British carrier embarks F-35 jets ahead of deployment

Fair one, at least with USMC assistance we can stretch and expand the carrier’s capabilities. Rather than waiting another 3 to 5 years when the UK has enough of its own F35Bs to play with.

Yep. I could think of worse outfits to work up against for sure.

There is some extra surge capacity in the QEC, e g. the 6 berth JR cabins can accommodate 8 by sacrificing the communal seating area that uses two low bunks. But above 1800 personnel and the standard of accommodation isn’t acceptable in the 21st century for weeks or months outside a war situation.

So if cats and traps were fitted, taking up more mezanine space below the flight deck, the extra crew needed to run them and the drones they’d launch could not be embarked without jettisoning flagstaff or paring down the F-35 strike force?

Is this because there is no space left on the ship, or is it because insufficient cabin space has been built and more can be added fairly easily? I’d hope it’s the latter.

The QEC designers were basically over optimistic about the extent to which automation and lean manning would be practical. Also, no cramped and noisy mess decks, instead 470 cabins all designed for both male or female crew members and fitted with ‘roomy’ double bunks. Pure luxury for anyone who served on a 1960’s carrier, and a substantial step up from even a modern T23 frigate!

The never built French CTOL version of the CVF design (PA.2) squeezed in an extra 250 bunks for manning all the additional aviation equipment that she would have been equipped with. I don’t know but I suspect that some of the cabins must have been merged and redesigned as effectively traditional JR mess’s with triple bunks. I reckon you could replace 3 x 6-berth cabins with a 30-bunk mess space pretty easily.

Seems like we can barely recruit enough as it is, making conditions worse is a sure fire way of not making that issue any better.

Better accommodation for the men and women that serve on these ships isn’t exactly something to complain about.

Depends if it means it can do the job it was meant to do ..and the job they joined up to do doesn’t it.. BTW nowhere have I stated they should be double bunking just that it should have been designed to accommodate the required personal adequately in times of need- that’s all.

Sorry mate was more a reply to the thread in general more than your specific comment.

It is sadly a factor that often gets forgotten when mission planning. Sortie generation is governed by a number of factors. Aircraft availability is the main one. Which in turn is governed by the aircraft’s serviceability. If a jet comes back unserviceable, it needs diagnosing and then the decision is made on whether it can fly again with the fault or it can’t.

If for example a pilot broke a instrument switch in the cockpit by accident. Firstly the switch needs to be found as it might jam a flight or throttle control, or part of the ejection seat etc. once it has been found. You need to decide how important the switch’s function is. The engineering officer weighs up the risk, and can sign it off for fixing later, if the risk is small. The pilot still has the option of accepting the aircraft with the fault or not. Which will depend on the mission parameters. Looking for a small object like a switch can take hours even in a tiny cockpit. If it can’t be found the seat has to come out. This takes an inordinate amount of time, ie could be a day or more.

The knock on effect is that the aircraft is unavailable for a day or two. Due to the missing switch.

Sortie generation must also take into account flight servicings. As an example it would take two bods just under an hour to do an after flight servicing (properly) on a Harrier GR5/7/9. Gone are the days when you had four or five guys from different trades doing the servicing.

The Tornado F3 took even longer. I would expect Typhoon to be similar time wise to a Tornado. It has the advantage that it has a health, usage and monitoring system (HUMS). On the aircraft there is a method for the maintainer to view the logged faults. The F35 has a similar system, but it can also be accessed remotely. It is supposed to speed up fault diagnosis. But still needs a thorough level of understanding to make sure you go down the correct path.

The actual servicing time for the F35 I’m not so sure, though I could ask. As you have to pay special attention to the aircraft’s skin surface for damage and defects. Then if you have to remove panels, these need resealing after refitting. Which takes time. Keeping it clean must be a proper chore?

However for quick turn arounds, where a quick levels and pressure check, canopy clean, along with a rearm is required, you could do a Harrier in under 20 minutes. Especially if a bod was doing the refueling. For “combat missions” when a refuel and rearm was just required. The bombing up was pretty quick, the refuel even when pressurized took the time. Which generally allowed the pilot a chance to jump out quickly for a quick waz and a sticky.

Many thanks Davey. Many similarities with the REME (land equipments) world that I was in for 34 years. A vehicle can deploy as merely battleworthy (a few unimportant things not working) or fully fit.

Personally I think for peacetime 24 and the helicopters is a good load out. Nimitz are only sailing with 50-55 aircraft at a time.
Until the squadrons are built up and aircraft are delivered we will just have to wait. What’s important just now is working out all the operational stuff. How to do missions effectively from a carrier.
Also what some forget is these F35 are also the RAF replacement for their harriers and they will want to work out how best to use them from the land as well.

Thanks mate. I would love to know how the RAF will operate their F-35Bs from land, but they seem to be totally fixated on carrier ops. Harriers were often used from austere field locations in support of the army (except for Afghan where they operated out of a well-sorted airbase). Seems that F-35B would have trouble operating from an austere location, so will the RAF ever do it?

I may be wrong but I think when the harriers first arrived in Afghan the airbase wasn’t able to operate other fast jets. The runway needed redone and the harriers were using a small section doing short take off and landings. Going back a few years now so could be totally wrong

I found this quote:
Unique to the Harrier is its short-field capability; this proved to be extremely worthy throughout. When Harriers first deployed in Afghanistan, the runway at Kandahar AF was a narrow 3,000ft strip only suitable to the VSTOL aircraft.
Operation Herrick and the Harrier GR.9 by Lt Cdr James Blackmore

My memory is fading (I was in Bastion Nov 08-May 09).
I think the USMC Harriers operated out of Bastion and the RAF ones operated out of Kandahar Air Force Base (KAF). Kandahar airport was a civvy airport with a military ‘corner’ (KAF) so the runway would have been very long and fine for any military fast jet.
Bastion runway was upgraded c2009 to operate wide bodied passenger jets and it would have been lengthened as part of that upgrade.

Well I see you commenting the same negative drivel every time the carrier’s are mentioned.

Your doing it again. As the master of the one line nothing please explain to me ,as I have repeatedly asked before, what is negative about me, and incidentally many others, asking for a better and speeded up programme for the F35 and our carriers? I don’t suppose for a minute I will get a proper answer because you seem incapable of giving one but you could try.
You also criticise my competency and/or knowledge. I have been involved in foreign affairs and defence for some forty years within government, as an advisor, policy group chairman and writer. Will that do or are you going to find some sarcastic comment to belittle that?

If you are an advisor then what the hell are you advising. If you have noticed the economic situation, you will realise a magic wand isn’t going to be waved to speed up the buy rate of F35. Is it ideal. No it isn’t, but a few years ago we had nothing at all. The huge effort and commitment involved is huge by all in the MOD, industry and the Armed Force’s to get us in the position we are today. Two 70K tonne 5th generation aircraft carriers, In service, and rapidly gaining in experience and capability. Other nations would kill for these two vessels. F35 is a massive increase in capability, and numbers are growing. But it takes time. If you have such experience in defence, then why is every comment you make like a uniformed novice. I served for 14 years in the Fleet Air Arm, onboard Invincible class carrier’s and Sea Harrier/GR7 Sqns. The work involved to get an airwing at sea and operating at the level we do is not to be underestimated, regardless of the numbers involved. And many people are working tirelessly to get F35 in service, in the numbers we are going to need.

Now I understand. You served 14 years in the FAA, therefore I am not allowed to criticise the service you were part of as you have taken it as a personal slur instead of being sensible and agreeing with me and pushing to achieve more. I am going to do you a favour. As your problem seems to be me rather than with so many people who post arguing the same views as my own I will not respond to anything you say again. there, problem solved.

I’m not against people being critical Geoff, but it just gets childish. when everyone knows why things are as they are. And moaning online isn’t going speed things up, or generate a huge pot of new cash. With the exception of the US, no other country is close to what we have, let alone in another 3/4 years with carrier strike and the advancements that will be made. Not just with F35, but the Merlin fleet, Wildcat, Chinook, Apache Crownsnest and UCAV’S.

Just thinking that cats n traps carriers will deploy with more planes to keep pilots updated with deck landing and take off.

They are much more deck time intensive and a much larger training burden. Require a larger flight deck crew too. For our budget. QE class with F35B is our best all round bang for our buck.

So as ex FAA you’ll know RN for decades deployed what’s needed, our previous carriers regularly deployed with 4 Harriers, sometimes none. We don’t follow the US in swamping the decks. So yes progress is slow in getting the airframes but RN would only ever fully deploy when really needed. I don’t see the logic is deploying assets needlessly and wastefully, makes zero sense. You get the right to say ‘I told you so’ if we have an actual real world requirement to deploy at strength in the meantime.

As I have now said umpteen times I don’t have a problem with what the services are doing but with only a small number of aircraft available at any one time we couldn’t put together an air wing if we wanted to. There is another argument I’ve heard and to be fair I’m not sure whether this is right or not but if we use the same airframes over and over? Fatigue etc??

Modern fast jets are designed to be worked hard, and will easily last 30 + years. Aircraft like Typhoon and F35 are designed so they can pull max rated G and not damage the airframe over extended periods. As Aircraft got older, G limits would often be imposed to extended service life. With Typhoon/F35, that is not required. Often on operations,especially over Syria,aircraft can increase the hours between maintenance time, because they spend long periods flying straight and level with very little high G being pulled.

Yes airframes have a life. But UK doesn’t have a problem with any airframes getting near their lifed hours. We’re going to retire T1 Typhoons at 3000 hours half their design life. Seeing as some of these early F35s may not get updated there a pretty strong argument to actually work them harder.

I did many trips on the Invincible class with no jets on-board, just helicopters. Sometimes 6 Harriers, sometimes 8. Once in 2002 we had 17 on-board. And in 2007 we had 14 USMC AV8Bs. We also did an exercise with Spanish and Italian Harrier’s. So it’s nothing new for the RN to invite foreign aircraft onto its decks. Sometimes the carrier would deploy for a 4 month trip, but we would only have the jets on-board for maybe one month for the main part of the exercise, then disembark and head home. When the jets are at sea the pilot’s struggle to keep current in the vast array of evolutions they have to stay current in. Much more training value can be gained when operating back in the UK. That’s why the jets don’t spend anymore time at sea then they need too. And the advantage of F35B is the crews can be deck qualified in just a few days when back on the carrier. Ultimate flexibility. 👍

Hi Robert – on a slightly different note, were you in the FAA back in 82 during the Falkland’s conflict?

Hi mate. No, bit before my time. May 1999- December 2013

Sprog!!! Just saying!!!

Rookie numbers 😄

Ah these young kids, sprogs and crows lol

Double sprog!!!!!!! Lol

all good ,thanks Robert .

Robert, I am with George on the desirability of ordering the right number of F-35Bs and in a timely fashion so as a/c deliveries mesh well with the milestones in the carrier (ship) programme.

Whereas the USMC declared their first F-35B sqn operational in July 2015, we declared that 617 Sqn RAF was operational with 8 a/c in Jan 2019, some 3.5 years later.
Given that we had no STOVL aircraft from 2010, then placing the main Tr1 order (for 45 a/c to add to the earlier 3 a/c) in 2012 was late.

Concur RB, RN has made tremendous progress, from a standing start, in regeneration of big deck carrier ops. By end of decade, additional airframes will be available, Block 4 software retrofitted across fleet, additional munitions integrated and QEC class routinely deployed and patrolling NA and Med. In the interim, aircraft numbers will be routinely supplemented by USMC, and additional escorts provided by NATO, as deemed necessary. This should be more than sufficient to counter Mad Vlad and the slobbering Orcs. However, we should all be concerned re the 2030’s when the scum-sucking, slimeball ChiCom PLAN appears on the doorstep…🤔😳

If you’ve been a government advisor and don’t know the reason for the slow F35 buy rate, god help us! Repeat after me Block4 Block4 Block4.

I didn’t say I had advised any particular government nor did I say I had anything to do with the F35. However since you want me to do something for you I will. Block 4 delayed, Block 4 delayed, Block 4 delayed
Now let’s return to common sense. If we cannot criticise or ask question or argue our corner on this site what is the point of any of us posting anything?

Agreed Geoff, there are posters on here with vast experience and knowledge and it’s good to hear the various experiences and opinions, however its always easy to be negative to try and prove a point of a specific opinion and agenda. Keep posting mate as all real opinions are valued!

Thank you my friend. Much appreciated🙂

The most relevant bit
“ While this may seem like the service is pivoting its interest toward the Boeing-made fighter, the Air Force’s rationale is more circumspect. According to two sources with knowledge of the matter, Kendall had tasked the service’s budget corps to consider cancelling the F-15EX. However, proponents of the program within the Air Force and in the Pentagon pushed back, protecting the program.

As a result, the Air Force opted to surge F-15EX procurement so that it could replace its F-15C/Ds as quickly as possible and lower F-35 procurement until the time where the service can buy the more advanced F-35 Block 4 model.

The Air Force’s F-35 buy will go back up over the next five years, Kendall said.”

Yes.

13 Sept 2022″

“According to programme prime Lockheed Martin in 2021, a rebaseline effort would see 151-153 aircraft delivered in 2022, followed by 156 in 2023. The UK is to receive six F-35Bs in 2022 and seven in 2023, although it is not known how the schedule could be impacted by the recent suspension.

Geoff, I’m thinking its probable the 48 number will be reached (or close to) by 2025. The tranche 1 Typhons are to be retired at that point. so presumably they will both convert onto F35, post 2025/26?

Sadly I suspect we are just going to lose the Typhoon Squadrons with no replacement as such. If I’m wrong great but I wouldn’t want to bet my shirt on it.😐

The first 48 F35’s will be delivered by 2025, and 2 frontline sqns will be formed along within the OCU and OEU from the first 48 aircraft. So we should be able to deploy 24 F35’s if we needed too. Current plans are to retain 7 frontline Typhoon sqns with tranch 2/3 aircraft once T1’s are retired. To be honest, the number of sqn’s doesn’t really matter as much these days, as the aircraft are operated as a pool of aircraft and moved around the sqn’s as they are required. Rather then 12 aircraft dedicated to each sqn for example. And when aircraft are deployed, they usually operate under the banner of an expeditionary air wing, that brings all the trades and force elements together to meet the operational requirements.

thanks for the detailed reply Robert, fascinating stuff. Good news on the retention of all 7 Typhoon sqns, albeit it with reduced numbers.

Reduced numbers yes, but a big increase in capability is coming with Radar 2 and the associated upgrades. 👍

You make a valid point.

What also concerns me is the date given for the possible ending of the production line in fifteen years’ time.

As I’ve said for many years, the F-35 was designed to fill a capability gap until the next generation of aircraft which are already on the drawing board and in the case of drones to some extent, already in the air.

So, do we continue to buy more in the future or invest what monies we have in the next generation of aircraft?

It’s also sensible to keep an eye on what China is up to so we can stay ahead of the pack if called upon to do so.

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/

A $64,000 dollar question my friend. One thing is for sure. We can’t do everything, especially with money being tight?
I would make the R.N. carriers the main force, with all the F35’s, either as strike carriers or maybe more likely a form of hybrid control and command vessel, standing well offshore supporting over the horizon incursion. So a mix of F35 and wingmen supported by the Osprey(?) or Chinook etc.
For the RAF we will have around 100 Typhoons available in 2026 with a current plan of seven squadrons. The interesting challenge here is SEAD but the purchase of another twenty airframes would enable maybe eight pure strike and two SEAD squadrons or we could just make the SEAD units available to EAW’s
Anyway I don’t suppose either is perfect but something for discussion. The future for the RAF is Tempest of course and the speed that it is developed at will depend on pound notes.

Radar 2 will give Typhoon SEAD & DEAD modes with electronic attack capability. The F35’s APG-81 has similar electronic attack capability. SPEAR-EW will further enhance the electronic warfare role.

“I would make the R.N. carriers the main force, with all the F35’s, either as strike carriers or maybe more likely a form of hybrid control and command vessel, standing well offshore supporting over the horizon incursion. So a mix of F35 and wingmen supported by the Osprey(?) or Chinook etc”

I tend to agree that is the better option going forward given the low numbers of F35-B we will ultimately receive with what I had hoped would be an increase in Typhoon numbers in the short term until the arrival of Tempest to make up in part for the loss of the T1s.

Due later this decade fingers crossed rather than the planned 2030 timescale.

“ECRS Mk 2. Alongside standard radar search/track modes, the ECRS Mk 2 will also confer electronic warfare (EW) and electronic attack (EA) capabilities.

The new active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar is initially planned for retrofit to 40 Tranche 3 Typhoons, with the option remaining for extension into Tranche 2 aircraft.”

ECRS Mk 2. Alongside standard radar search/track modes, the ECRS Mk 2 will also confer electronic warfare (EW) and electronic attack (EA) capabilities.

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/uk-funds-integration-of-aesa-radar-upgrade-for-typhoon

UK to fly Eurofighter ECRS Mk 2 E-Scan radar in 2023, IOC slated for 2030

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/uk-to-fly-eurofighter-ecrs-mk-2-e-scan-radar-in-2023-ioc-slated-for-2030

Glad you think the idea has merit. The likelihood is that we will not be getting a sniff of Block 4 before 2030 and that’s delivery. In the meantime we need to have our armed forces at best readiness. To do that we have to make awkward decisions. So let’s get the carriers operational with their OWN aircraft. Both ships have crew so achieving a five squadron set up by 2026/2027 should not be out of the question even if we only have eight or nine aircraft in each squadron initially building up to ten or twelve later. The composition for each carrier will obviously be defined by the role at the time.

👍

You sort of suggest that F-35 is a ‘stop gap’ whereas it apparently, according to some, has a service life way our to 2070.

Time will tell, of course, 2070 was mentioned back in 2016 the question is, have all the faults been fixed and has the price come down?

“The problems look set to become increasingly pronounced for the F-35B fleet if early models won’t be airworthy without significant structural upgrades by the end the next decade.

Beyond that, there’s no guarantee that later model Bs will meet the 8,000 flight hour life expectancy goal, “even with extensive modifications to strengthen the aircraft,” either, according to previous DOT&E reports on the F-35 program.

In the end, concurrency may leave the Marines with a fleet of aircraft that will only ever fly for a fraction of their expected service life before needing replacing entirely”.

As I posted above.

March 28, 2022

“I’ve had people ask me … if we’re committed to the F-35. Of course, we’re committed to the F-35,” Kendall said. “We’re 15 years into production, and we’ll be building F-35s probably another 15 years. … It’s going the be the cornerstone of the [tactical air] fleet for the foreseeable future. There’s no question about that.”

https://breakingdefense.com/2022/03/f-35-cuts-f-15-boost-and-e-3-replacement-air-forces-170b-budget-makes-big-moves-in-fy23/

Thanks Nigel. Good info.
My background is army and we soldier on today with 50 year old CVR(T)s and near-40 year old Warriors and AS90s, 25 year old Chally tanks – all either unmodernised or little modernised. Back in the day we used to upgrade at least every 6 or 7 years (amazing how many Marks of Chieftain there were).

Its quite surprising/shocking that the RAF/FAA envisage such a long service life for F-35s, although of course they will constantly be modernised and fatigued airframes repaired or replaced.

I couldn’t agree more with what you say, particularly with upgrades when there are plenty of other “off the shelf” options that could easily fit the bill.

I’m sure someone with your experience could make very good use of £5 Billion pounds for example!

Thanks Nigel. My point on upgrades was that they should be done many times through the lifetime of an equipment’s life, not that we should buy new equipment off the shelf instead of doing an upgrade.
Yes, it would be very easy to spend £5bn on MoD procurement if that is what is being mooted.

Hi Graham, I understood your point and you are quite right in what you say.

The £5B relates to the Ajax Program, “tongue in Cheek” and what we could do with it now!

Time will tell of course.

Hi Nigel, If I had to spend £5bn on CVR(T) replacement, we would not have bought a vehicle like Ajax from a company like GDUK!

I hope we get the promised programme announcement befoe Christmas …and that the news is all good!

You’re Welcome!

Ah, Nigel. I’d missed that you’re back. Good to see you.

Hi Daniele, Likewise!

I’ve been taking a break from the nasty comments one or two peeps tend to post on UKDJ in reply to some of my posts rather than constructive factual replys.

Let’s see how long it lasts 😜

It’s the F35 thing mate. I don’t think anyone’s nasty towards you myself but just avoid and ignore if you think they are.

Anyway, thought the spam ads had got you!😆

👍

With respect NO. !) The Typhoon has the greater range 2) The Typhoon is faster 3) The Typhoon has a greater payload of weapons.

The F-35B also used much more fuel. has to.

https://aerocorner.com/comparison/eurofighter-typhoon-vs-lockheed-martin-f-35-lightning-ii/

The F-35B is a fifth generation fighter the typhoon is not. That is simply not a gap that’s easy to overcome. The fourth generation fighter is not surviving in the same airspace with fifth generation fighter in operation.

The f35-B also comes flat packed with a mobile airfield that can take it to strike range of any nation on the planet.

Typhoon is locked into the closest friendly 11km of concrete as well as getting permission to overfly neutral Nations airspace.

They are really best not compared to be honest. Typhoon is best operated with a wide range of supporting assets to ensure it has the correct picture and awareness of its battle-space. F-35B paints the picture and creates how the battle space works.

We don’t really understand the fully of how 5th generation fighters will truly change air combat ( other than seeing exercises fifth generation fighters, dance all over 4th generation fighters) but it’s clear they will. You have to be really careful when you hit these profound changes in capability as it can be devastating if you have not kept up.

Air combat with the development of effective western fifth generation fighters is probably at some point going to hit its “battle of Sinop“ moment (and you really want to be the “Russian” in that sort of paridgm change), which later lead to the launching of Gloire and her sisters, which created the realisation that every navy In the world including the huge and supremely powerful RN and it’s massive fleets of ships of the line had just became hopelessly outclassed and unable in any way able to face just French 3 frigates ( on paper they were not as fast as the best wooden frigates or had as many guns as a sailed ship of the line….but with a generational change came the inability to compete in any way and comparison was therefore flawed).

QUOTE: “The F-35B is a fifth generation fighter the typhoon is not.”

I understand what you are saying, very good post.

However fifth generation v fourth generation in my eye there are times when the old is better than the new,

In the case of the F35-b v Typhoon – My opinion is the F-35-B is outclassed in —

The Typhoon in faster….The typhoon has a longer range….The typhoon carries much more ordinance.

I am sure there is a role for the F-35B best shown is how the US Marines would use it.

However when we come to the UK and the MOD – It will be a case being 74 will be ordered that the faster stronger Typhoon will see it’s numbers slashed.

Stealth is better than none but only when the stealth does not eat into other essential capabilities such as Speed/range and greater payload.

Being the RN has no CATABAR – The only suitable jet for the two carriers is the F-35B – fair enough,

Worth remembering though that the F-35B was not the jet of choice – The F-35A most people thought we was getting,

There was no choice, cash dictated what jet the RN/RAF was getting, not it’s suitability,

For getting it wrong the UK are great, Starting with dumping TSR2 and more recently buying Ajax.

History records what is perceived to be bigger and better. Spain’s new Generation of ships was beaten by English tactics. Cadiz for example and a North Wind I know that history but tongue in cheek I thought that relevant to a point.

Basically you have compared the 2 aircrafts maximum range which is only useful for ferry flights. That is for a typhoon carrying 3 big external drop tanks flying a perfect fuel optimised mission.
The F35 is using internal fuel.
There is a great Reddit page that pulled info from the Norway fighter competition. It gives different scenarios for time on station, range with different load outs.
https://www.reddit.com/r/F35Lightning/comments/5fv9he/combat_radius_of_western_multirole_fighters/

so do you think we wil need an exact rerun of The Falklands..thus requiring our future stratagy to accomodate such an event?

No, just pointing out that STOVL has practical advantages over cats and traps.

It’s the only place on earth we maintain a permanent active air defence system and the only place outside of the UK with a permanent fast jet detachment. It’s flanked by a highly unstable country, utterly convinced of its legitimacy to rule and its increasingly backed by an authoritarian super power, eager to spread its influence in both the western and Southern Hemisphere, that’s highly interested in the resources of the last unclaimed continent on earth.

So I would say, it’s handy to have carriers as a back up. Any other conceivable UK operation would be part of a coalition.

👍

Fair comment but I was making a point the f-35B is not much use for the RAF and the RN are not going to have F35-C.

Even if we had CATOBAR still would be a good idea to have F-35b as well as F-35B – I am dreaming I know as it is not going to happen. When the RN get all their F-35B jets then at least they will be a huge improvement on the Harrier.

I can’t imagine how a 5th generation stealth fighter is of “not much use” to the RAF…
Presumably you think the Typhoon is of even less use because it’s not even 5th generation…?

It’s not the generation.

F-35B has ASRAAM, AMRAAM and Paveway. No stand-off ground or sea weapons. Typhoon also has Meteor, Brimstone, Storm Shadow and FC/ASW in planning.

If the RAF need the extra flexibility of the weapons load, Typhoon could also integrate Spear without queuing up in LM’s overloaded schedules.

But the two platforms complement each other, and I think the Typhoon and F-35B can do more together than either can do separately.

Congratulations, in your haste to comment on my post you completely missed the context of it in the thread and the huge amount of sarcasm it contained.

The F35B and Typhoon, are both excellent aircraft with complementary roles. Together they are great tactical fit and give the RAF greater capability than it’s ever enjoyed.

The point being made was that for Ernest to suggest the F35B was useless was utterly ridiculous.

I never said the F35B was “useless ” – I said “It was little use to the RAF” – or words to that effect,

Why would the RAF want a jet that is slower, carries less munitions than the typhoon – If the F35B wanted to use stealth, the weapon load is not good enough for the RAF.

The RN are different, although CATABAR would best, they have not got that so they need the F35B – not controlled by the RAF and in greater number.

I think the F35B would be better as close support for an army than an air force.

Even if it was complimentary to the Typhoon with over 70 being bought we are told, then really do you the MOD would allow the RAF 170 plus jets? No is the short answer and lots of typhoons would be retired to make way for the less effective Typhoon.

You said “hardly any use”, that’s equates pretty close to “useless”.

Fortunately the RAF is a lot more intelligent than yourself and knows that in contested air-space stealth greatly increases survivability. Which is why in any war, the F35s would be sent in after the cruise missiles and drones to suppress enemy air defences; radars, SAMs, etc etc. having done that, then it’s safe for Typhoon bomb-trucks to be committed.

The RAF, USMC, Italy, Singapore, Japan, all think the weapons load in stealth mode of an F35B is good enough, you’re a lone uninformed voice.

You’re obviously ignorant of the lessons of the Falklands too. The Argentine carrier couldn’t launch because the high sea state rendered its cats and traps. Meanwhile our carriers were still capable of launching Harriers.

You also probably don’t know it takes months of training for a pilot to be certified for cars and traps. It’s quicker and simpler to train, and keep certified, a pilot on VSTOL.

Using the F35 for CAS is a ridiculous idea, wasteful of its abilities, economically just doesn’t make any sense.

Your final paragraph is pure speculation, and the final sentence of retiring Typhoons for Typhoons is gibberish.

QUOTE: “Your final paragraph is pure speculation, and the final sentence of retiring Typhoons for Typhoons is gibberish.”

Oh dear anything to score a point – you know that was a mistake and should have read “Typhoons for F35B”

QUOTE: “Fortunately the RAF is a lot more intelligent than yourself and knows that in contested air-space stealth greatly increases survivability. “

Really you know in advance how the RAF would react – There are a lot of different scenarios.

QUOTE: “and knows that in contested air-space stealth greatly increases”

Well in contested air space, would be good to be in the faster jet. After delivering a more telling payload of munitions.

QUOTE: “You’re obviously ignorant of the lessons of the Falklands too. The Argentine carrier couldn’t launch because the high sea state rendered its cats and traps. Meanwhile our carriers were still capable of launching Harriers.”

I will answer your point without resorting to personal insults.

I doubt I am as you say ignorant and here is why.

The RN had imposed an exclusion zone around the Falklands and the ARA Veinticinco de Mayo would have been sunk had she ventured out of port – although I think my opinion her ‘Super Étendards’ took part in the attack with saw the Atlantic Conveyer sunk – The Super Étendard I believe could not have reached the Task force from the Argentine Mainland. So the carrier must have been used is the ‘Super Étendards; attacked. I am not 100% but sure that happened.

QUOTE: “The RAF, USMC, Italy, Singapore, Japan, all think the weapons load in stealth mode of an F35B is good enough, you’re a lone uninformed voice.”

Well this uninformed voice knows that the RN did not get Cat and Traps for financial reasons – probably Italy also and has japan a carrier large enough to use the F35C?

The US Marines use the F35B alongside faster jets – not instead off.

And I dare say the could be used as CAS in hostilities involving US troops – i could be wrong but maybe not.
STOVL
BTW your Ref to CAS – I was likening STOVL jets being capable of that, just like the Harrier – What I said was no big deal.

So much inaccurate and wrong, where to begin… 🤷🏻‍♂️😆

ARA Veinticinco de Mayo did venture out of port. She was leading the northern pincer group while the General Belgrano was leading the southern pincer group, when the latter was torpedoed.
(It was only after the loss of the Belgrano that she was confined to port.)

The Exocets that sank the Atlantic Conveyor were launched by Super Etendards operating out of Rio Gramde. At the time the Argentine carrier had not been modified to allow the operation of these aircraft.

All these Falkland War details are publicly available on the internet, but you couldn’t be bothered to Google before posting your musings…

Given you can’t get simple historical facts right, it doesn’t bode well for the rest of your arguments.

If Italy or Japan wanted to operate the F35C they could build afford to build a carrier big enough. Fact is, nobody except the USN has chosen to operate the F35C.
Singapore doesn’t plan to have carriers period. They recognise the usefulness of an aircraft that doesn’t require a runway.

Yes the RAF is more intelligent than yourself, or is your hubris that big? I find it hilarious that you think the RAF wouldn’t deploy an aircraft to do a job that it was designed for, though I suspect again it’s due to your lack of knowledge about the F35.

There was a moment when to SAVE money the U.K. government sought to save money be switching to the F35C to SAVE money as it’s cheaper than the B. That was the only reason why cats and traps were considered. The expensive and unreliability of EMALS thankfully stopped that. Buying EMALS would have reduced the number of F35s bought.

Yes you can use an F35 for CAS, just as you could use any aircraft. The question is whether it’s a sensible and effective use of your limited assets during a conflict. It will vary by circumstance but it certainly shouldn’t be the default choice.

The USMC plan to replace their F/A-18s Hornets with F35s. They still operate them at the moment, but then they also still operate AV-8 Harriers, which will also be replaced by F35s.

Yes it was obvious your “replace Typhoons with Typhoons” was a blunder on your part. What it highlighted was your general sloppiness; from fact-checking, to reasoning, to composing prose.

I never said ARA Veinticinco de Mayo did venture out of port, I was unsure at time of typing and that has little to do with anything,

I also said I was not 100% sure. So no claming facts wrong on that count.

Nothing to do with the discussion over F-35B v Typhoon, you are sending up false flags.

QUOTE: “If Italy or Japan wanted to operate the F35C they could build afford to build a carrier big enough. Fact is, nobody except the USN has chosen to operate the F35C.”

Japan could afford but they see China as a threat now, not in years to come waiting for a super carrier to be built,

Italy well that will remain a matter of opinion.

[QUOTE] :Given you can’t get simple historical facts right, it doesn’t bode well for the rest of your arguments.”

You really need to check your facts – I did not use the argument as a historical fact, again I said I was not 100% sure.

QUOTE: ” I find it hilarious that you think the RAF wouldn’t deploy an aircraft to do a job that it was designed for, though I suspect again it’s due to your lack of knowledge about the F35.”

I am glad I made you smile, much needed IMO.

Please get your facts right – I never said – or sorry you read my mind “I find it hilarious that you think the RAF wouldn’t deploy an aircraft ”

Ha ha – I never thought no such thing, I believe if a choice the RAF would choose the F35-A – That’s a whole lot different to your attempt to cherry pick my words.

QUOTE: “There was a moment when to SAVE money the U.K. government sought to save money be switching to the F35C to SAVE money as it’s cheaper than the B”

That’s my argument – i said the MOD chabut feel free tonged to F-35B from A was COST,

[QUOTE] “The US Marines use the F35B alongside faster jets – not instead off.”

Read my posts I said that – but feel free to use my argument against me. it’s funeee.

[QUOTE]” Yes it was obvious your “replace Typhoons with Typhoons” was a blunder on your part.”

Really this is pathetic, really is – I held my hand up and sais Type mistake. – Not a “blunder”

For the record I do research and I also use from memory, being human I like everyone including you tonight makes an odd mistake.

Again for the record – I try for discussion, not points scoring and resorting to personal insults – i don’t do that.

Lastly

QUOTE”The USMC plan to replace their F/A-18s Hornets with F35s. They still operate them at the moment, but then they also still operate AV-8 Harriers, which will also be replaced by F35s.”

Really why have you posted that, no dispute or point of argument there,

US Marines use F-35B in conjunction with the carriers main jets, makes sense to me.

Further if that’s what was happening on our carriers, no problem there – Do you now understand ?

Feel free to keep making inaccurate claims, stating false facts, and drawing dodgy conclusions….
I think I’ve shown in my previous responses that while everyone has the right to free speech, it’s pointless to listen to those who are so incompetent as to get basic facts wrong.

Sean.. Many years experience with forums you are probably the worse example of how to post.

In most of my posting I put IMO – I never claim to be ‘infallible’

I am entitled to my opinion, unlike you claiming to know what I think.

In conclusion you are rude, hostile and make no effort to discuss what you don’t agree with.

I ran as joint admin to a sports forum web based and had another kind of forum with 100,000 likes and followers – I am far more experienced than you realise. I will leave it there.

So rather than stoop to your level of poor hostile posting, I shan’t answer anymore of you rude parrot like posts – I won’t answer you again and would prefer you did not answer mine written to others.

The only reason the USMC have bought and plan to buy a small number of F35C’s is because there arm was twisted by the USN. It’s well known on US defence sites that they wanted an all F35B fleet.

Well I understand marines wanting F35-B and a USN wanting F35-C That’s what I would prefer for the RN. Why would marines want an F35-B?

Afternoon Ernest,
The USMC need the F35B to replace their Harrier force, so that they can continue to provide CAS from their LPHs as they currently do.
If they were honest, I suspect that the air raft has too much capability for what they actually need, as they are in the CAS business for their marines.

They have to operate the C version as part of a long standing agreement with the USN (can’t remember exactly what it’s about unfortunately). The problem for the US is that the USN don’t/didn’t really won’t the C version, as it’s a evolutionary dead end. They are only going to buy the stated numbers and are betting the house on the NGAD fighter (Navy).

I suspect that had we have actually gone down the Cats & Traps route, we would have operated both the A and C versions and probably not bothered with the B model. Still. We will never know now, as they say it is what it is!

No we will never know.

I think first the F-35B is best suited for the US Marines. I can’t see why they would want a F-35C.

On the other hand, I think say operating 30 jets, I think best value would be 20 cat n trap jets and 10 F-35B – Gives options.

I think for providing CAS F-35B would be better – it can land anywhere.

For a longer range mission a jet other than STOVL would be better,

Stealth is good but cost is payload.

Correction to my post.

“ Why would marines want an F35-B?”

Should have read /  Why would marines not want an F35-B?

QUOTE: MYSELF. “Your final paragraph is pure speculation, and the final sentence of retiring Typhoons for Typhoons is gibberish.”

I don’t seem to be able to edit out the “gibberish” Whoops ‘mistake, so I am making it clear “Typhoons for Typhoons” was a mistake.

As we have seen in Ukraine, airbases and runways are more vulnerable than ever. Precision guided ballistic missiles can crater large runways over 1000km from the AO.

The STOVL capability of F35 is more important than ever. The US and the rest of NATO will literally be operating 2000+ F35A’s. But just a few hundred F35B’s.

The US has been training hard with the aircraft for this reason.

Singapore, japans and potentially South Korea have all looked at the aircraft for its landed based STOVL capability.

In addition the deployment of stealthy drones such as MQ25 overcomes the F35B only real operational shortcoming that matters.

If the RAF wants a deep penetrating aircraft with long range to perform a Tornado type role then that’s a job for cruise missiles or drones these days. Not manned £100 million aircraft.

Just wondering as an ex-army man if our troops would ever see RAF F-35Bs providing CAS for them, as Harriers once did?
Is the RAF training to do this?

Hi Graham,

Given what we have seen in Ukraine I think CAS is going to need something of a rethink. My bet is drones will be much better at providing support to troops on the ground.

I have suggested in the past that the Army should integrate smaller drones into its battle groups that are capable of carrying Brimstone and/or Martlet missiles and of course undertake ISTAR missions. Putting them into the Battle Groups would ensure that there is always some ‘air support’ close to hand.

Larger drones flown from carriers or dispersed air fields could carry heavier payloads e.g. multiple Brimstone, Martlet or even AAM’s to provide a mobile AD capability and a much bigger air-to-ground punch.

That would leave the limited number of F-35 and Typhoon free to operate at the operational level, hitting bridges, knocking down enemy aircraft etc. I.e. shaping the battle space to enable land and maritime forces to maneurve.

This, of course, is likely to be somewhat in the future but again the Ukrainian’s have shown what can be achieved quickly and on a shoe string budget (something we were once very good at). In peace time we are trying to deter an enemy so we’ll tend to try and impress with our technical wizardary so it won’t be quick or cheap and we do have some catching up to do. However, if the proverbial did hit the fan I would not be at all surprised to see some pretty clever stuff emerge pretty damn quickly.

That’s a very long winded way of saying I don’t think the F35’s will be providing CAS except in the short term and in relatively low risk scenarios. They take way too long to build, cost way too much and frankly we don’t have the aircrew either. I know that you’ll probably be rolling your eyes and thinking PBI takes the hit again, but F35 sneaking through the enemy AD system and doing that ISTAR thingy, plinking bridges and command units would have a way more significant impact. Also, we are just not ready for a major conflict our researves are just too thin (people and material) and I think that is another take away from Ukraine. Modern warfare in Europe can be long and drawn out, but that’s another debate altogether.

Cheers CR

Hi CR, Great post – many thanks. This article was about F-35B, but equally Typhoon has a suite of weaponry that can be used in CAS including Brimstone, Paveway IV and the 27mmm cannon.

Interesting that you think the Army should provide its own CAS using drones. Why would they be much better than Typhoons and F-35s at supporting Troops on the ground?

Can small drones carry the weapons you describe? Does a BG have the manpower to hold, operate and maintain a good number of attack drones? Answer – no it doesn’t – more manpower would have to be provided – and there are an awful lot of people who want to cut the army below the modest 73,000 figure apparently. BGs might get smaller, rather than bigger.

For a small army, CAS is even more vital and we need all assets to be brought to bear. We could not afford to lose large numbers of troops these days.

Is it wise to take away the CAS role from Typhoons and F-35s (and leave them to just do the more operational level suport to the army ie Battlefield Air Interdiction) when that CAS capability has already been provided at great expense? More expense would be occasioned by procuring attack drones for the army.

I’ll add my two pennies worth! If we were involved in a Ukraine type conflict. I think it would be foolhardy to use either Typhoon or F35. We simply cannot afford to waste these aircraft in an environment where they have a very good chance of being shot down with a plethora of air defence systems. We simply do not have enough aircraft to soak up that kind of casualty rate.

CR is pointing in the right direction for the PBI’s CAS. Expendable drones are the answer, in a similar guise to the TB2. Where a single drone carries just enough to achieve a mission goal. However, where a swarm of drones operating together then has a better chance of a mission success, even after taking substantial losses.

So far there has been very little reporting on how drones are being affected by EW in the Ukraine War. Prior to the invasion Russia were playing silly buggers with GPS jamming. But nothing has been mentioned about GPS or SAT comms being jammed/spoofed. Clearly GPS is still working fine, otherwise the attack on Sevastopol wouldn’t have been achievable. If EW was used how it is meant to be, drones would be having a much lesser effect on the war.

However, EW notwithstanding, it would make a lot of sense if these drones were a Brigade asset, in a similar chain to artillery, where they operate close to the forward line of engagement and can be called upon to intervene at a hot spot, or an area that needs softening up to allow a breakthrough. As they should be looked upon as a tactical asset.

The issue is cost versus effectiveness. Yes, you could make a number of unmanned air systems (UAS) like the BAe Taranis. Which with its low observability and relatively large weapons load could attack a number of targets in one mission. But how many could you afford or afford to loose? Whereas, buying a bucket load of TB2 like UAS, means some will be shot down, but some will get through to complete the mission. Which is more useful? Especially as we are seeing in Ukraine, the war is likely to be going over 12 months. So how fast could BAe build Taranis to replace the losses, compared to how quickly a simplistic TB2 could be built?

Strategically, having a greater number of cheaper drones, means your opponent will expend a shed load of surface to air missiles and anti-air ammunition trying to counter the drones. How quickly can they replace and replenish their stocks? Which is why I believe we should be looking at purchasing a TB2 like drone in large numbers for CAS/battlefield reconnaissance that is coordinated by Brigade HQ.

Davey, a quite remarkable point of view!

Having invested a fortune in F-35 and Typhoon, you advocate not using them in a Ukraine-type scenario, ie against a peer(ish) opponent, such as Russia, being convinced that we would lose so many to enemy air defences and to use cheap TB-2 type armed drones instead. Wow! What do we have those advanced aircraft for?

Did I misunderstand? Would you not employ manned aircraft aross the board or just in CAS missions?

We have ways of destroying or reducing enemy air defences – SEAD. Back in the Gulf War, a lot of preliminary work was in SEAD before the main Shock and Awe piece.

I guess you would not advocate use of Apache on CAS for the same reason that some/all may get shot down? We had better scrap the AH64E programme quickly then, and save some money.

If the Russians haven’t yet worked out how to jam drones, then they are slow learners – they may crack it sometime soon – then most, if not all, of the drones will be useless.

I am not saying that the army would not get advantage from having attack drones at BG or bde level, assuming resources could be found to procure and man the systems. Just that we should not write off Apache or RAF fast jets to deliver CAS as we can crack the SEAD nut.

Not at present but it’s on the cards. The main issue at present is lack of weapons especially Brimestone for CAS. That may change though with SPEAR in block IV. It’s does have cannon pods and Paveway IV though so it may provided CAS as required. Both Typhoon and F35B are completely multi role so can both do missions such as air superiority, deep strike or CAS.

While much of what you say I totally agree with, I believe the one area where both aircraft types are lacking is the ‘deep strike,’ role. They both just don’t have the range or payload the Tornados possessed.
Cruise missiles at 500mph out to 1000miles aren’t really a serious replacement for the loss of this capability either.
Heavyweight drones might eventually replace this capability, but we are currently far from having any of those either, don’t you think?

Yes I agree, I would put along range stealthy drone able to carry Paveway III top of my shopping list.

👍🏻

BTW – Singapore has ordered an initial batch of 4 F35Bs to gain practical experience of it, with more orders planned to eventually replace its F16 fleet.

There is a case for some F35B jets for the RAF but proper strike aircraft should be the main jet of choice IMO.

If The RAF are going to operate some F35B jets, then they should have their own IMO and so should the RN controlled by the Fleet Air Arm.

I understand what you was saying about the Tornado – IMO they should have been replaced in part by new Tornadoes . Cruise Missiles are fine but can’t totally replace a fast jet, at 550 MPH they would be easier to shoot down. IMO.

“they should have been replaced in part by new Tornadoes” 🤣

I’m relieved you didn’t suggest reintroducing Vulcans…

” Tornadoes” Just the job for bombing. It’s does not have to be Tornadoes – However a small number of real fighter Bombers would be good.

Ah the Vulcan – Too slow but had it been developed further to say M 2 – Along with super fast cruise missiles being developed, would maybe have left only two-three expensive Trident Submarines needed,

It’s not going to happen but a mixed nuclear deterrent probably would have been cheaper and more cash available for none nuclear forces,

With a shrinking Army, Type 23 Frigates being replaced by Type 31/32 lesser ships

Extra cash for defence would be welcome.

If you mean “bombers” say “bombers” not “Tornadoes”… especially as the Tonka was a “fighter-bomber”.

Long range bombing missions have a high risk for air-crew, better to use cruise-missiles which are also cheaper.

We have 4 SSBNs in the basis of 1 on patrol, 1 on readying to go on the next patrol, 1 on training, 1 on maintenance/ refit. Your idea of having only 3 risks there not being enough to maintain CASD.
Maintaining a mixed nuclear force as you suggested would also cost more than the 4th submarine and be less effective.

The 8 ASW Type 23s are being replaced by 8 ASW Type 26s which are much more capable.
The 5 Type 31s are replacing the 5 general purpose Type 23s. They’re just as capable.
The Type 32s are not replacing the Type 23s and represent an increase in frigate numbers.

You must have to try really hard to be so utterly inaccurate and incorrect in your posts 🤷🏻‍♂️

Tornadoes where fighter bombers – GR4 hence “bombers” -Must be a strain being so pedantic, you really have a closed mind,

QUOTE “Your idea of having only 3 risks there not being enough to maintain CASD. Maintaining a mixed nuclear force as you suggested would also cost more than the 4th submarine and be less effective”

Really would it – Why do we have just trident?? – Cost, or maybe a cut down on nuclear, or not. One thing is mixed would not leave us with none if Scotland do go Independent.

Anyway we don’t have mixed, more the pity.

QUOTE: “The 8 ASW Type 23s are being replaced by 8 ASW Type 26s which are much more capable.”
I agree – They are a good replacement.

QUOTE ” he 5 Type 31s are replacing the 5 general purpose Type 23s. They’re just as capable.”

No they are not – The Type 31 is a low cost frigate. I say because are we going to get a top class frigate for £268 million?

So no increase in frigates, – Really more Type 26 would have shown a serious replacement for Type 23.

“The Type 32s are not replacing the Type 23s and represent an increase in frigate numbers.”

If you can call them frigates – Look they are not front line warships and will be used mainly for ante piracy and showing the flag.

QUOTE: You must have to try really hard to be so utterly inaccurate and incorrect in your posts “

You can’t help yourself to stop insults can you. You seem to accept F-35B and Type 31 without question as being better than Typhoon and Duke Class – I don’t but I respect your opinion except when testosterone driven..

If you worked in any scientific discipline you’d recognise it as being “accurate” rather that being “pedantic”.

We just have Trident because submarines launched nuclear weapons is the best method for ensuring you have a deterrent. Airfields and land based silos are easily taken out, SSBNs are incredibly difficult to find. Why have something inferior as an extra cost?

Even if Scotland became independent, which it won’t, we’d still have Trident. That’s you advance that as argument just demonstrates you know just how weak your argument is.

The T31s are just cheap compared to the extra expense needed for a frigate to be an ASW frigate, such as T26. But in respect of the GP T23 they’re as capable if not more so.

The T32s haven’t even been publicly specified in terms of requirements yet. Yet you’ve already come to the conclusion that they’ll only be for constabulary duties – which would be a duplication of the River OPVs…. Presumably your opinion that they won’t be real frigates is based on some telepathic link with the FSL? 😆

I don’t respect your opinion, because it’s quite obvious you’ve done no reading on the topics but feel that lack of basic facts should not prevent you from spouting off. You really don’t realise that you’re making a laughing stock of yourself do you? 🤷🏻‍♂️

You are pedantic. You are rude and think you know everything.

I never said get rid of Trident – i suggested maybe a cut in Subs and a more mixed delivery system.

Four Nuclear subs and only one ever out at sea, is costly to the point our conventional forces have suffered,

We could keep two and maybe deliver nuclear cruise missiles – Cheaper.

Yes they can be shot down, the answer to that could be saturation, send enough and enough will get through.

QUOTE Sean..”Even if Scotland became independent, which it won’t, we’d still have Trident. That’s you advance that as argument just demonstrates you know just how weak your argument is.

First of all Sean you said “Even if Scotland became independent, which it won’t,” –

Oh you are sure of this – Blair never thought SNP would get over I think 50% of the vote They did and are the largest party. in Westminster and control the Scottish Assembly .

So Scotland could become independent at some stage and their pledge is trident gone.

No deep water in England – Talk has been on basing trident in US or Europe in that event .

Some independent nuclear deterrent that would be.

That is in part my argument for mixed delivery and cost another.

“The T31s are just cheap compared to the extra expense needed for a frigate to be an ASW frigate, such as T26. But in respect of the GP T23 they’re as capable if not more so.”

T 26 is more than an ASW Frigate – look at weapons they can carry and use,

“I don’t respect your opinion, because it’s quite obvious you’ve done no reading on the topics but feel that lack of basic facts”

I really don’t care if you respect my opinion or not. I have a lot more internet experience than you ever could realise and why should I care what a rude, arrogant person like you thinks.

As for lack of reading that’s a joke, I also spend hours on You tube watching progress of T21/32 – I watch, I listen I read.

I asked you before – don’t bother answering, you idea of debate is your are 100% right, you are aggressive and rude, I won’t waste anymore time on you..

No I’m not pedantic, I’m accurate, because I bother to check my facts before making a post. Unlike you.

I don’t know everything, but the facts I do lookup I know, I don’t invent facts like yourself. If you’re too lazy to do any research before making a post you can expect to be shot down in flames.

If you think a CASD can be maintained with just 2 submarines you’d be achieving something no navy has every considered. Probably because they know it’s a ridiculous impossibility.

Oh great, nuclear cruise missiles… launched from what because you’ve already cut the submarine force. You’re also taking about LOTS more cruise missiles because each sun can carry 128 warheads.
Finally, you’re idea could trigger an accidental nuclear war. If we fire a cruise missile at an enemy do they wait to see what kind of warhead it’s carrying before they retaliate? There’s a reason why the USN retired it’s nuclear tipped cruise missiles a decade ago.)

I’m sure the aircrews of the RAF will be happy to hear you are prepared to sacrifice the majority of them with your “saturation, send enough and enough will get through” strategy…
Exactly how many hundreds/ thousands of bombers are you proposing to buy for this mass slaughter of our airmen?

Blair is an idiot, so your quoting him is pointless. Westminster will never transfer powers for a legal independence referendum and no country, except for the likes of Russia would accept a UDI.
But let’s say in your crazy world view it happened, the subs would be rebased in England. They don’t need ‘deep water’ when they leave harbour, which is why we’ve had submarines based on the south coast in the past.

The T26 is an ASW frigate, because ASW is its primary mission. That doesn’t mean it that it’s it’s only mission FFS.
But if you disagree with that, then feel free to contact BAE and the RN and argue with them.

Tim? Mr Berners-Lee? Is that you masquerading as Ernest? Because I don’t see otherwise how you could have more internet experience than me 🤷🏻‍♂️
Oh you mean watching YouTube videos, right… reading too difficult for you? You believe everything you see on YouTube? Guess you’re probably also an anti-vaxx flat-earther then.

Stop watching YouTube, read articles from credible sources and you might just start to know what you are talking about.

I’m more than happy to debate with those that make an effort to be informed with facts. And I frequently do that on here. You however just spout ridiculous ideas off the top of your head then sulk when your stupid ideas are shot down with facts and logic.

QUOTE “Oh great, nuclear cruise missiles… launched from what because you’ve already cut the submarine force. You’re also taking about LOTS more cruise missiles because each sun can carry 128 warheads.”

Cruise missiles are self-guided and use multiple methods to accurately deliver their payload, including terrain mapping, global positioning systems (GPS) and inertial guidance, which uses motion sensors and gyroscopes to keep the missile on a pre-programmed flight path.

https://armscontrolcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Ballistic-vs.-Cruise-Missiles-Fact-Sheet.pdf

Interesting Sean.

QUOTE “I’m sure the aircrews of the RAF will be happy to hear you are prepared to sacrifice the majority of them with your “saturation, send enough and enough will get through” strategy…”

“The Astute class has stowage for 38 weapons and would typically carry a mix of Spearfish heavy torpedoes and Tomahawk Block IV cruise missiles, the latter costing £870,000 each. The Tomahawk missiles are capable of hitting a target to within a few metres, to a range of 1,000 miles (1,600 kilometres).”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astute-class_submarine#:~:text=The%20Astute%20class%20has%20stowage,1%2C000%20miles%20(1%2C600%20kilometres).

So you accuse me of sending RAF on suicide missions, I never knew RAF had subs, Read the above.

Cruise Missiles can carry multiple warheads, see above.

QUOTE “Tim? Mr Berners-Lee? Is that you masquerading as Ernest? Because I don’t see otherwise how you could have more internet experience than me”

Well for years I was joint admin of a world wise sports forum, before social media made them obsolete,

I also was admin of site of another type.

I have had lots of internet experience.

If you don’t believe that, I care very little.

QUOTE: Stop watching YouTube, read articles from credible sources and you might just start to know what you are talking about.”

I like you tube, don’t use it as more source than a written word.

The point I was trying to make over trident was simple. maybe a good idea to cut subs to two or three and have more diverse delivery. No more no less.

QUOTE: “You however just spout ridiculous ideas off the top of your head then sulk when your stupid ideas are shot down with facts and logic.”

So what are these ideas.

I like the Gripen, along with Typhoon and no instead as you said.

Oh I would rather have a mix of F-35B and C – I wonder how many RN Top Brass agree,

I think maybe a diverse IND might be a good idea, so what?

Oh Sean you said
” Westminster will never transfer powers for a legal independence referendum”

How wrong can that be? Scotland had a referendum in 2016 and will have one again in a few years, a generation is the time frame.

Oh and you said trident would move to England, read on it, not universal accepted,, most media would agree differently.

QUOTE FINANCIAL TIMES,

“MoD could move UK nuclear subs abroad if Scotland breaks away”
https://www.ft.com/content/2e73ab9d-772b-4112-871a-24207f0e982a

Polls have suggested PEOPLE in Scotland would wish to keep Trident, even if leaving UK.

Well they would then not be a British Country,

https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/most-scots-back-keeping-trident-24064500

Really Sean leats leave it at that, getting silly now.

Hilarious? You’re now confusing yourself!! 🤣😂🤣😂🤣

First you suggest saturation attacks because a bomber will always get through… then you change them to submarine based cruise missiles.

Two huge problems with your Trumpian like idea of replacing a Trident with nuclear cruise missiles…
• nuclear armed Tomahawks don’t exist
• multiple munition Tomahawks are for conventional warheads, not nukes

But then you haven’t let facts stop you from pontificating and postulating before, so I guess they won’t now.

I can believe you were an admin for a website, aside from people manning the help-desk it’s the lowest level of technical ability within an IT structure. It’s usually the highest level for those not bright enough to go to university.

Cutting the Trident fleet neuters the CASD. SSBNs are the most expensive vessels in the fleet. If they could, the RN would cut the numbers so they could spend more on other vessels. If they could, politicians would cut the numbers so they could spend more on other vessels. But the fact is that 4 is the absolute minimum needed to maintain a CASD. (There’s actually a case for 5 as the long difficult refuelling of one HMS Vanguard has meant the other 3 have been worked harder than planned.)

Scotland only had a referendum in 2016 because Cameron consented for a temporary transfer of power under a Section 30 Order which granted the Scottish Parliament the legal authority to hold one. Every PM since has made it clear they won’t grant another one. This is no legal requirement to ever grant another one.

So far you’ve been wrong on the constitution, defence, the Falklands War… I’m expecting you to announce the earth is flat at any moment.

Again you twist and manipulate the facts to try and back up an untenable position. One opinion piece in The Times does not equate to “most media”. Even the article only says “could”.
You know what, the USA could decide they’ve had enough of this republic thing and ask to rejoin the Crown, allowing us to station them there… but it’s highly unlikely.

Your final rant is bizarre because you fail to mention that most people in Scotland want to remain in the U.K. too, which is probably why the majority want to retain Trident. 🤷🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️

Give up, in this battle of wits you’re completely unarmed.

QUOTE SEAN, “Two huge problems with your Trumpian like idea of replacing a Trident with nuclear cruise missiles…
• nuclear armed Tomahawks don’t exist”

You have every right to disagree with me, my problem is you post like a know it all twit. Really your personal attacks are getting boring/

Over Tomahawks you are wrong.

“Tomahawk can carry either conventional or nuclear payloads, though policy decisions have phased out their nuclear role.”

They can be used as I described. Because it is not used now in that mode, does not mean it can’t be.

https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/tomahawk/#:~:text=The%20Tomahawk%20is%20an%20intermediate,phased%20out%20their%20nuclear%20role.

QUOTE SEAN

“Scotland only had a referendum in 2016 because Cameron consented for a temporary transfer of power under a Section 30 Order which granted the Scottish Parliament the legal authority to hold one. Every PM since has made it clear they won’t grant another one. This is no legal requirement to ever grant another one.”

You are wrong again, Cameron did as you say but all PMs up to Boris have told the SNP – ANOTHER REFERENDUM can’t be held for a generation. Even you Sean should realise a “generation is not forever,

In theory after a generation the UK government could block a referendum but they would not if the Scottish people wanted separation. They would have no choice. They got a referendum in 2016 so really a precedent was set. One more mistake like imposing the poll tax on Scotland will be the end of the union. At the moment a majority of Scottish people would not vote leave – Does not mean a referendum will never happen, because it will.. Then it’s down to the Scottish people to decide, not people like us.

QUOTE=SEAN

“Your final rant is bizarre because you fail to mention that most people in Scotland want to remain in the U.K. too, which is probably why the majority want to retain Trident. 🤷🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️
Give up, in this battle of wits you’re completely unarmed.”

I do not rant, I have no need to rant – Read your posts you are one of the most conceited people I have ever read.

You have to cheek to post to me “Give up, in this battle of wits you’re completely unarmed”

Two or three times I have said – Don’t answer my post (or words to that effect., but you rant on and on and on.

I understand UK Government could block a referendum anytime – I doubt very much this would happen after the Generation clause.

My last point on this saga Sean want’s to pursue.

I maybe wanted a mixed nuclear option for the UK. A study to see if it would work, thus allowing more cash for conventional weapons – Whether Sean likes this ot not does not matter, it is an option that could be at least looked at.

I believe that after a generation has passed, if Scottish people wanted a referendum, they would get one. Sean seems not to understand the meaning of the word “generation”

So Sean thinks I want a battle of wits, well i don’t., he several times has ventured to know what I am thinking.

To Sean I am fed up with this saga – I won’t answer again, so if you wish carry on your attacks, – They will fall on deaf ears,

Se an remember this Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. I will not answer any more replys.

You really are embarrassing yourself with your petulant childish antics.

The BGM-109A Tomahawk Land Attack Missile, the only nuclear variant, was withdrawn over a decade ago by the USN. These were all Block III Tomahawks.
So you’re assertion that Tomahawks as is could carry a nuke is wrong. But if you want the UK to waste a huge amount of money we could probably convert Block IVs to carry a nuclear weapon.
First;
• The U.K. would have to develop its own nuclear weapon for them, as we do for Trident. We never had nuclear armed Tomahawks and the USA won’t sell us nuclear warheads for them.
• We would need to pay Raytheon to make the modifications in software and hardware to Block IVs to be compatible with this warhead. Raytheon have no experience of this as the Block IIIs were manufactured by McDonnell Douglas. Neither has Hughes who were the manufacturer after McDonnell and before Raytheon took over the Tomahawk design and production.

Oh such naivety in one so old! You believe everything a politician tells you. All PMs have said “at least a generation”, knowing of course they’d be long out of office after anyone could raise this again.
There was no legal precedent set in 2016, Cameron simply exercised a legal power he had, he didn’t have to, and no future PM is obliged to. As it is the Scots are against independence, they simply want a left-wing government and regard Labour as too incompetent. That’s why they vote SNP.
There won’t be a referendum, even Sturgeon doesn’t really want one. She knows it would a be a disaster, as Scotland would be both outside the EU AND no-longer in the Union – it’s biggest trading partner. They could apply to join the EU but membership now takes decades to attain, there are several nations in the queue ahead of them, and Spain and France would block it to set an example to their pro-independence regions. Meanwhile North Sea oil and gas are both running out and their becoming increasingly unjustifiable due to climate change.
The Scots know that England subsidises them through the Barnet Formula.

Meanwhile I would make a suggestion. I don’t believe your incoherence or incompetence is your nature, nor the bluster and outrage you use to deflect the obvious flaws in your arguments. Next time a GP visits your retirement home, or you visit your local surgery, you should request a test for early onset dementia.

This really is my last post to you.

You are obviously a man with no lateral thinking at all.

N Korea seam to manage to acquire or make nuclear warheads.
I am sure the UK can do the same – France did “France moved quickly and produced its first plutonium bomb on July 1, 1963.”

You seem to have no faith in your own country, and think innovation a dirty word for the UK.

Good job Barnes Wallace di not have your narrow outlook.

If you really believe Scotland could never vote for independence, you are as blinkered as Tony Blair who got devolution all wrong.

I can;t be bothered answering any more points from you.

After reading your last paragraph i realise you are evil rather than deluded, I am never outraged at all – Although serious medical conditions, I still function without spewing bile at others.

Last and very last – I had a forum and you di=o get abuse but, even ardent Scot Nat.s had better dispositions than you.

Your nastiness betters belief – Goodbye please don;t aswer again, I won,t waste time on you….

The U.K. builds its own warheads for Trident, so of course it’s perfectly able to design and build ones for Trident. But you’re looking at development costs as well as production costs, in other words lots of money.
No wonder you have so many half-arsed ideas when you can’t even read and comprehend comments on here. God knows what gibberish you’d come up with from misinterpreting a full scholarly article. I guess that’s why you depend on crackpot YouTube videos.

As I said before Blair us an idiot, just not as big a one as you. I assume though, that unlike him, you aren’t a war criminal.

Much to the chagrin of bookies, I’ve correctly called every general election and referendum since 1992, I’m feeling pretty confident about Scotland. If you bothered to get out and talk to real people you’d know this too.

Just as you know someone is going to be disrespectful when they start a sentence with “which respect”, it’s pretty certain that someone who says they don’t “spew bile” knows full well they actually do.

“Matter of Cost”- you sound like a Civil Servant.

How can a mixed deterrent be more costly?

You know what is in Scottish peoples minds for the next generation. mind you say you can read my mind, so who knows.

I wonder if You called John Major winning his last GE – Oh well I did when I saw bookies odds shortening with hours to go – I think you probably would not have called that one.

You make no effort to debate – if you thought I was 100% wrong, you have that right, but your nasty posting is not worth answering.

Your points do not matter, I am not interested in what you have to say but you said and I quote.

“Just as you know someone is going to be disrespectful when they start a sentence with “which respect”, it’s pretty certain that someone who says they don’t “spew bile” knows full well they actually do.”

You can’t mean me because I never spew bile – i do say “with respect” but I mean that. Probably you are confusing my type of posting with your/

No when on here has answered me with the spite and bile you have. You have made your mind up you opinion is superior than mine.

I will not answer any point on F-35B – Typhoon – Scotland – Defence – politics. WHY?

it is now boring and you vile answers are not worth answering so

If I get a notification from TUKDJ and see your name, I will not read it and will delete it.

You called me “senile” what a sad person you are but, I suggest you grow up and answer posts like and adult – even a senile one,

You called Blair a “war monger” – He was a liar over 45 minute warnings, but WMD had been used if you count GAS, SKUD to Israel and the SUPER HUGE CANNON – Project Babylon.

So who can be sure about anything.

Any answer to me will be deleted,, so don’t bother, had enough

No I’ve always been private sector, another of your wild unfounded theories shot down. Again.

So you’d spend on defence without any regard to cost, and wonder why we would have lots of fancy different weapons systems… but no munitions or logistics to support them because you’d blown the budget.
It should be pretty obvious, even to a feeble mind such as yourself, why adding more and more different systems increases costs. Double the number of systems to deliver nukes and you double the number of programmes to design, develop, and manufacture, both the warheads and the platforms. You also double the logistics chains, spare part requirements, training of personnel to both use and maintain these platforms. And you lose any bulk purchase discounts from the manufacturers.
This is just common sense…

So you still support the illegal war in Iraq, why am I not surprised? The UN Security Council required Iraq to destroy its chemical weapons programmes in 1991 and supervised the task. After the Second Iraq War zero WMDs were found despite extensive searches.
But you still there still might have been WMDs because “you can’t be sure about anything”…. So I guess you’re still uncertain as to whether the earth is round or flat I assume?

You talk about respect, but when are you going to start showing a modicum of respect towards our military? Your advocation slaughtering vast numbers of our airmen to recreate WW2 style armada of bombers to carry nukes was simply farcical.
But your main disrespect is towards our senior career officers who have loyally served this country for decades. It’s up to them to decide what equipment is required, selected, and procured within a limited budget. They know if they get things wrong, it could cost the lives of many of the men who serve under them, and possibly even the defeat of the nation.
They’re human, so mistakes do occur; with Ajax springing to mind. But if you compare their record against the cockups made by other militaries or even commercial organisations, then they do a decent job.
But no, you think you can do a better job of deciding what the RN, RAF, and British Army should each be buying…
It takes tremendous stupidity to support that level of arrogance on your part.

Ha Ha – When I said you sounded like a Civil servant it was tongue in cheek or sarcastic at worst. Your reply was naive.

QUOTE: You talk about respect, but when are you going to start showing a modicum of respect towards our military? Your advocation slaughtering vast numbers of our airmen to recreate WW2 style armada of bombers to carry nukes was simply farcical. UNQUOTE

I find you first paragraph disgusting – Take that back you clown.

I have not advocated mass slaughter at all.

When I was typing about “mass saturation” I had Cruise Missiles in mind.

You seem on many points to engage gob before brains.

Let me make it clear for the last time – First: Four Trident boats are that expensive, we can’t afford the conventional forces we need,

I was musing different ways we could POSSIBLY make the deterrent cheaper without being less effective, I was advocating nothing, lets get that straight once and for all.

Seems to me Sean you have a very closed mind on somethings. mainly no lateral thinking. Barnes Wallace did think outside the box thank god.

Lets go back to F-35B – I never said the jet was no good, I said I did not think it right for the RAF for reasons already said, if you don’t agree, fair enough.

I would rather have CATOBAR for the carriers but, we are where we are and that is not going to happen. Ideally a mix of F-35B and C would be best IN MY OPINION.

QUOTE Sean But no, you think you can do a better job of deciding what the RN, RAF, and British Army should each be buying…
It takes tremendous stupidity to support that level of arrogance on your part. UNQUOTE

Why do you make stupid points like these – I have never mentioned the Army for one thing.

It is a free country Sean and if I wish to think I would prefer Typhoons to F-35B – That is my right. We do not live in a dictatorship. My you I am glad there are no vacancies – you never know who may apply, you know the type. mind controllers.

I remember Sean when the UK had a huge military, now I do not like all the cuts and make do and mend I see.

IF you do reply, please talk sense rather than answering every post in a belicose way, I have give you no cause to do that, nor behaved like that towards you. I explained all I have typed, leave at that – ok.

You’re clearly not a man of your word either. You keep saying you’re not going to reply… and then you do.

We’ve already established you’re not intelligent enough to do sarcasm so I’m working on the basis you’re a literalist. Then again you’re no good at that either..

You may have had cruise missiles ‘in mind’ when you talked about ‘mass saturation’ but you didn’t say that and the context was it was immediately after talking about Tornadoes/ bombers.

The 4 Tridents are not the reason we don’t have all the latest kit for the conventional forces. We have one of the largest defence budgets in the world, and each Trident only cost £4bn. That’s the same as the failed Nimrod MR4A programme or what’s been spent on Ajax. People with the full facts of the RN available to them and whose job it is to determine how many SSBNs we need have not been able ti reduce the number to less than 4 and still maintain CASD.
But you think you can… such arrogance is unbelievable.

My job requires me to think laterally, that’s why they pay me big bucks. But part of that is to differentiate between thinking outside the box and sticking the box on your head, and then running at speed head first into a brick wall, repeatedly.
Which is what you’re doing. You’re so committed to your brilliant idea you can’t give it up, even when others in here tell you others have tried and failed. At least they recognised they couldn’t cut the SSBN force. But not you…

Buying a mix of F35s would not be good for the U.K., in the opinion of the Air Chief Marshall, First Sea Lord, or the CDS. I take their opinions over a nobody such as yourself.
Oh the pomposity, you only think you know better than the heads of the RN and RAF, but not the Army. The Chief of the General Staff will be relieved to hear that 🤣

The Typhoons and F35s are different aircraft with different roles. You might prefer to have more Typhoons, I’d prefer to have more of both. But they are complementary. Which why even though the F35 is 5G and the Typhoon is only 4G, it’s still worth retaining.

The RN has 6 destroyers where the USN has over 60. Once upon a time we had that many battleships! But we had the largest empire the world has ever seen back then.
There has been enough complaints about the tax increases this week with the autumn statement. Rough figures, but if you wanted to double the defence budget it would roughly mean an extra 5p on the basic rate of income tax. That would be electoral suicide for any chancellor, in fact he’d go the way of Kwasi Kwarteng long before an election.

The Liberal Democrats advocated reducing to a 3-boat SSBN force to save money and did a very detailed piece of work, which concluded that CASD could not be guaranteed – they dropped their proposal.

Ernest apparently thinks it can be done with just 2 boats 🤷🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️

Yes but my point was not just two of three boats. I am not sure a mixed nuke delivery system would work but, I sure would look into it,

One reason cost – If w could manage with two boats and other ways of delivering nukes and money could be saved doing this, maybe we could afford more frigates, destroyers, more troops and jets..

I believe fully in a nuclear deterrent but also a strong conventional force could maybe keep us safer from a war that could end up nuclear, Just lateral thinking but our forces IMO are to small,

😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣

To be fair, a Vulcan would definitely have its uses, especially as a cruise missile carrier in a similar guise to the B52/B1. Where its exceptionally long range means it can attack from an unexpected direction.

Cut the tail fin off, give it digital flight controls, replace the Olympus with a more efficient turbofan, paint the surfaces with broadband RAM paint, put mesh screens in the inlets. Fit it with modern avionics, downsize the crew to 3. A modernised Vulcan would be quite stealthy and with a much longer unrefuelled range. Nowhere near a B2, but probably better than B1 levels of low observability.

Little known secret of the Vulcan was that it was particularly good at not being detected by long range search radar operating in the UHF, L and S bands as the wide area of the delta didn’t cause scattering as much as smaller jet platforms. It was one of the reasons that Argentine search radar on the Falklands only detected the Vulcan when it was getting close to the target. Pus it had a pretty effective jammer for the 1980’s.

Except you’d run into exactly the same problems as with the Nimrod. All from an era where aircraft were hand-built, and with small subtle differences between every single one. Which makes any major upgrades a custom job, resulting in a nightmare for modern air-certification…

That’s a bit short sighted. Admittedly the F35B is no Harrier, it requires a plethora of specialised equipment for maintenance and its “paintwork” will deteriorate if left out in the open for weeks on end. So, it probably cannot operate from hides and hex-mat set up in a forest like the Harrier did.

However, the recent Ukrainian War, has shown that airfields and the aircraft they operate, are extremely vulnerable to ballistic and cruise missile attack. Even long-range unguided missiles become a serious threat if the launch vehicle gets close enough. Dispersing your aircraft to old airfields and roads is the answer. But the aircraft and the support staff must be able to move sites at a moment’s notice, if the site is suspected of being discovered.

This year Typhoon has shown that it can deploy to and operate from an old airfield. However, it was only over a day or two. It was not sustained over a week or more, as it would have been done in the Jag and Harrier days. Which is where the logistics and maintenance side of flight generation really gets tested.

The F35B “should” be able to deploy to austere sites. But it will need a lot of planning, as it needs a lot of maintenance and really needs to be covered. One of the big issues is VTOL operations. It will need heat resistant matting, otherwise it will melt stuff and give away a tell-tale to its operating position. However, if it can find room for short rolling take-offs and landings. It won’t necessarily scorch the ground when taking off or landing.

This is the area where the RAF should be exploring. How do you operate and support a large number of F35Bs from several austere sites for a week or more. Deploying to an old airfield, which still has an airworthy runway and hard standings is only playing. It is nowhere near to how the Swedes operate their Gripens. Who have had decades to pre-position and build dedicated sites away from airfields.

How you wish to deploy the F35-B and it’s problems, it’s a very expensive aircraft, Maybe the new Harrier could do that job alongside – being used as such I can’t see how stealth would always help.

I don’t mind so long as we keep 100+ main jet like the Typhoon – For CAS (V/STOL) would be good as shown in the Falklands Goose Green .

QUOTE” It is nowhere near to how the Swedes operate their Gripens. Who have had decades to pre-position and build dedicated sites away from airfields.”

Yep on roads and indeed anywhere they can land and the Gripen would be worth considering as Typhoons will reduce as F-35B numbers grow. Cheaper too.

Having said that we are at a crossroads and really more planning for assets we have and assets we still need, No faith in MOD at all.

Brilliant, you want to replace Typhoons with the inferior Gripen 🤦🏻‍♂️

We have a new Harrier, it’s supersonic, it’s stealthy, and it’s called the F35B.

What are you talking about???? – you really are to much, or sorry you read my mind again.

I never said QUOTEING Sean “Brilliant, you want to replace Typhoons with the inferior Gripen”

Never said that, never thought that

I have always though the Gripen was good value, to have along with typhoon, not instead off,, Oh dear Sean, wake up.

“Gripen would be worth considering as Typhoons will reduce”
Doh! Why would they reduce? Why would you maintain numbers with an inferior foreign product? Idiot.

So you want both Gripen and Typhoon? Two aircraft with same role.
Congratulations you just reduced the number of available aircraft to the RAF by introducing yet another airframe to be maintained, another aircraft to train pilots for, another aircraft to stock spares and munitions for.
A massive increase in costs which will result in less money for aircraft, pilots an munitions.

Any other suggestions for wrecking the RAF??

Sadly, we can no longer go back to the Harrier. So we have to use what we have, which is the Typhoon and F35B. Therefore we have to clever how we use them, but also protect them when on the ground.

The RAF have been paying particular attention to what is going on in Ukraine. The first couple of days of the war came as no shock. Strategic targets such as airfields, radar and fixed SAM sites were all hit with either cruise or ballistic missiles. I think what was the shock was the initial massive use of them, without a large scale supporting ground attack manned aircraft interdiction. Where for almost a solid week the missiles were used against targets throughout the country. Whereas aircraft mostly hit localized tactical targets.

But then, it quickly became apparent that the Russian Air Force lacked sufficient stocks of stand-off precision guided weapons. Which meant they had to rely on unguided rockets, cluster munitions and laser guided bombs. Thus making them vulnerable to Ukrainian air defenses. Their suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD) capability is very poor, rely on the ancient Kh31P/PM missile. Which can only home in on a radar when it’s transmitting. It has no reference datum, so can’t fly towards where the radar was last transmitting from ala HARM.

But, as per how the Ukrainian Air Force, who have been protecting their limited numbers of aircraft by dispersing them around the country. The RAF must look at doing the same. Which means that the RAF need to plan and do more exercises where they are deployed longer at austere sites. Thereby putting the whole operational and maintenance chain under test.

This will also affect how Tempest is developed. If Sweden are involved in the program. Their deployed experience will be invaluable to allow Tempest to also operate from austere sites.

Hi Sean please keep your opinions to your self on such matters. As you know team America only accepts that CATOBAR carriers are proper carriers and that the feats of British engineers that allow a 5th generation super sonic aircraft to hover are not relevant to combat performance. Just as in World War II no one will be fighting navy’s in areas that are anything but flat calm parts of the tropical pacific. 😀

Great observation.

Uh oh, someone should probably inform the USMC that it is time to jettison the Gator Navy…🤣😂😁

Sea state was only an issue because the CATOBAR carriers of the time were 20-40,000 tonnes. 60,000T brings much higher level of stability, the Americans operate in sea state 6 and 7 during peace time.

HMS Invincible at 20,000 tonnes, able to launch its Harriers via ski-jump.

ARA Veinticinco de Mayo at 20,000 tonnes, unable to launch using its catapult.

When comparing carriers of the same displacement, those operating STOVL aircraft will be able to operate in higher sea states that render a catapult unusable. This will become an increasingly important factor as climate change increases the frequency and intensity of sea states.

BTW at over 100,000 tonnes, the American carriers have nearly 50% more displacement, which is a huge difference compared to the QE class.

If you mean the F-35 – Compared with Typhoons. I believe the typhoon has the longer travel rage,

The F-35C carries nearly 20,000 lbs of internal fuel and has a range of greater than 1.200km.
Top speed: 1,976 km/h
Range: 1,667 km

https://www.google.com/search?q=range+of+F-35b&rlz=1C1ONGR_en-GBGB992GB992&oq=range+of+F-35b&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i22i30l3j0i390l3.10938j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Typhoon.

Top speed: 2,495 km/h
Range: 2,900 km

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1ONGR_en-GBGB992GB992&sxsrf=ALiCzsa7IsIemFTEtga4JkUVgNMKz5yDbQ:1668451421416&q=What+is+the+range+of+RAF+Typhoon%3F&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjWorHyqa77AhWSQ0EAHdZKBpYQsZYEegQIFRAC&biw=1536&bih=754&dpr=1.25

Thanks Sean. Useful answer. Good info for those who mock the numbers that we can put on the carriers.

Wasn’t our need greater? – we had no carrier aircraft at all, whereas the USMC still had a capability (Harrier).

Would probably be able to loan you some GBU-12s, just bring them back in op condition, or blow the s**t out of something useful. 😁

A fair reply cheers.

Do not take hostile comments here too seriously. I found this website searching for info after the war in Ukraine accelerated earlier this year. At first I thought a lot of the posts were both informed and informative. I have since realised it is an extreme right wing echo chamber and now take most posts with a pinch of salt.

That is speaking as someone who is clearly right of centre in British political terms but has been accused of been a ‘Corbyn fan’ for mentioning reality on here.

Most of the articles are informative and worth reading but be aware most of the comments are from people who are on the right of the Tories.

Thank you for that last sentence. It’s particularly revealing.

Your final sentence has just negated every other supposed reasonable post you write.

And having read your previous posts, oh dear, how sad, never mind. You do seem to be a member of the fascist left, not liking people to have an opinion. Always love the ones throwing the racist card about, shows they don’t understand the subject matter and cannot debate it.

It’s always projection with his kind. I wonder what conversations he had with his friends when Sunak was elected.

His friends being a sad group of Corbyn/Galloway fetishists with a penchant for oppressive Nazi behaviour!

Old quote can’t remember from where ‘What’s the difference between Nazism and Communism. In one man persecutes man but in the other it’s the other way around’

I think of politics as a circular. The middle ground is at 12 o’clock position,.go left or right you end up at 6 o’clock where the extreme left a right meet. Example look at Corbyn and La Penn most of their headline policies weren’t that different.

I am sorry but your comments just highlight how cut off from reality most of the extreme right wing posters here are.

Here is a link to recent opinion polls
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
If you look at the 13 since the start of the month they show 54% of the population are to the left of the Lib Dems, only 31% to the right.

I am a Classical Liberal interested in defence and most other Lib Dems would put me on the right wing fringe of the Party. I think about 60-65% of the population are clearly to the left of me.

If you have to label me left wing because what I say unsettles you then you are cutting yourself off from reality.

That is rarely productive.

While I would take issue with some of your conclusions, you make some valid points, and I understand your reasoning and position…

BUT that stopped at your final sentence, an unhinged hysterical rant.

If you wonder why leave voters have no regrets, the childish tantrums of Remainers assures them that leaving was the mature logical decision.