F-35 jets have landed onboard HMS Queen Elizabeth ahead of the aircraft carrier and her escorts deploying to northern European waters.
The aircraft carrier recently returned from the United States where she hosted a high-profile security conference between the UK and US in New York, in place of her currently out-of-action sister ship.
HMS Queen Elizabeth has now sailed for the next phase of her autumn programme, which will see her lead a powerful Carrier Striker Group of warships, helicopters and F35B stealth jets on Operation Achillean.
#CSG22 just got louder – @OC617Sqn are here. #CarrierStrike is in full force. pic.twitter.com/myi3plq3BR
— UK Carrier Strike Group (@COMUKCSG) November 12, 2022
According to a Royal Navy statement:
“The Carrier Strike Group will work closely with NATO and Joint Expeditionary Force allies as the UK underscores its commitment to safeguarding European security. The Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) is a coalition of ten like-minded nations, which are dedicated to maintaining the security of northern Europe. This latest deployment builds on a range of operations and exercises with JEF allies this year for the Royal Navy, including maritime patrols in the Baltic Sea.
HMS Queen Elizabeth will be at the centre of the Carrier Strike Group, with the Commander UK Carrier Strike Group, Commodore Angus Essenhigh, and his staff commanding from the aircraft carrier. F-35B Lightning jets from 617 Squadron will carry out flying operations, while helicopters from 820, 845, 815 and 825 Naval Air Squadrons will be undertaking sorties from a bustling flight deck.”
F-35B jets left @RAF_Marham today to meet up with @HMSQNLZ
With a team from @OC617Sqn already embarked on the carrier, @OC207Sqn personnel prepared and launched the aircraft flown by @OC617Sqn pilots. Another great team effort by Lightning Force personnel. https://t.co/4EPEj7tbuO pic.twitter.com/pGfVgqReYE— RAF Marham (@RAF_Marham) November 11, 2022
Commodore John Voyce, Portsmouth’s Naval Base Commander, was quoted as saying:
“We wish HMS Queen Elizabeth and all the Carrier Strike Group the best of luck on their upcoming deployment. All at Portsmouth’s Naval Base are proud to support the Royal Navy’s flagship and prepare her for Operation Achillean. We look forward to welcoming her home when it is complete.”
Not so long ago we could not have dreamt of operating such powerful platforms and task forces.
Hopefully the MOD gets back on track for ordering a higher number of F35B’s.
It would be good to see a full surge of 36 aircraft in a training scenario as quick as possible to show it can be done if needed.
Not for another 6/7 years you won’t.
Give us something to look forward to 😀
With USMC assistance, it could happen a lot sooner than you think.
I think Jim and I are talking about U.K. aircraft.
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.
In my (much) younger days I was a shipbuilder at one of the yards contending for the CVA 01 project for a fleet carrier to replace Victorious & eventually Ark Royal. When this was cancelled, it looked like the final nail for RN fixed wing air power, so with all due respect to the following Ark and her sisters, it is great to see a return of capability that looked lost for ever. It was always going to be a long hard road to fully restore the skills lost,but we will get there in due course.
👍
Hi Trevor. You and I must be roughly the same age(I’m class of 1949) Those were hard years to bear-Wilson’s cancellations of just about everything was a huge blow for the British Defence industry and even given the poor state of the British economy at that time, one wonders about the lost revenue that would have accrued from sales of some brilliant aircraft if the projects had been vigourously pursued with proper marketing and confidence.
Hi Geoff, we are the generation that the media tell us had it easy all our lives (!). The other aspect of all the cuts/cancellations has been the loss of skills/knowledge and the impact on the lives of the people involved. Two older brothers: English Electric (TSR2) and what was once Coastal Command (70s RAF cuts).Guess what? both now US citizens.
UK has more F-35 fast jets than pilots to fly them, Ben Wallace admits
From Sky.com
I see a claim on twitter that eight F-35B’s aircraft have embarked. If correct that it is a decent number. Just for clarity, whilst the QEC were designed to accommodate up to 36 F-35’s, the maximum UK sovereign effort has long been set at two squadrons of 12 a/c, i.e., 24 total. That’s expected to be first exercised in 2025, and thereafter every two years. Also, a surge to 36 F-36B’s would come up against the problem that all aircraft carriers seem to face – insufficient accommodation for the air group. Overflow and hot bunking might be acceptable in wartime,… Read more »
Is there not enough accommodation for all in that situation? I would of thought with such a big ship and a small crew they would of been space to put enough accommodation in even for surge loads? Having never been on an aircraft carrier or having a clue how many total people she can take I really don’t have a clue.
The QEC class have accommodation and hotel facilities (galley’s, heads, medical, gyms, etc) intended for up to 1600 personnel. The ships crew was originally expected to be about 680-690, but this was soon found to be about 100 too low. 750 is now the authorised complement as a private ship, but that is kept down by not fitting some kit such as light guns that the ships would have in war time. Flying the flag of COMUKCSG adds 95 flagstaff. Air group wise, a F-35B squadron requires about 250 personnel embarked, a strike optimised air group of 24 F-35B’s plus… Read more »
Oh dear oh dear. I thought that there would be space for extra accommodation if required. Call them empty spaces or whatever. With Nimitz fitting a 5500+ I just assumed the queen would have had spare space with a 1/3rd of the crew. Maybe accommodation refit time can squeeze in some extra beds.
Most people expect a certain standard of living even I imagine in the navy.
I might go looking on the internet for a rough layout plan of the carrier.
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… Read more »
Not 100% sure but I think that 100 extra standard complement is the RM detachment..
Course there is adequate space onboard. The ship is lean crewed 964 to operate vessel. Then has accomodation upto 1700. So 800 spaces for aircrew. Thats plenty for 50 aircraft 24-36 F35Bs and 26-14 helicopters.
I am surprised that the max UK sovereign effort has been stated as 24 F-35Bs per deployed carrier – where has that been reported? Does this suggest that if a carrier deploys with surge level of effort that 24 a/c would be British and up to 12 would be foreign F-35s?
Not sure why the Navy would oppose hot bunking in peacetime on occasions – surely this was SOP for many years until recently on both submarines and surface vessels?
Recruitment and retention. What people are willing to put up with isn’t what it used to be.
well maybe that needs to be addresed…
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.
Yes, 24 F35Bs was to be the standard airwing during peace time operations. This was stated by the 1st Sea Lord earlier this year. It still won’t be attained for a few years, so will still need USMC assistance for a full complement standard carrier op. The key factor is enablers, i.e. maintainers, pilots not so much, as 12 extra pilots will not make much of a dent accommodation or operational readiness wise. Having 2 squadrons worth of maintainers is just about doable to maintain an extra squadron of aircraft. It will take extra time to service aircraft which will… Read more »
Thanks Davey for patiently explaining this. As a past maintainer (but army, though) this was very interesting.
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.… Read more »
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.
Nagh. QE has plenty of space for its aircrew. Its a flippin massive ship. Lean crewed. Least crew of any carrier in the +60,000 ton class.
The only limiting factor for UK carrier strike is the lack of numbers of F35Bs and the lack of escorts. Hence having to rely on NATO allies for escorts (fortunately NATO has adequate numbers of frigates and destroyers)
Agree, the ship is designed to normally accommodate 40 aircraft plus aircrews. In overload it can accommodate 70.
Very glad you know better than the navy at how many bunks are on the carrier and how many people the catering can serve and how many toilet facilities are available.
A knowledgeable person gives you a breakdown in figures and explains how the accommodation is set up on the ship for peacetime. But hey who needs facts.
I think it is a bit of a joke we didn’t embark 12 jets. 8 for such a large carrier is an embarrassment, not even 1 whole squadron.
If we can’t commit the proper resources to CSG we shouldn’t be trying to operate carriers.
You’ll find you’re not allowed to criticise the number of F35’s embarked.😉
Well you can but it’s best to make it a constructive and knowledgeable criticism not just a daily mail one line headline special!
Helps if you understand the subject matter before you criticise
For goodness sake give it a rest. You don’t have to make a comment every time I say something.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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🙂
Wow. That would be 😊
God forbid 😂 Worth reading to get a better picture of where we are at present. F-35 Joint Strike Fighter: Cost Growth and Schedule Delays ContinueGAO-22-105943 Published: Apr 27, 2022. Publicly Released: Apr 27, 2022. “The program office extended Block 4 development and delivery into fiscal year 2029—3 years beyond the original plan” “Since 2001, GAO has made 46 recommendations across 18 reports aimed at improving the acquisition of the F-35 aircraft. DOD has agreed with many of these recommendations and taken action to address some but not all of them. Among those recommendations that have not yet been implemented… Read more »
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/
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… Read more »
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.
Interesting read Nigel. In 2018 we were supposed to have 35 airframes by 2022, now delivery of remaining 24 of 48 by 2025 with no operational dates given. Then another block, presumably by 2029/2030 but as yet of course they have not been ordered so given the UK’s current state of affairs who can say. So, the chances are that it will be 2028 for two operational squadrons and possibly 2031/2032 for three, to be shared between RAF and RN. A very small number trying to be in three places at the same time.
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.… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
👍
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… Read more »
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!
Interesting read Nigel – thanks for posting.
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!😆
Great photo thanks.
👍
It is frustrating, given that carrier progress is ahead of both the aircraft delivery and pilot training programmes, but it’s where we are right now. However a plus point is that we should be able to integrate more easily a larger number of embarked F35s in the future.
I’m one of those who believe the Fleet Air Arm should control all carrier aviation assets, in order to always have total commitment towards maximising the air group, but that is not likely to happen for F35 at present.
I agree – F-35B hardly any use to the RAF with such a short range – The Fleet Air arm should control the F-35B better still if we had the F-35C.
I don’t think you’ll find many in the RAF who’d describe the F35B as hardly any use. Also it’s range is greater than the Typhoon.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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/
If we had the F35C and had an exact rerun of the Falkands we’d probably lose. Frequently the high sea states meant the Harriers could launch whereas the Argentine catapult dependent aircraft couldn’t launch.
Not being able to launch reduces range to 0km..
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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,… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.
Short range compared to what?
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
I agree that the FAA should operate all F-35Bs on carriers, with the RAF embarking Chinook (and Puma?) & the Army embarking Apache and Wildcast as required. I could understand the RAF embarking Harriers on Invincible for Op Corporate to beef up the navy’s Harrier numbers – but where is the logic now?
Yes I agree Graham. RAF and Army assets as required to support the mission but Carrier Strike the exclusive domain of the RN and FAA. Total focus with all assigned F35B available for embarkation.
BTW we share the same surname but probably no relation!
Give the Brits time. Hell they just got back in the big boy carrier club. No shame at all in having an American F-35B squadron on board till they get enough jets on their own. Britain does more for European defense than all the other countries over their combined. Time for countries like German, France, ect to pull their fingers out and start doing their fair share. I know. It’s a fantasy. lol
In many ways it’s a strength as well. CDG can basically only operate French aircraft. Queen Elizabeth and her sister can operate up to 140 aircraft at the same time from the US, UK, Italy, Japan and Singapore. Those kinds of numbers of allied 5th Gen aircraft operating in the Indian Ocean and South China Sea in addition to US aircraft carriers operating in the Pacific complacent matter’s greatly for China. As we seen in 1982 Land Based STOVL pilots can land on aircraft carriers with little special training. Such a force can be built up quite quickly. CATOBAR pilots… Read more »
Very true. I do wonder though why UK F-35B orders and deliveries have been so slow, especialy given that we are a lead partner for F-35. I believe we have only got 27 after all these years.
I don’t think LM is at full privation rate yet, they’ve been slowly ramping up manufacturing volumes as more sales have been made.
But the U.K. is mainly waiting for the capabilities coming with Block 4, and doesn’t want the expense of having to upgrade a large fleet of earlier F35Bs. Delaying ordering also saves money as the price of F35s has been dropping with each tranche; though with the global explosion in inflation this year that might now have ended.
Thanks Sean. Useful answer. Good info for those who mock the numbers that we can put on the carriers.
Initially we delayed purchase because the USMC were desperate for them.
Wasn’t our need greater? – we had no carrier aircraft at all, whereas the USMC still had a capability (Harrier).
Block4, Block4 pay attention.
Us brits have always been proud to respond when asked you can forget the rest when you have the best 👌
From George’s July 2021 article and my working assumpotion is that it is still roughly accurate:
The location of the 21 delivered aircraft in mid-July 2021 is broken down as follows:
17 Squadron, Edwards AFB USA – Three
207 Squadron, RAF Marham – Eight
617 Squadron embarked on HMS Queen Elizabeth – Eight
RAF Marham Maintenance and Finishing Facility – Two”
Given that 207 Sqn is a Training Sqn/OCU, then all available F-35Bs are on the carrier. Therefore – a very good effort.
There are 8 fifth generation F35B stealth jets aboard the QE….
Russia only has 5 operational SU-57s in its entire air-force!!
Context is everything.
Again 👍
God this repetitive chuff is so boring! Embarking 8 or 80, its training, the aircrew get trained, the deck crews get trained and the ships Coy get trained! Numbers are pretty irrelevant at this level of training!
And only 8 pilots get the training.
How many jets do the Us and France field for these kinds of exercises? Bet it is more than 8.
Can people stop defending the undefendable. The UK govt isn’t adequately funding carrier strike or the navy in general.
To be totally honest. UK Govt isn’t really funding the Armed Forces adequately, not just the Navy or CS.
Only 8 pilots? Are you sure? Platforms remain board pilots rotate! The US of course can utilise more, of course, why even use that as a comparison, the French, on the other hand, none, as the Rafale M is not a 5th gen platform. So, your reply, while appreciated is null and void. Yes we need more, and a speed up of delivery and pilot training but it won’t happen, certainly not in the current economic environment. Cheers.
Number of 5th generation stealth jets in the French armed forces?
Big fat zero.
So to accurately answer your question, they field zero 5th generation jets in exercises like this.
CDG normally deploys with 12 Rafael but that’s active deployments. CDG does not deploy on as many nato training missions as QE.
If 8 jets are deployed, 10-12 pilot’s will be on the carrier We always send more pilot’s than jets.
You know we are on the verge of fighting a war though right? 8 will enlist do for the exercise. We don’t need to be packing carriers full of expensive 5th Gen jets for exercises when we might be needing those jets for something else.
Does anyone know whether our F35’s carry AMRAAM or are they limited to ASRAAM only?
Yes they carry amraam. The uk bought a load of the newer model amraams for the F35b coming into service. The amraam is also carried by the tranche 1 typhoons as they aren’t fitted with meteor.
Our F35B carry same as every other F35. They have AMRAAM for now and are due to get Meteor with Block IV upgrade.
In a recent parliamentary hearing, the Def Sec said he’d managed to get the target date for Meteor on F35 brought forward to 2025. So some really good news there.
This graphic gives a good idea of what can be carried on the F35’s
MS,
Thanks, appears to be a relatively complete list of combinations of munitions that could be carried in either stealth or beast mode, across models. Presume line w/ paranthetical note stating ‘excludes UK stores’ dictates that the three STOVL entries above that entry for Block 3F, and the following entries, comprise the current set of options for UK F-35Bs?
No it’s primarily the difference that the UK can also carry ASRAAM on external pylons as well. The pylons were designed so F35B could carry ASRAAM externally with out compromising LO.
I don’t think we have guided bombs, so I’d have thought just the ones below.
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. 😁
It’s worth noting the block 3 upgrades give the F35B more load outs than the F35C. The USN sees the F35C as a b**tard step child. It will cut it in a heart beat to get FA XX. To the USMC F35B is basically everything. In terms of fast jets the USMC would comfortably be the biggest Airforce in Europe, it’s not a small institution and it’s very focused on making F35B work.
That’s excellent thanks
Same time USS Gerald R Ford is out on the other side of the pond on her own CTF exercise Silent Wolverine evidently. Some message. More so if, as I no more than hazard may be the case, they are in some part joint on communications?
Not true, it’s not far from our shores right now.
Cheers for latest on positioning. The ‘vibes’ over a possible degree of jointness not weakened, then? QE was over there on security consultation prior to both forming the heart of NATO carrier exercises, and GRF is here now.
Royal Navy to welcome American guest: USS Gerald R Ford to anchor in Solent off Portsmouth this week | The News
Any idea how ‘Ford’ is doing? Are all the tech gremlins now a thing of the past?
Apparently, but need to refer you to Aaron Amick on SubBrief for an update on that. Same source who came up with an illustration of a likely issue with PoW shaft a while back.
Thanks Gavin. Thought that Aaaron just covered S/Ms – I will check it out.
Come on BREXIT guys , there is a lot of you on this website , so answer me this , why is the UK the only nation in Europe in recession while Europe nations economies are growing ? not heard a decent excuse yet , apart from false figures lol.
Several Europeans countries are in recession, including Germany,who are already rationing energy, and shutting production at energy intensive companies to try and keep the heat and lights on this winter The UK is not yet in recession,despite the Bank of England and parts of the media doing it’s best to talk the UK into recession The UK”s debt ratio is also the lowest in the G7 after Canada, those with the highest debt ratio are to be found in the EU, and it’s unlikely the Germans will have the incantation, let alone the money to save them like they did… Read more »
Ah, careful with that positive talk. Too many looking to blame B for all and sundry.
People voted for independence from the EU not on whether we would be richer or poorer given the worlds events are beyond our control.
If you’d bothered to have followed any of the press recently you’d already know the small decline is attributed to the lost productivity due to the public holiday for the Queen’s funeral and the 10 day period of mourning. It cost the economy billions…
I assume you know the Queen is dead?…
GDP was likewise hit in June due to the Queen’s Jubilee bank holiday.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-62874496.amp
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Oh dear it would seem economics, politics and defence is not your strong point!
Also, interesting enough you have a vast amount of irrelevant and child like posts being detrimental to both Brexit and posters on here! What’s up, did you get beat up by a brexiteer for talking when you should have been listening? The chip on your shoulder is not only making you look sad and out of date, but also now dripping grease, make an effort at removing it! Good lad!
I was simply asking the question why are we worse off than European nations which should not be the case I would very much imagine BREXIT has contributed to some of it as I said before quite happy for us to leave if it does not decrease our power and influence , if military spending is cut again then it really does not look good in this current situation with Russia/ China, I’ve never claimed to be a expert on defense although I know a few people in the industry ,no expert in Politics either , but I’ve posted on… Read more »
Yes, of course Brexit is a factor. Depends if you’re happy to have greater sovereignty sub-contracted to EU central control, as a price for smoother commercial relations. An individual voter choice – if given the democratic right to make it i.e. we were rightly asked about the Common Market in my youth, but not the far more critical European Union (at least until DC thought the result forgone. Seems folk have long memories, D12). Since you have arbitrarily inserted a Q on Brexit, let me similarly canvass your view on one. Admittedly an extreme example of where the dilution of… Read more »
Agreed and having read your previous posts doing some research, I agree. Your positive outlook on defence is good to see and more people should be similar, but the continued BREXIT comments, as if BREXIT has caused the sky to fall in (as many seems to predict) degrades your obvious contribution and knowledge. BREXIT can no longer be used as an excuse for a weakened economy, as ALL countries are suffering an economic downturn. Excuses are like arseholes mate, we all have one, and it’s easy to fit it to our specific agenda. Cheers.
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… Read more »
Did you fail to notice two years of a pandemic and the country shut down for that time? Was that due to Brexit then. Also the vast amount paid out to those that didn’t work in that period! The cost of all that is now coming home to roost or did you think it wouldn’t have to be paid for? With the rise of right wing sentiment in the EU that might not be a good place to be in the future anyway.
Oh yes and I forgot to mention a war in Central Europe started by a bloody madman!!
Covid and the war in Ukraine have affected everyone. Why are we the only G7 country whose economy is smaller than it was before covid? I think the answer is Brexit, in the resulting combination of the predicted negative effects of leaving, our having the worst first wave in Europe when we should have had the best, and our having economic idiots in numbers 10 and 11 Downing St this year.
Of course the murderous fascist traitors of leave will never admit what they have done to the country.
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.… Read more »
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.
Think you have just been told off dave12
Is the 12 your age ?
When we were in, I wanted to remain in. Now we are out, I want to remain out. (A true remainer.) It’s the pointless chopping and changing on ideological grounds that’s killing us. Hopefully Macron is over his hissy fit and will decide that the UK has had enough punishment for having the temerity to leave, and we can sort out NI and get on with the business of instituting proper trading links with the EU. Agreements with the USA will come. Sleepy Joe doesn’t see us as useful compared with the EU (foolish man) and as long as we… Read more »
I agree with you I just do not think leaving the EU at the cost of the possible risk of the decline of the UK in the long term would be worth it , as it stands France Italy have growth in there economies and we are in recession I hope its not going to be the norm.
What has that got to do with a British carrier embarking F-35s ahead of deployment?
Precisely.
Back on track: For my tuppenceworth, embarking more F35 than you need for a training exercise is irresponsible.
I you only needed 4 to carry out the training (for instance), why embark any more?
AA
I agree. Some people think you should embark 12 (or more) aircraft on a carrier, each and every time she leaves port. Our carriers have many roles and also undertake many different evolutions – they are configured with assets accordingly.
Am really pleased to see an (apparently) all-UK fast jet air wing, particularly in the context of leading the JEF. Despite sharing the view that the numbers of jets is too modest, and that the FAA should fully control at least 24 of them, it’s still a huge leap forward for us and something on which we can build in terms of numbers and capability. I vividly remember the years when the carrier capability was gapped and during which time I never really believed that we’d actually be able to reactivate this capability so am proud that we have now… Read more »
Your last bit, although made up, is completely logical from the direction of travel for air warfare.
If we don’t have a let least one drone squadron allocated to each carrier to supplement the F35s within the next 10 years then someone at the RN/MoD has some serious questions to answer.
I agree and would potentially look at it going further with two drones squadrons onboard of perhaps three mixed squadrons with 4 manned F35B and eight loyal wing man type drones.
Drones are a way for us to maximise the investment in QE. I just hope the navy get their finger out and keep going with sea vixen.
I can see a need for, increasing complexity and cost;-
• quadcopter drones for inter-ship store transfers
• kamikaze drones for attacking surface combatants
• drones for Crowsnest replacement
• hunter-killer drones capable of striking ground-targets, surface vessels, and anti-submarine warfare
• F35 air-to-air refuelling drones
• loyal wingmen drones
The question is how much of these capabilities can be delivered by multifunction drones; eg loyal wingman providing air-to-air refuelling, and how many are best delivered using dedicated drones. A balance the USN has had trouble finding.
Let’s be clear on this, our planned carrier deployment was derailed by POW breaking down so we deployed another carrier. We are deploying with some of the best escorts, fleet tankers, helicopters, fifth generation jets and most definitely finest trained people in the world. Yes of course we all want more of everything but push Brexit, Russia or China to one side. We do much of what we do because of the network of friends, allies and relationships we lead on – no one can beat that soft power.
You just have to look at the big picture. The ridiculous press release about the bustling flight deck and whatever is just laughable.. I get it this is a fanboy website. But my God have some pride.
Oh dear there you go again, swinging your handbag about, but at least you admit to being a fanboy!
I doubt that the reason for the slow procurement of our F-35s is primarily due to either the slow rate of production in this extended ‘low rate initial production’ phase or to the increasing delay and cost of the Block 4 upgrade, both of which are suggested above. The main reason is money and budgets. The RAF has IIRC an annual equipment budget of c £1.8bn for combat air. Of that, about 30% is allocated to new aircraft procurement. That is enough to purchase 6 or 7 fast jet combat aircraft a year. That was pretty much the number of… Read more »
You seem to know more than the USAF and by extension the RAF. Because the USAF have clearly indicated that Block4 shananigans are the reason they will buy the minimum.
Yes, the concerns of Congress, the DoD and USAF about Block 4 are well-known. There is mounting impatience and concern about the delays and rising cost.
.
The MOD has already said that it is unlikely to upgrade all our F-35s to Block 4, this no doubt in view of the escalating price tag.
Block 4 does not however affect the number of new aircraft ordered, which seems to run at about 30% of the combat air budget or c £550m a year.
Block 4 will come out of the remaining 70%, same as the upgrades to the Typhoon AESA.
The point it’s budgets does make sense and the numbers do add up to what the RAF have bought in the past years.
Also if the forces suddenly wanted 14 F35b and 12 typhoons for the next 3 years something has to be cut from somewhere else to pay for it.
If block 4 was ready I would say an increased purchase rate would be worth it and use cash freed up in later years to fund tempest and drones more. It’s not so proceed as planned in the plan.