The Defence Committee has published its report ‘We’re going to need a bigger Navy’ following the Committee’s inquiry ‘The Navy: purpose and procurement’.
The report finds that the next decade is one of significant risk for the Royal Navy’s fleet, and one in which the UK and the Navy will face an increasingly complex international security environment.
One key issue identified is “Unclear plans for F-35s and the aircraft carriers”, the report states that when giving evidence, Professor Caverley stressed the importance of defining how the aircraft carriers will be used, as this would determine what other vessels would be required in the fleet.
The UK’s published military doctrine on maritime power, JDP 0–10, states that the aircraft carriers and the Carrier Enabled Power Projection (CEPP) capability (provided by the aircraft carriers combined with the F-35s, helicopters and related assets) will be used to deliver carrier strike, which it defines as ‘the ability to use fixed-wing aircraft from a maritime base to project military power from the sea’.
Admiral Radakin confirmed to the committee that this would largely be employed in conjunction with other UK and allied forces, the aircraft carrier’s F-35s would be used to defeat enemy air defences and establish control of the air, with the mass of ordnance being delivered by fourth-generation aircraft from the RAF and international partners. The aircraft carriers will also be used to deliver rotary-wing, strike, littoral manoeuvre and to “deliver humanitarian assistance and other Defence Engagement operations”.
Witnesses stressed that the carriers have the potential to do more. Professor Caverley also told the committee the following:
“The theory of the carrier for the United States is changing. It’s not just a
strike group; a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier like the Ford—as eyewateringly
expensive as it is, it’s a giant source of electricity, and electricity is essential. Organic command, communications, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, computing—that concentration of organic capability inside one ship is one of the theories as to why the United States is still investing in carriers, even though the threat to the carrier is growing.”
The report goes on to discuss this point:
“Although the Queen Elizabeth class carriers are not nuclear powered, and therefore have
different power generation capabilities, Professor Caverley and Sir Philip Jones both
suggested that the Navy should consider using the carriers to deploy new technologies
that require power and are difficult to transport by air or land, or as a command-and control node in theatre. The Navy has also indicated there may be opportunities for the
F-35s to fulfil more missions in the future: Admiral Radakin told us that the armaments
required for the F-35 to have more offensive capability “are catching up”.
The Department should provide further explanation of what Carrier Enabled Power Projection (CEPP) is intended to deliver. This should include consideration of what innovative capabilities the carriers can provide beyond carrier strike, littoral manoeuvre and humanitarian assistance, and more information on what role the F-35 will play in delivering an offensive air capability after any improvements to its armaments.
It should be set out in advance of the aircraft carriers’ next deployment in a published strategy, with a classified annex if necessary. It is also unclear whether the Navy will procure enough aircraft to effectively deliver the full planned capability. The UK originally indicated that it would purchase 138 F-35s. However, to date the Government has only placed orders for 48 aircraft, of which 21 have been delivered to the UK by Lockheed Martin (including one lost during CSG21), while the remainder are at various stages of production. Ministers from the Department have told us that the MoD has the budget to order more but further purchases would depend on agreements on through-life cost and integration of the Meteor air-to-air missile, with the exact number of planes that the UK will order to be set out in 2025.”
This will be one year before the full CEPP programme is due to achieve Full Operating Capability and two years after the F-35 element of the programme is expected to have achieved Full Operating Capability.
According to Lockheed Martin:
“Once 48 aircraft are delivered, the MoD could routinely deploy 24 F-35B aircraft for CEPP, whilst continuing to provide a training squadron. However, this fleet size leaves little resilience, and would not allow the UK to meet the full capacity of a single carrier (36 jets) without impacting training throughput.”
Lockheed Martin assesses that 70 to 80 F-35B aircraft are required to deliver a credible and resilient CEPP capability, throughout the life of the Queen Elizabeth Class carriers (to 2068). It would allow 48 F-35B aircraft routinely to be available for CEPP.
“We believe the actual number required to be higher, as it must allow for a greater attrition rate than is probably expected.”
On current plans, the report says:
“Admiral Radakin told us that the MoD’s current plan is to maintain a single air wing that can join with whichever of the two aircraft carriers is held at high readiness at that point in time. He indicated that this air wing would comprise four squadrons, but that the total number of planes required for this was classified.”
He noted that the Navy was considering how to provide a second carrier air wing, potentially composed of a hybrid force of jets and drones and modelled on the RAF’s Project Mosquito and Lightweight Affordable Novel Combat Aircraft (LANCA) concept.
Drones could ‘allow’ Britain to create a second carrier air wing
The Defence Committee stated in conclusion:
“The Department must provide clarity on how it intends to operate the F-35 fleet before then. It must specifically address the questions of how many carriers and F-35s will be operated by the Navy and the RAF as part of routine operations and how a surge capacity will be delivered if one is planned. The Department should also be clear about what role uncrewed aircraft will play and when and how that role can be delivered. Until the Department provides clarity on all these points it is impossible for them or us to be reasonably sure of the risks the programme is carrying and how they can be mitigated.”
Well then do something about that
Pie in the sky talk drafted by the spin Dr’s. At most it is a paper project, a hybrid mix of drones and aircraft modelled on the RAFs Mosquito project. It still seems to me that the RN are trying hard to justify the carrier’s but are not doing a very good job of it. I’m a supportive of the carrier’s in projecting force when needed and as humanitarian assets, we have them in service now, let’s make the best use of them and invest in the kit in that these platforms can do the jobs they were designed to… Read more »
Duh! Earth to Captain Obvious, time to put the money where the mouth is.
I agree. Whatever the rights or wrongs of building the carriers, we have them now. They are fantastic ships with capabilities that can be enhanced over time. The RN have now got the trained crews. For goodness sake, let’s procure the aircraft numbers needed – planes and helicopters – and get the pilots trained. Why is it always so difficult? Yes, the cost is very high, but it seems the commitment is necessary given the current world order and we have the opportunity to get it done. Don’t throw it away at now.
2 white Elephants sucking up the MOD defence budget. Trophy targets for any enemy pilot or submarine commander.
salty must be a army reject
“However, to date the Government has only placed orders for 48 aircraft, of which 21 have been delivered to the UK by Lockheed Martin (including one lost during CSG21), while the remainder are at various stages of production.” Disappointed that the committee could get this wrong…. 24 have been delivered….not 21. And we have not placed orders for 48 aircraft…..only 35 have been contracted. The remaining 13 are dependent on Full Rate Production pricing to be agreed…a saga that has dragged on for over 2 years now. FRP pricing is being agreed by the US JPMO with Lockheed Martin. For… Read more »
I could be wrong, but I think they were excluding the aircraft that remain in the US for training? Hence the “21 delivered to the UK”.
i’m glad you pointed that out because i’m sure that firm orders had only been placed for 35 though anything and everything i read seems to indicate that orders are placed for all 48 including this article. This article suggests that airframe #48 is in production – really?
One of the thing that amaze me, is the hability of politicians to point the obvious things. Its not an UK speciality, we see the same everywhere. And they are saying this like it was not obvious for anyone… Like in France when they had decided to cut the FREMM series from 17 units to 8, what bad can happen with the lose of 9 major combat ship in a fleet ? And today we can read “The MN have some issue to maintain its contracts”, really ? What is this world where you can equip 2 carriers of 65000tons… Read more »
Issue Being when have we ever been ready for a WAR, how do you plan for war. as in the previous History, we have never been equipped for the war we faced.
Over the previous 50 years, when have are Armed forces gone into Combat with the correct weapons.
as the other side constantly are changing their options, another report from a Toy Solider without a clue, but still wants the army to have Red Jackets.
Have to be planning a War to be ready, Hollow Media report from someone whos idea of combat is his playstation.
Build Build Build ,Give British shipyards the ability too construct not only RR ships but also RFA ships Don’t outsource too other Countries
As nice as those two new additions to th Grey Funnel line are there fairly limited in there operation capabilities. Limited to cooperation with like F35B operators only that is. They cannot even be operated in conjuction with the majority of our closest allies whos carrier airwings require cats and traps to operate. Loose the hump and fit cats and traps as they should have had from the onset.
how many allies operate cats and traps? you make out all navies have them. there will be more opportunities to work with f35b operators globally than there ever will be cats ‘n traps
Only 3 navies in the world currently operate CATOBAR carriers the number of non American CATOBAR carriers in the world = 2. One of those is the Russian carrier which is a heap of shit and had to he towed half the way to Syria and back and so can probably be discluded. The Chinese have CATOBAR carriers under construction but it will be a good few years before they are operationally threatening. Chinese experience of carrier ops is highly limited and of CATOBAR experience they have none at all. These are not easy disciplines to learn and we would… Read more »
I commented on Radakin’s recent speech in which he emphasized the need for greater lethality for our forces. Yet he had not long ago justified the apparent decision to abandon an interim anti ship missile and announced that the type 31 would be fitted for but not with Mk41 VLS. The predictable reality is that we have spent so much on the carriers (£7b) and their F35s (£9b by 2029 on buying and supporting just 48) that there are insufficient funds left to equip them or the rest of the surface fleet with a full set of defensive and offensive… Read more »
Carriers cost of £7b was spent over a decade ago, so that’s not even if the current spend, F35 Cost is spread across the program and 2 services. with so many failed programs, there is not enough money to feed all.
Of course the carriers were a multi year contract and cost. But the budget rose from £3b to£7b and the F35 programme has failed in one of its key aims- to be a more affordable replacement for a number of older platforms. So both the acquisition price and the support costs mean that the original carrier plan will never be realised. The size of the carriers was dictated by the RN ambition to match USN sortie rates. Since these require an aircraft fleet close to the original plan for 138, it is obvious that we have wasted a lot of… Read more »
Seems like a huge expensive hassle in order to be able to drop a few 500lb bombs on shepherds heads, when the US&A will be doing the same job in bigger numbers anyway. We don’t fight anyone on our own that can fight back anymore, so why the expensive stealth capability just to drop a few bombs???
I see both the Carriers and the F35 are not a research or knowledge priority for you Greg!
No, you don’t see.
Ah but I do grasshopper!
Peer to peer it’s useless, all that money, effort, manpower of the CSG to drop a few paveways on farmers. You can poke it dude 👍🏿
Your reply confirms my first observation, thank you.
Vey good Airborne -on from as usual, I note
😂
From what I’ve heard from Admiral Radakin so far I wouldn’t trust him to deliver a newspaper.
The F-35B needs greater reach through drop tanks or buddy refueling. It also needs a heavy stand off weapon. I would like 4x CMV-22 to keep in touch with QE/PoW when far out to sea. I would like to see Advanced Arrester Gear studied for QE/PoW, to make them STOBAR capable. A future airgroup of say 20x F-35B + 8x F-35C would be handy. I would like to see the radar on QE/PoW upgraded to that latest Dutch version that can spot incoming ballistic missile 2000 km away.
“ The F-35B needs greater reach through drop tanks or buddy refueling.“
No and no.
Drop tanks don’t help unless you have AAR. I’ve gone through this a number of times on here. The limitation is MToW (maximum takeoff weight). If you have more fuel you have less weapons.
There is no plan for a buddy refuel version of F35B. It would be an outrageously expensive way of doing things using a 5th Gen plane as a fuel bowser.
USA are actively testing drones for this role. There are VSTOL heavy drones emerging into development for austere conditions.
Rubbish. Of course the situation will vary depending on temp & warload, but to say the F-35B is so underpowered it barely struggles to get off the deck is – Rubbish.
My friend calm down. F35B as with any aircraft of any kind has MToW. You can trade weapons for fuel load to to maximum MToW. Simply glueing extra tanks on the sides gives more volume and weight for fuel but you can only fill them fully before take off it you reduce weapons load. MToW is the max – simple as that. You can perfectly well, I’ve made the point a number of times, take off light of fuel, fill the tanks from an AAR drone thus reducing engine stresses on take off and increasing engine life abs range. Why?… Read more »
P&W has been pushing various engine upgrades for a while. An increase in thrust would answer any misgivings you have.
I don’t have any misgivings.
MTOW is determined by the design and manufacture process.
It might be that MTOW increases with a more powerful engine.
It might be that MTOW stats the same with a more powerful engine because the undercarriage/ landing gear/airframe mount points are the limiting factor.
Point to Rolls-Royce Pegasus, 1959-2008 50 years of development. so whats the rush
The engine upgrade program was canceled
Lick your finger and have a guestimate at YOUR WISH LIST, QE class will never go fully STOBAR, QE Class is 6 years old and you want to upgrade it now. once you have licked your finger you will notice a strange aftertaste. its called Salty. there is a reason a QE costs £4b and a ford class costs $10b. Affordability within the UKs pocket
What can QE do? Was it worth the money? Does it need a bit more spent, to get the maximum out of it? Or is it just an ornament for Fleet Reviews?
Would it not be a good idea for the U.K. to get one thing right then a number of things half done. The Royal Navy must surely be our prime weapon of choice. It is the only service with true global capabilities. I’m not suggesting that the R.A.F. or army should be reduced further but with limited resources we should be looking at our commitments. Admiral Radakin worries me. To paraphrase he says that the carrier(s) will be used to defeat enemy air defences and gain control of the air whilst others… the R.A.F.? provide strike. How? where are the… Read more »
The carriers look pretty impressive warships and the F35s’ stealth capabilities give it the edge over 4th generation combat aircraft and maybe over hostile A2AD SAM defences. But I don’t think the whole stands up to closer strategic or practical scrutiny. Strategically, the prime challenge to NATO Europe comes from Russia’s adventurous, expansionist military activities. That is an air-land scenario, as the Russian surface fleet is small and neglected and poses little threat to NATO. The only real naval threat comes from their fleet submarines. Basically, there is not a lot for the carrier to do, given that it would… Read more »
Penultimate line should read:
How we blunder along in defence in the UK…
And delete last line.
How does one edit a post, can’t see any edit function?