maintain and supply a blue water fleet. The current northern fleet is aimed at bastion protection of the nations boomers around the Artic Ocean, Kara and White sea. The pacific fleet is struggling even more than the Northern fleet. Where the Russian Navy is doing well is the Caspian, Black and Baltic seas where the shore side bases and missile systems make those areas… Read more »

dave12
dave12
10 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

And you can always trust Gunbuster to give reality check on Russias capability , spot on.

David Barry
David Barry
9 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

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

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

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
10 days ago
Reply to  James

You really are not a “James” in the western sense are you? “This carriers are designed to intimidate third rate countries by the way they are lightly armed !” They are not lightly armed. Their air group could be better armed, yes, and it will be. It will not happen overnight. “Russia may not have a carrier that functions but it’s warship fleet are the most heavy armed !” Several answers come to mind. It’s warships need tugs alongside many of them. Further more, their fleet is constrained by the Black Sea, Baltic Sea, Straights of Japan, and the GIUK… Read more »

Meirion x
Meirion x
10 days ago
Reply to  James

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

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
10 days ago
Reply to  Meirion x

Hi Meiron x,

China seems to be making headway with its third carrier, I wonder how many they will have by 2030? I believe they intend to have four.

“The Type-003 carrier (left) is wider and loner than the first two carriers, such as the Type-002 (left). Catapults replace the ski-jump allowing more types of aircraft to be operated.”

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/10/chinas-massive-new-aircraft-carrier-is-as-big-as-it-can-be/s/signs-point-chinas-third-aircraft-carrier-launching-soon

Andy ardron
Andy ardron
10 days ago
Reply to  James

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

Jonathan
Jonathan
10 days ago
Reply to  James

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

Meirion x
Meirion x
9 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Agreed!

Jacko
Jacko
10 days ago
Reply to  James

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

Dern
Dern
10 days ago
Reply to  James

Why? The old Illustrious class could have 8-12 jets on board MAX and they did a great job at deterrence.

David Barry
David Barry
9 days ago
Reply to  Dern

Deterrence? Bollards!

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

Airborne
Airborne
9 days ago
Reply to  James

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

Matt
Matt
10 days ago
Reply to  Meirion x

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

Meirion x
Meirion x
10 days ago
Reply to  Matt

😄

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
10 days ago
Reply to  Matt

Brilliant comment Matt.

dave12
dave12
10 days ago
Reply to  Meirion x

Its alright Meirion they come on this website and then get reality checked by the pros in the know on this website.

Meirion x
Meirion x
10 days ago
Reply to  dave12

Agreed Dave👍

Jonathan
Jonathan
10 days ago
Reply to  Meirion x

I’m not a pro Russian gas lighter, I’m Pro my country which is the U.K. But I’m a firm believer that it this the duty of an individual with sufferage that I understand Geopolitical threats to my nation and for that I must understand why the tensions are there as the best way to remove a threat is for it not to occur. That fact we are facing off with Russia is an existential threat to our country, one I believed could have been avoided. I do t like Putin or his politics but then I don’t like the politics… Read more »

Last edited 10 days ago by Jonathan
Klonkie
Klonkie
9 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

What an excellent post Jonathan. Good insights and commentary.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
9 days ago
Reply to  Klonkie

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

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

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
9 days ago
Reply to  Klonkie

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

David Barry
David Barry
9 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Gents, some valid points in there.

Meirion x
Meirion x
9 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

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

Jon
Jon
10 days ago

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

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
10 days ago
Reply to  Jon

Hi Jon, I think we will see the RN carriers focus on the NATO area for a while. Big deployments like last year’s globe trotting expedition takes a lot of hard work to set up and involves hundreds of people who probably haven’t even seen the carriers. I’m talking about the supply chain, the UK and foreign diplomats who set up the visits and conferences. The RAF transports flying supplies and spares around the world. Several other navies exercised with the CSG as well, all of which would require detailed planning which would soak up limited resources, especially for the… Read more »

Meirion x
Meirion x
10 days ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

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

Last edited 10 days ago by Meirion x
ChariotRider
ChariotRider
10 days ago
Reply to  Meirion x

Hi Meirion,

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

Time will tell.

Cheers CR

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
10 days ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

Agreed.

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

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
10 days ago

Hi Daniele,

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

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

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

Cheers CR

Jon
Jon
10 days ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

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

Perhaps that was just badly used branding.

Last edited 10 days ago by Jon
ChariotRider
ChariotRider
10 days ago
Reply to  Jon

Hi Jon,

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

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

Cheers CR

Ian
Ian
10 days ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

CR……. A really good explanation of the current situation
Ian

Ron
Ron
10 days ago

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

James
James
10 days ago
Reply to  Ron

I just know she is a notch longer than QE and heavier 5k tonnes

Last edited 10 days ago by James
Jon
Jon
10 days ago
Reply to  James

That’s less than the weight of a London bus. It could be variation within manfacturing tolerances rather than any extra capability.

Matt
Matt
10 days ago
Reply to  Jon

Large London Bus 5k tonnes.

Jon
Jon
10 days ago
Reply to  Matt

I may have slipped a K in my calculations

louis
louis
10 days ago
Reply to  Jon

I think a London bus weighs a bit les than 5k tonnes

Jack
Jack
10 days ago
Reply to  Ron

Reinforced plumbing ? 😂

dave12
dave12
10 days ago
Reply to  Ron

Is it not the extra work put in for amphibious capability ,extra troop accommodation ? that’s what saw somewhere.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
10 days ago
Reply to  dave12

That did not happen I believe?

dave12
dave12
10 days ago

Oh, that’s a shame.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
10 days ago
Reply to  dave12

Not for me. We have spent 6 billion to get carrier strike, asw assets. Not glorified oversized LPHs. Too close to shore they are vulnerable.

dave12
dave12
10 days ago

True.

Jonathan
Jonathan
10 days ago

Agreed, the carriers are to much of a strategic asset to be squandered on amphibious tasking. We need to maintain our separate amphibious capability.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
10 days ago

So a two carrier fleet will exist after all 😉

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

Cheers CR

Mark
Mark
10 days ago

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

Meirion x
Meirion x
9 days ago
Reply to  Mark

Most likely QE will be in training mode this summer, after maintenance period, working with 207 Squ.(OCU).

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
10 days ago

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

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

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

Max Jones
Max Jones
10 days ago

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

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
9 days ago
Reply to  Max Jones

Exactly.

But some want them all now and it does not work like that. It’s a free hit for trolls to complain of a carrier with few aircraft. When before it was a carrier with no aircraft!

All takes time.

Airborne
Airborne
8 days ago

👍

Ken Downs
Ken Downs
10 days ago

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

andy Reeves
andy Reeves
9 days ago

shame they won’t both be operational one will be in maintainance

Tommo
Tommo
9 days ago

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

James William Fennell
James William Fennell
9 days ago
Deep32
Deep32
9 days ago

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

Deep32
Deep32
9 days ago
Reply to  Deep32

That should say – for a tethered UAS, predictive text for you!!

Jon
Jon
9 days ago

Can’t find a reference to Navy. Did you infer it from Portsmouth or are there other details?

Jon
Jon
9 days ago

I found a comment in the TDS You Tube video:

“This will be eventually deployed operationally from a RN warship.”

James William Fennell
James William Fennell
9 days ago
Reply to  Jon

Yes seems an obvious way to get a longer ranged picture – either EO/IR or a SAR.

David Barry
David Barry
9 days ago

Would you really put a QEC into the Baltic? Maybe in ultra benign times, but, not now.

Badger.
Badger.
9 days ago
Reply to  David Barry

Yes, that thought had crossed my mind too.

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
9 days ago

Totally off topic but a great read about Ajax and recon vehicles and how they should be built used etc.
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/37846/pdf/
I can’t work out how to put the link in🙈

David Lloyd
David Lloyd
9 days ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

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

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
9 days ago
Reply to  David Lloyd

It’s really interesting that his take is basically the route to go is a light, fast go anywhere vehicle with a high mast for recon equipment. See the enemy pop smoke and run fast. Use a 30mm cannon if needed against suitable enemy. Not sure they could fit the 7 tons of equipment that the Ajax carries could fit in a stormer 30 hull. Ajax doesn’t have a raised mast. Is to heavy and big for recon. The armor that Ajax has is not required for a recon vehicle, it makes it to big and heavy. The army is in… Read more »

Nicholas Bassett
Nicholas Bassett
9 days ago

All these people reassuringly saying “24 aircraft is plenty on this carrier”, ask yourself why on Earth have we spent billions on two 65,000t carriers designed to carry three times that number? We can deploy 24 aircraft for months on end with 20,000t Invincible class carriers. In fact that worked rather well if I recall. The fact is we do NOT have anywhere near the aircraft on order that these carriers were designed for. And all this guff about “American reinforcements” what tripe. Hey let’s not have any aircraft at all; the Americans can “reinforce” the entire lot. Why have… Read more »

David Barry
David Barry
9 days ago

And breathe…

Airborne
Airborne
8 days ago
Reply to  David Barry

🤣

Steven Alfred Rake
Steven Alfred Rake
9 days ago

Hello Nicholas, I tend to agree with most of what you said, the QE and PoW were designed to carry 70+ airframes each, so for the foreseeable future they will only be glorified helicopter carriers with the ability to put up there own CAP. That only changes if they go to sea with foriegn air assets on board similar to the CSG21 deployment. So may be this NATO deployment might see the Italians position their F35b’s on PoW along with the USMC to give the NATO strike force a bit more teeth. If both the QE and PoW deploy this… Read more »

Derek
Derek
8 days ago

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

Steven Alfred Rake
Steven Alfred Rake
8 days ago
Reply to  Derek

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

Airborne
Airborne
8 days ago

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

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
8 days ago

The carriers are designed for 50+ years service. Would you buy 138 block 3 f-35’s now and then pay for the upgrades later? Where are you getting all the pilots and ground crew for these aircraft. More importantly wheres the billions of ££ coming from. If we got that many aircraft they would just be in hangers(presuming there would be enough hangers to keep them in. This is the navy/airforce/uk government plan. Buy a steady stream of aircraft over next 20 years presumably waiting for block 4 before another large buy. The whole training system is not able to train… Read more »

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
8 days ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

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

Angus
Angus
9 days ago

We can talk all you want about airframes but its having the crews and support for them that really matters. Shar units had a war footing of 8 aircraft and at least 1.5 pilots per airframe that was more space related than airframes available of course. Note also many airframes are in different stages of update so your best numbers are even smaller than the whole of course. The QE is a big platform and 50 aircraft would not be an issue its having them in the end and supporting them. So lets get the 4 frontline + OCU and… Read more »

Airborne
Airborne
8 days ago

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

Tom Keane
Tom Keane
8 days ago
Reply to  Airborne

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

Airborne
Airborne
8 days ago
Reply to  Tom Keane

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

Tom Keane
Tom Keane
8 days ago
Reply to  Airborne

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

Airborne
Airborne
7 days ago
Reply to  Tom Keane

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

Tom Keane
Tom Keane
7 days ago
Reply to  Airborne

Factual????? You work for the MOD do you?

Airborne
Airborne
7 days ago
Reply to  Tom Keane

Funny you should ask that….