HMS Queen Elizabeth and her F-35 jets have been out to sea a few times now for trials and exercises so it’s hard to imagine people, especially a Member of Parliament, spreading the ‘carrier with no planes’ myth.

With the almost two years of imagery and videos showing British F-35B jets operating from the deck of HMS Queen Elizabeth, you can imagine my surprise this morning to read the following tweet from a Member of Parliament.

This one even gets repeated by politicians from all parties, many of you will be aware of our Twitter campaign to correct this claim across the political spectrum.

https://twitter.com/UKDefJournal/status/1283036037120393223

Claims the carrier do not have any aircraft are simply incorrect, the ships were built and aircraft were ordered with both entering service at roughly the same time.

The first jets touched down in 2018.

In 2023, the UK will have 42 F-35 aircraft, with 24 being front-line fighters and the remaining 18 will be used for training (at least 5 on the OCU), be in reserve or in maintenance.

F-35Bs on HMS Queen Elizabeth in 2018.

There are a number of myths surrounding HMS Queen Elizabeth and her sister ship HMS Prince of Wales, you can read more about them here.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

72 COMMENTS

      • The Huawei kit is first generation so will be rubbish anyway. Other suppliers will be developing better stuff by the time 5G is used widely.

      • The rationale behind the change in policy relates to the NCSC’s assessment of the company’s ability to deliver capability long-term while subject to US sanctions that prevent them sourcing semiconductor components, rather than security per se. If a political decision were made to terminate the company’s involvement due to the deteriorating relationship with China, I would expect to see a different time-scale.

    • I suspect as the years roll by the phrase “Made in China” will be seen less and less for a variety of reasons.

    • I’ll take us further off topic since there seems to be no article forthcoming on what could potentially be one of the most significant developments for the UK sovereign capability in decades – the purchase of the 45% stake in OneWeb together with a UK golden share giving veto on any subsequent equity sales and also approval of all customers wanting to use the network.

      It’s a huge gamble, and HMG will almost certainly have to put in quite a lot of extra cash to get the network completed, and even then there’s the significant technology gamble on whether Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites can give the same accuracy for a GPS system as the more traditional Medium Earth Orbit systems like the USA or Galileo systems. If they can deliver GPS on these thought then LEO GPS would have significant benefits in terms of much stronger signal strength at ground level.

      The second aspect of the OneWeb acquisition is satellite broadband at similar latency to existing UK fibre broadband (400Mbps bandwidth already, better than the top tier Virgin service I think (I believe that is 350Mbps), in reality contention on the satellites between multiple users, and maybe some bandwidth reserved for key customers such as military, will I suspect limit individual user bandwidth to more like the 20Mbps – 40Mbps range although building the constellation out beyond the planned 640-ish satellites could address that issue. If 5G was part of HMG’s plans for rural broadband and is now delayed due to the Huawei decision then maybe OneWeb can step in. It makes me wonder whether these two decisions, kicking out Huawei and buying into OneWeb, are connected.

      Another interesting aspect of the OneWeb stake is the potential ability to offer subsidised or even free broadband access to certain locations, institutions, individuals etc in parts of developing countries that have no such access. That would be an extra and very useful tool in our soft power toolkit.

      And finally low latency connections at high enough bandwidth to stream real time HD video and/or other high bandwidth sensor data from an antenna that is 36cm x 16cm and costs about $15 (just the antenna, the entire user terminal is expected to be in the $200 – $300 range) and such a connection being permanently available anywhere on the planet via a sovereign capability, including anywhere at sea, has the potential to totally transform the UK’s military communications. I even wonder whether, if an antenna mounted on a missile could maintain data lock on a LEO satellite, whether the launch operator could serve as his/her own man-in-the-middle and be sitting at their console on a T26 out at sea and taking live sensor feeds from a missile now way over the horizon and about to engage a target (once we get such missiles!). DaveyB might have quite a lot to say about the antenna tracking issue if he’s looked into this OneWeb stuff at all. (It is a phased array antenna I believe.)

      If, and it’s a big if, all these gambles come good then this OneWeb acquisition could be absolutely massive news for UK hard and soft power (and for UK rural communities) and I’m a bit disappointed that UKDJ seems to have missed this news.

      Oh, one other parting shot. The 76 satellites launched so far have been built in Florida with almost 600 more needed to get to the initial constellation size of 648 and then maybe thousands more if the constellation is expanded further, and regardless of constellation size there will also be a requirement for a small but constant trickle of replacements since each satellite has a limited life after which it is de-orbited to burn up in the atmosphere and then needs to be replaced. I really hope that with the significant UK stake that production will at least partly if not completely move to the UK and be a big boost to our satellite manufacturing industry.

  2. Forgive me but isn’t this a bit of a ‘non story’. Here’s a quote from the tweet.

    “We did have an aircraft carrier with no planes”.

    That’s “DID”, past tense. Its hardly spreading rumours or “myths”.

    • Hello Andy. I have read the same facts about the carriers and no planes this morning. Personally I would not have proceeded with either carriers or this aeroplane; but here we are and we have to make this work.

    • That’s just what I thought Andy. As unusual as it is for me to defend an MP, he was clearly talking in the past tense….

  4. Your cut and paste rant seems to have been copied from “Sputnik News” 🙂

    “The rollout of a new Royal Navy torpedo intended to ‘match’ the capabilities of Chinese and Russian submarines has been delayed – because the Royal Navy has no watercraft capable of firing it.”

    Spearfish has been in service for years. This is an updated variant.

    “MoD will also be selling off the remainder of its 3,200 armoured troop carriers in a cost-saving exercise. Bought for £2.5 billion less than ten years ago, the Mastiff, Ridgeback, Husky and Wolfhound vehicles will be replaced by 500 Boxer armoured fighters at a cost of £1 billion.”

    I believe we bought for Helmand, under UOR as a knee jerk reaction due to the usual under investment, 359 Mastiff, 168 Ridgeback, 127 Wolfhound,
    and 351 Husky? Where is 3200 coming from?

    Until A2020R the Mastiff was equipping 3 Heavy Protected Mobility Battalions, 1 per Armoured Infantry Brigade. Under A2020R they will be replaced by 4 Battalions on Boxer, a better vehicle.

    It is a shame they cannot be kept for RLC escort and other roles. No doubt history will repeat itself a few years down the line and a counter insurgency vehicle may be needed again.

    • If it is the case that the MRAPs will be sold off, still begs the question of why?
      They still have a lot of uses and as you say will still remain a requirement for any UN or counter-insurgency roles we may be involved in the future. Yes it about time we had a decent armoured people carrier, i.e. Boxer. But for the softly softly approach is Boxer the right type of vehicle?

      • “But for the softly softly approach is Boxer the right type of vehicle?”

        You’re the man to answer that, but not in my opinion. Surely, what is in effect a huge armoured lorry looks less wary than a tracked “Tank” when hearts and minds is involved.

        This was touched on by the DSC talking with CDS. Down to money and priorities apparently.

        Foxhound, Jackal both excluded from the list, luckily.

        Hopefully some Mastiff will be retained.

    • Hi folks hope are all well.
      Fully agree Daniele, where on earth does Harold find his misinformation.
      Even defence novices such as I can see what utter nonsense the information is.
      I often find the best response to such articles is no response and consider them with contempt.
      In regard to QE’s deployment, I gather this is to prove a point and demonstrate that international sea routes are to be kept open to all nations, and basically inform China that the free world is not going to tolerate any damage to trade or frustrate and hamper economic status.
      Maybe now the UK government will take note and consider to increase defence spending.
      Cheers
      George

  6. More Fake News by the ‘Champagne Socialist’!
    All RN submarines are equipped with the Spearfish torpedoes.
    I will be better if You spent your time learning something genuine about the UK’s armed forces, then posting silly comments.

    • Well said, Meirion X, Rfn_Weston, Daniele and Mark B. I’m in hospital after a major Back op and the nurses are limiting me to 15 minutes use. They said my blood pressure goes up w7hen reading articles from certain websites ??

  8. Whilst I agree this is a myth (that politicians will continue to chuck around) it might be more effective to discuss the assets we currently have and how they might be effectively deployed in a range of military emergencies.

    Your average Joe public knows nothing about the military other than the negative stuff that floats around in the papers, BBC etc.

    The military need more effective publicity otherwise the call for additional funding is likely to fall on deaf ears.

  9. The Times today leads with UK to forward one QE class carrier in far east. And one to be deployed with NATO to northern atlantic. Ok, so it only says it may happen. How can we simultaneously deploy 2xaircraft carriers? We certainly don’t have enough aircraft to stock both with f35 as discussed on this forum. I assume the far eastern vessel would be F35 heavy whilst the NATO vessel would have more of a focus on ASW and so Merlin heavy. The far eastern version is likely to rely on regional navies for escorts and even USMC and/or JSDF for F35. Its an interesting article which implies the RN will be funded – presumably with appropriate escorts and auxiliaries – to achieve this. I fear for the army.

    • Hi Julian,

      At the moment I am pretty sure that the Armed Forces will be OK at least for the short to medium term. Why? Because any kind of austerity will be a disaster for what’s left of the economy.

      Cutting the Armed Forces, is as we all know, not just about the military but crucially the considerable supply chain supporting them and with some suggestions that unemployment is heading towards 3m (12%) any cuts would just make a bad situation even worse. Hence my optimism (if that is the right word these days) for the Army Forces.

      Of course, a few years further down the road and all bets are off, and I’ll re-join the lines of the pessimists!

      Cheers CR

  10. Bloody hell Harold, your post is pure cut and paste regurgitated gibberish! Its good that your posts are back to normal, ie total piffle, long and boring, as its always a great laugh reading them. But come on son, get your Kremlin proof reader to put his cheap reading glasses on and check that you are at least slightly coherant. I have no clue where you are getting your chuff but you are certainly not earning those 2 buckets of potatoes and that 4 litre of trabant two stroke you get a weak. I hear N Korea are looking for reliable fools, with no subject matter knowledge, to work for them, you fit the bill perfectly. PS, hows the Iqbal avatar going on the other sites you stalk, well I hope?

  11. The Times are reporting today that the RN are considering keeping a carrier in the UK for NATO duties and the other in Singapore (under the 5 power defence agreement) with Australian, Malaysian, Singaporean, Japanese & South Korean escorts and F35Bs embarked as an allied / commonwealth response to Chinese naval ambitions in the South China Sea. Seems to me that this has 3 big problems:

    1. The point of having two carriers is to have continual carrier strike ability. Deploying them separately means continual carrier strike would no longer be available.

    2. Our carrier strike wing is designed to operate one carrier at a time. Unless we double the size of our air wing the far east carrier will be loaded with Australian, Japanese and South Korean F35s,

    3. Are we getting in over our heads here? Opposing Chinese expansionism is traditionally in the USA’s area of responsibility and they are equipped far more effectively to do so. Shouldn’t we be keeping our key assets in our own key area of interests?

    Can we afford a Far East Fleet, although mainly allied in nature?

  12. “Carriers with no planes”, is a very old story indeed! Much loved, in particular, by Scottish Nationalists, who spare no effort to ridicule the UK – and its alleged great-power pretentions.
    Its origin is probably in the lamentable withdrawal of Harrier GR9 in Dec 2010, and the reduction of Illustrious to a mere “helicopter carrier” until 2014. So there is some historic basis for the jeer!
    Even today, it’s a quip too delicious not to be used by Smart Alec’s – and it’s now become a shorthand for procurement bungling by the MoD.
    Unfortunately, I fear this one will run for some time yet!

    • Probably true, but RN fixed-wing carrier capability effectively disappeared before 2010. You need to go back to 2004-6 when the Sea Harrier FA2s were prematurely axed and Invincible decommissioned 7 years early despite a recent major refit.

      The Harrier GR9s could not perform the naval fighter role and the handful of aircraft actually operational were deployed mainly in Afghanistan. We could not have put together a carrier air group even if we had wanted to. Illustrious and Ark Royal were to all intents and purposes helicopter carriers from 2007 onwards.

  13. Let’s be honest, the QE has been to sea with F35Bs , but only a max of 4 on a vessel designed to operate 36……we simply don’t have the numbers to give the ship a decent airwing. Next year on its IOC, QE will have 8 UK jets, and apparently only 6 USMC – a grand total of 14…….it is sad to put it mildly, we have 2 x carriers and cannot put an airwing on one……

    • I am sure the RN could form another F-35 Squadron with the 18 extra F-35Bs by 2023, which could give 3 squadrons available to be deployed and a OCU for training?

      • By 2023 we will have 42, which will be 24 frontline and 18 OCU, maintenance and spares. The QEC won’t sail with more than 24 UK jets and in many cases 12. That is the plan unless we order more B variant, we will just have to wait and see.

        • 42 with only 24 in front line service? Why would that be? To have that many 5th gen aircraft and only put 24 in front line is madness! We should be aiming for 3 x Squadrons of 12 with 6 in the OCU. 809 RN squadron has yet to stand up, glory to the RAF with 617. Are the RAF planning on holding the B variants hostage and starving the navy as it did with the Invincibles until it gets some A versions?

          • You need to take into account the OEU, and those rotated into depth maintenance and attrition reserve, thus out of the “forward” fleet.

            Having all 42 in front line service and the OCU is not how things work, just like having all 6 T45 in service.

          • I’m aware of the maintenance requirements, but 24 out of 42 is still not acceptable. Every sqn has a number of aircraft undertaking various maintenance at differing times, and hangar queens awaiting spares….but in this case we need more than 24 fully active.

          • We will be at 48 by 2025 it seems so perhaps we will have more like 30 on the front line by then. Given we were only ever going to operate one carrier at once 30 seems like a decent number.

            You also have to bear in mind what the initial deliveries were, basic models used for testing and training but which are not suitable for combat without very costly upgrades, if that is even possible.

      • Why did they not separate the number required for the OCU from the required “front line”, “on the deck” F35s
        The OCU number needed should have been separate…

        12 or more for OCU
        4 x 12 for Squadrons (48) on both Carriers

        Minimum!!

        It’s the number on the deck that is the important part, no less than 2 squadrons each carrier.

        Playing fantasy fleets is great, but we need investment in real life and it’s been ignored and we get cutbacks and excuses

  16. An aircraft carrier with no aircraft. Could be worse. What about a Pub with no Beer!? This is what we have now in South Africa with our President banning the sale of alcohol as Covid takes hold!

  17. Just shows the almost deliberate stupidity of some MP,S . The Carrier has to undergo Sea Trials for a long period of time to test procedures, systems , train crew and all the other requirements before then starting to test Aircraft landing procedures etc etc .
    One wonders what is the reason for these people to make spurious statements , I suppose some people will beleive what is being said but why,

    • Because they, like the numpties ignoring all HMG advice on social distancing, are ignorant idiots?

    • To quote them…”Janes first reported on 15 February 2019 that the UK was looking to create a carrier-capable unmanned aircraft as part of its wider efforts to develop the Tempest next-generation combat aircraft”

      What does a carrier-capable UAV \ wingman have to do with the Tempest

      Tempest won’t be flying off a carrier, the F35 will

      If we are looking at a carrier-capable UAV then surely they want it to work with the F35 first of all

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here