The UK government is set to assess the future of the Royal Navy’s anti-ballistic missile and aircraft carrier capabilities as part of its upcoming Strategic Defence Review.
These capabilities are seen as crucial for protecting the UK’s interests globally, with the Ministry of Defence’s (MOD) recent response reflecting the importance placed on maritime power in safeguarding national security and economic stability.
In response to questions from Conservative MP Andrew Rosindell on 23rd October 2024, Luke Pollard, Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the MOD, highlighted the Royal Navy’s key role. He pointed to the recent mission in the Red Sea to protect international shipping from Houthi missile attacks as an example of how maritime power remains vital to UK security and the wider global economy.
He stated, “Ballistic missile and aircraft carrier capabilities are important to Defence. The importance of maritime power more broadly has been highlighted by the recent Royal Navy response to protect international shipping – vital to our way of life and economic security – from Houthi missile attacks in the Red Sea.”
Pollard’s response underlines the significant role the Royal Navy plays in protecting trade routes and maintaining economic security. Maritime power continues to be viewed as essential not only for defence but also for ensuring the UK’s influence and presence in international affairs.
However, Pollard stressed that the final outcomes will be shaped by the Strategic Defence Review, noting, “It is only right that we do not pre-determine what may happen in the review.”
The review is expected to provide a comprehensive assessment of the UK’s defence priorities and offer recommendations on the roles and capabilities the Royal Navy needs to address evolving threats and challenges.
More Jets (138+(!)) and Sea Ceptor to be fitted to both carriers would be a start.
(Waits for nuggets to suggest F-35A variant for the Light Blue).
Sea Ceptor on the carrier is a great idea. However 138 F35B’s seems like over kill. A force of 80+ should be able to equip four squadrons and if we get our fingers out on drones then four squadrons is plenty.
The planned purchase of 138 is in multiple batches over several decades. It does not imply that 138 would be available at any given point in time.
Indeed should not be difficult to understand that aircraft available over a.
40 year programme won’t mean earlier aircraft will still be flying.
Well quite – it is a rolling program.
I wonder what % of flying hours is actually used up on the frames?
Probably not that much even now?
As with early Typhoon it was not the hours but the upgrade path that was the issue.
As a finger in the air it’s likely that there will be f35 squadrons for a total of 50-60 years ( if you assume that the Elizabeths replacements will be a bit late and they go on for longer than 50 years and the F35 is the only fighter type we get for the Elizabeths).. to keep 3-4 squadrons running over 50 years will likely take 130+ aircraft..if you assume each f35b built after 2018 will do around 8000 hours total…but the early f35b have serious structural problems ( the first 12 front line delivered ) may only manage 2100 hours before needing to be retired as the weighting cutting created serious flaws in the airframes that required a redesign post 2018.
“…but the early f35b have serious structural problems ( the first 12 front line delivered ) may only manage 2100 hours…”
So I wonder if L.M will replace them one to one, under the original guarantee?
My point is that decades long plan needs to be fast tracked while increasing the orders for airframes sufficient to meet the CVF overload capacity (of 72 F-35Bs). Take back from the Foreign affairs budget or NHS… I don’t really care.
Attrition during conflict also needs addressing. Such analysis should then lead to a greater rejuvenation of the RN, which lets face it needs to be the premier military force for the UK as a maritime nation.
Yes but over time things have changed. You can now look to load up both carriers with autonomous system’s instead of only manned aircraft.
Such as???
Yes. But don’t forget that it is the Army and the RAF that has actually done the lion’s share of warfighting in the last 40 years. They need strong resourcing too.
Excellent point.
By the way, overkill in defence matters is a good thing!
Original planning was for 138 to be purchase at the same time, over time that number has become vague.
I don’t recall it ever being said that the 138 was to be purchased at the same time. When have we ever purchased a single huge tranche of aircraft?
That was never the case. 138 was the predicted purchase (reduced from 150) over a given timescale, never would they all have been ordered at once. The vague bit is rally more down to If in the long term, we will end up with 138 being purchased, which I seriously doubt.
they will need 130+ over the lifetime of 50-60 years..especially as the first tranche had major design flaws which will cut their flight hours down to around 2100 hours…basically the first 8-12 are probably already close to knackered.
as the only remaining tier 1 partner in the f 35 project is like to see more emphasis on fulfilling the u.k order.
Dont forget the F35 are also for the RAF.
Navy F-35’s can help out the RAF when needed.
The navy does not have any F35s they are all RAF aircraft.
It’s a joint asset. They will be deployed depending on the operational requirement. Be it on a carrier, or land based.
How on earth csn the UK afford this many F35 . Asnser is we can’t. No one is going to invade us frankly who would want to anyway and it’s time we stopped playing above our ability to deliver.
We can easily afford that number we just don’t need that number. Buying aircraft is cheap running them is expensive.
The F35B is possibly the most capable aircraft ever devised by man kind, but it’s expensive, we should only have what we need.
… and the UK needs 138. That number wasn’t made up, it was the result of careful analysis.
It is the Typhoons that stop us getting invaded. The F-35s are for expeditionary operations.
They will probably need all 138 as this plane will likely be flying for 50-60 years..so if your giving each airframe say 25 years of service life then 138 is enough to keep around 70 in the air over its life.
Equipping our F-35s with some form of anti-ship missile like the JSM or LRASM would give the carriers a big punch and would be a priority for me, it’s quite surprising really, considering we were on the receiving end of them in the Falklands war and they inflicted significant damage to us, to my knowledge we don’t actually have any form of fixed-wing maritime strike weapon which is pretty shocking and big capability gap.
I wonder if project Ark Royal will feature in these discussions.Or has that already been put on the back burner.
We learn and forget very quickly in the UK…
Hmm that’s a little hash on the Royal Navy. The RN’s servivability standards are amongst the most comprehensive in NATO and are based on memories of losses from two world wars and the Falklands War.
The loss of HMS Prince of Wales on 10th December 1941 taught the RN a harsh lesson in redundant system design. The torpedo that took out the prop shaft also took out a key generator which was attached to the affected power train. The generator in question was the sole power source for all the 5.25″ AA guns on the ship, in short a single point failure. These were the most powerful, high altitude, long range AA guns in the fleet and they stopped firing when they were needed the most.
Lesson learnt I’d say. So much so that I think the remaining KG V battleships were given additional generators and other modifications during the war.
As for politicians, yep, fair comment but they are part of a different ‘corporate’ set up that is very focused on the here and now, such is the nature of politics. Which I would agree needs to change.
By the way I am not saying that RN requirements people regularly site the loss of the Prince of Wales in 1941, rather the lesson was such a painful experience for the navy that it has been come engrained into the DNA so to speak. So anything that happens that underscores the need to those comprehensive survivability standards is given due weight.
Check out the lean crewing article for T31 on Navy Lookout, there is a great picture of how the RN’s survivability standards have impacted the design of the T31.
Cheers CR
I’m always amazed people blame politicians instead of themselves for governments ills.
Folks blame politicians for making idiotic decisions. Like Starmer cutting defence when every other leading western country is increasing.
Careful Jim individual responsibility and accountability, you’ll be joining the Tories next 😀
I believe there was a simlear issue in the Falklands with HMS Broadsword were a 20mm shell from an Argentine aircraft cut the main power to the bridge
Absolutely
I think the idea is to use brimstone equipped F35’s as a stopgape and hope we don’t have to face a peer opponent though fitting the P8 Poseiden’s with NSM’s would be a no trainer.
# brainer
Brimestone will never be incorporated onto F35
F-35B’s are not qualified for Brimstone.
My mistake I was thinking of spear 3
Primarily because in the FI despite us having fixed wing aircraft with anti ship missile we did not use them. Submarines sink ships is the RN’s view.
Hopefully we get FC/ASW on F35B quickly once block IV is finished. I would not mind seeing a small buy of LRASM as an interim given the Lockheed is now integrating it onto F35B for the USMC.
Incorrect. Just the one Harrier had an experimental fitting for anti-ship missiles.
The RN has destroyed or mission killed more surface vessels with air launched Antiship missiles than any other navy.. ( by a huge number)..
It is SPEAR 3 for F-35, when Bk.4 is complete.
Get the aircraft first.
SPEAR 3 will have an anti ship capability. F35B will carry 8 missiles internally.
And the same again externally… 16 networked missiles that can target individual systems is a nightmare for any air defence system and would mission kill anything afloat.
They sure would.
As many of us have commented on in previous posts, they’ve seriously should increase the defensive armaments on these carriers. CAMM, 30mm, additional Phalanx, 40mm, RAM, Dragonfire, Ancilia, whatever, three Phalanx’s is just not enough. It’s plain to see.
These carriers wouldn’t last 24 hours if faced with an aggressive foe . Sitting frigging ducks . Total wait of time money snd manpower. Britain trying to punch above its weight yet again . We simply as a country cannot afford this spend
Why would the carriers not last 24 hrs?They have good layered defences provided by their F-35s, the escorts which should include at least one submarine, and finally their own CIWS.
We can afford the spend. We have already bought the carriers and paid for the first 48 aircraft..and that is with a 2.0 to 2.3%of GDP Defence budget. It will soon go up to at least 2.5%
The thing people forget about, is this:
1) the sea is very very big
2) the sea is not flat and you can hide behind it
essentially finding a ship in an ocean that does not want to be found is very very difficult..
1) use satellites..everyone knows where they are going and they can only look across a strip of ocean..you just have to not be where it is.
2) surface ships..can only see another ship around 25 miles away and to do even that it has to radiate..at which point it’s can be found and killed before it can find and kill the carrier.
3) aircraft…surface search takes time and effort and again your radiating..everyone will see you before you see them and the aircraft will be dead.
even if you find it..how do you then track it…the carrier battle group will kill whatever is tracking it and then sod off in a random direction at 30knots…if it’s a 700 miles away from your airbase it will take your strike fighters or back up ISTAR an hour to get there at which point the carrier could be anywhere within a 9500km2 circle..
once you manage to find and track..you then have to get the resources in place to attack one of the best air defence systems on the plant.
That depends, put it in Red Sea finding vs Houthis and it is easy to find, don’t forget also “fisherman” fleets. Unless there a full war you can’t blast merchants out of water.
Very well explained. People think anti ship is easy. Its very far from easy.
🙄 Here we go again, recording struck again?😴
We are putting 24 Sea Ceptors on T45 inside. Carriers are not operated like big destroyers. The escorts are the best tools for the job. And the carriers primary weapon systems. Aircraft.
Does the RAF want or need F-35A?
RAF urgently don’t need another type.
Another training pipeline, maintenance outfit, OCU, base….massive amount of spend.
RAF would be much better off just buying more F35B which at least adds mass and economy of scale to an existing platform and program.
Agreed SB, but they sure do need more aircraft wit the retirement of Tranche Typhoon!
Agree any buy should be F35b or another tranche of typhoon.
Really the RAF should have 12 deployable fast jet squadrons at a min. 8 typhoon and 4 f35b.
If the RAF were to aquire another F-35 squadron, it should be forward deployed to Sweden to hold St.Petersburg in its sights!
As 74 Sqn once operated a unique to Britain, Phantom variant, I would like to see 74 Sqn reborn with 15x F-35A to fulfil the NATO nuclear role, & use the wide variety of other weapons being integrated on F-35A. It would partly make up for the early retirement of tranche 1 Typhoon.
“…15x F-35A to fulfil the NATO nuclear role..”
The RAF does not need F-35 for a nuclear role. It is RN’s SSBN’s that have a NATO nuclear role. Also RAF modern conventional munitions are far more accurate and compact than at the beginning of Cold War, with the potential of more powerful explosive to be developed. So making tactical nuclear weapons just overkill for even a hardened target.
RN SSBN are for end of the world duties. RAF from Canberra to Tornado were available for tactical nuclear strike, using US nuclear warheads.
RN SSBN is our share of the nuclear burden, a NATO duty. Those NATO countries that still have tactical nukes, let them have their share of the burden, even though the capability is now overkill, for reasons I stated in my last comment.
The more the merrier, when it comes to tactical joint NATO deterrence.
The RAF would swap all the F-35B’s for A’s in a heartbeat.
I suspect you are correct.
Not sure the RAF now have a couple of mobile airfields, that they would not have if they divested themselves of f35B.
A great start!! Transfer the jets to the Navy too along with the supporting budget & facilities.
💯
Definitely only a nugget would deny that the UK needs to most capable F-35 variant.
These could be afforded by selling the obsolete carriers and reinvesting the personnel and money back into Defence, where it is needed.
More frigates and submarines, more ISR, more air defence, especially anti drone technology
Dream on.
To be honest 57mm bofors with guided munitions would probably make a better fit for the carriers. It would provide a very good effective inner layer of air defence, which would not interrupt air ops in the same way as firing off a CAMM would.
Indeed, probably that is why Italians have the 76mm in their carriers too.
My vote is for 57mm as long as we can fit magazines inside the sponsors.
Future guided ammo and the extra time to engage missiles makes it a superior CIWS.
There are loads of other issues like on-mount E/O turrets being required and other ammo handling but should be feasible to get them on the carriers in a reasonable timeframe and for not too much cost.
get free commitment to fit them to be able to operate different and cheaper aircraft id rather have ten of another type of aircraft than just 1 f 35
The reality is there are not any navel fast jets that are really much cheaper than an f35b the f18 is probably the cheapest, but even then your now paying just over 70 million dollars fly away vs 109 million for an f35b so for a billion dollars your getting 10 F35Bs vs 14 F18s and there is no way 14 f18s come close to the capability of 10 f35s…maybe if you could get 30 f18s for they same price you would have some justification…but you cannot. Another example a new typhoon costs 117 million dollars which is 8 million more than an f35b….
Not sure why the RAF would need the F-35A for? Most of Eastern Europe will be getting F-35A for an Eastern role, and we are even further away than them from the action. If it is long range strikes further East that’s required for, the B21 would be a better bet with the range offered. But at $500M+ a piece we would not afford many or none at all!
They could start by changing one of the carriers to Cats and Traps to allow Vixen to land and may be get a good EARLY WARNING AIRCRAFT on board get rid of Crownest and have a fixed wing aircraft we could even look at Rafale fighters landing Even the Turks have considered a The carrier will be armed with a 32-cell MIDLAS VLS (Vertical Launching System), and four Gökdeniz Close-in Weapon systems for self-defence.We could even put RIM-162 ESSM on the stern and Bow
Not going to happen as the cost to covert would be more than building a fresh vessel. Both will remain as is and they can launch their aircraft when Cat and Trad cant due to sea states as we did with the CVS’s. The Sea Ceptor fit would be sensible of course and the 40mm cannon rather than the 30’s planned. That’s enough as they will always have an AAW escort.
The carriers will in the near future go into the intended working routine of one operational one in reserve/refit so as long as a the fast jets can generate at least 24+ airframes with the rest of the required air wing. ASW will remain with the Helo’s and a good STOL drone with the power generation capability will provide the AEW in the future. Enough Deck for such without etc fit.
Conversion to cats and traps would not cost more than a new carrier. No structural work needed.
Incorrect.
It wouldn’t true, but the cost of conversion when the Con Govt considered it even as they were in build, was deemed far too expensive even before inevitable cost rises as work took place. Up weaponing the F-35B is the best solution in the place we find ourselves now and spend money on 2 things creating a secondary launch system (probably) next to the ski jump for drone launch and put the rest into Tempest and its long range including weapons capabilities that will cover some of the Carrier liabilities. For the rest Drone and propulsion technology is progressing at a rate whereby the situation will likely be very different by the early thirties when any decision now would ever be brought into being anyway so large scale and time consuming Cat & Trap solutions may well be white elephants by then, geez even the carriers themselves may arguably be. It may be that VSTOL and the ski jump will offer the required capability platforms for refuelling, attack and overview alongside the additional launch system alongside the ski jump that’s clearly at least being considered. With limited budgets just don’t think major re design of the Carriers however desirable is remotely practical.
Back then, AAG & EMALS were having development issues. Both now mainly fixed. I would be interested in fitting AAG to QE/PoW, to make them STOBAR capable. That does not impede their STOVL capabilities.
Relying on the RAF & Tempest to help the Navy is a forlorn hope.
Why did they design the ski ramp to be narrow? If it was much wider maybe they could have launched 2 aircraft simultaneously?
They were not FFBNW in build, so there would be major structural work to be done. It would cost a fortune.
“ The Sea Ceptor fit would be sensible of course”
Maybe if there is a 20 degree from horizontal launched variant. You cannot VL whilst cabs are in the air and the debris field is a thing. FOD plod etc. VL shuts down the flight deck.
If you can launch in a dish shape around the flight ops envelope then you have a solution.
“40mm cannon rather than the 30’s planned.”
Agree on that. Provide we have dual feed ammunition.
Maybe we should just drop the whole idea of carriers anyway our days of a conquering country ate well over.
We have never used carriers to conquer another country. Where do you get this idea from?
I don’t think anyone else does. Plenty of countries have carriers and yet have no Imperial intent.
Perhaps you don’t know what our carriers are for?
He doesn’t get sea denial or power projection I fear.
Yet every other country with carriers manage to fit them with missiles. Funny that.
That’s not really true. Supportive was discussing vertical launch systems and not every carrier nation puts those on its carriers ( infact only the French, Italians and Russians do)
the U.S. carriers use mark 29 and 49 launchers, as a point defence missile systems..they don’t use vertical launch systems,
japanese carriers only have sea ram..a very short range point defence missile.not vertical launched.
the Spanish carriers don’t have any missile armament.
The Navy sensibly is putting 24 Sea Ceptors on T45. The escort is the best tool for the job for carrier defence. Along with F35.
Also Dragonfire. That should be fitted to both carriers plus all amphibious assault ships, landing ships, frigates and destroyers.
Genius thinking, why hasn’t anyone ever mentioned C’s and T’s before. 🤔🙄😂
Inconceivable
One carrier to be moth-balled.
Let’s not go there 😟
We might as book our disappointment early.
Why?… and how do you know this?
I do not, obviously.
You know that.
I am merely commenting, based this government and that a defence review is due, that this likely.
Why is fairly logical we don’t need 2 carriers bobbing around just off the coast allied nations where we have access to places to fly F35s from. Only yesterday we enter into an agreement to develop maritime drones capability and German P8s will now patrol for UK bases further removing the need for carrier based aviation. The need for 2 carriers diminishes with our new strategy of Europe first. Quite frankly Labour not mothballing one would be negligent and force the MoD to carry unnecessary costs as we only need carriers when we are looking to deliver airpower 1000s of miles away. I don’t know this but pure logic based on government strategic direction is the reasoning as to why.
How small do you think the Atlantic is?
The North Cape and Arctic are over 1000 miles away and the main (indeed the only feasible) route for Russian bombers and surface ships to break out of their home bases.
Two carriers means one “bobbing around”, as you put it. Having one would provide even less to NATO because it would only ever be available for landmark deployments, likely to the Far East.
So what’s the strike range of an F35b? Keep in mind the F35b has no anti ship or anti sub capabilities it best employed within strike range of land targets. So hence best bobbing around a few hundred kms from land.
The government strategy is North Atlantic and Europe, if you have issues with that then mail your MP.
The F35 has no anti ship capability for the next 5-6 years, maybe less. After that it will be ideal for sea control and attacks on enemy surface ships. What is an air defence destroyer but a very dense IADS?
You are advocating a path likely to lead to the complete removal of fixed wing capability for the Navy for the next 40-50 years.
I completely agree with you that the carriers are less useful than anticipated in the current environment of NATO first, though they are not as redundant as you imply.
I disagree that that requires the mothballing of one of the ships and the resultant loss in experience and skills that would make it very difficult to justify regaining the capability if events further afield assume priority again.
For tge record I’m not advocating removal.of tge carriers. I would prefer we kept them Heck even added another. It’s difficult for some to get their head around that I present facts and options for something that I don’t personally agree with but that’s the challenge of critical thinking to analyse what we don’t agree with and perhaps see some logic in it.
What I’m saying is for a certain defence posture carriers aren’t the best options there’s logically other solutions that could be deployed.
I agree that mothballing one would have consequences but I can reconcile why the government’ might do it.
I don’t see how foreign P8s (a airframe that can’t fly off carriers) flying from a UK airbase reduces the need for a carrier…
Because our carriers are fairly useless against ships and subs, P8 is a far more practical and cost effective solution and doesn’t tie up escorts. In fact the escorts themselves carry the capability to attack ships and can act much freely when not attach to a carrier strike group. Having additional airframes from an allie means we can increase coverage and frequency of patrols.
F35B are best used for carrier strike and therefore need to be fairly close to land to be within range. Even if we did procure LRASM, for European defence it would better to swap F35B purchase for As and operate the longer range A from allied bases, with the new engine upgrades the A range advantages will increase over the B beyond the current 550kms. And saving from carriers would easily justify the purchase of tanker drones to allow F35A to strike even deeper inland or into the North Sea. And with drones like the MQ25 also able to carry LRASM and other munitions it gives us even more flexibility.
Personally, I’m for 2 fully operational carriers but they need to be employed at what they are good at, which is providing sovereign base 1000s of miles from home where other options are limited. But taking any emotion out of it for closer to home logic dictates there’s more practical options that reduce cost and improve the flexibility of the surface fleet and the airforce.
F-35’s are only currently limited in the anti shipping role due to the waiting list for UK Weapons intigration. SPEAR 3 and 5, intigrated onto F-35 will make it a very potent anti-shipping weapon.
P-8’s are land bound aircraft requiring operation from UK or allied Airbases, exactly the restriction that carriers are there to mitigate, so while they are better sub hunters (not anti ships, as it’s a big non-stealthy target that in UK service carries Stingray Torpedoes, short range and light anti-submarine weapons that would be carried by Merlin and Wildcat in a Navy context, so taking the ASW work away from a Frigates airwing rather than the carriers). Nor can a P-8 shoot down Russian air assets, and I’ll remind you that Russian strategic bombers launching cruise missiles at shipping has historically been one of the reasons we’ve needed fighter coverage for our ships.
You say you want 2 operational carriers, but then you argue for a swap to A’s, which says you don’t want operational carriers, since the A’s can’t fly from them. (I also don’t think you quite realise how big the Atlantic is and just how little an F-35A flying from an airbase covers, see point about fighter coverage for shipping above).
But of course, the carrier can’t operate aircraft above certain sea states, so all of a sudden this critical asset that appartmetly nothing else can replace is impotent. Whilst subs and high flying aircraft are not impacted by the same weather. Pretty.much Russian intelligence can use the Met Office website to decide when to lauchvan attack 😀 . Quite frankly having a carrier act as an air defence picket to the north makes no sense. It has limited magazine ties up.other assets that are needed to defend it and can’t operate in all conditions. At put the aset at huge risk. If we want deter and stop Russian airstrip it’s better to do what Ukraine has been trying to do and what Isreal has just to Iran is strike their
Military infrastructure.
Also my personal views of what I’d like to see have no.bearing. they’re not relevant I’m not in government or dictating the government strategy on defence. I’m also not arguing anything, just setting out logical points that are relevant to our European based posture.
Of course the Atlantic large but the earth isn’t flat and the Atlantic becomes very constrain with the distance between Scotland and Greenland being lass than 1200 miles. F35A flying with an MQ25 will have a combat radius of 900 miles and with LRASM having a range of over 200miles F35A can target any surface vessel between UK and Greenland. Of course Russia has to get past both Finland and Norway first. The Baltic is now a NATO lake and will be a no go for Russia
And as for long range bomber we already have QRA but most of tge time Norway has already intercepted them and hands the of to us.
P8 can also be armed with LRASM.
We have carriers that we ordered for global strike, but if we were starting from scratch with the strategic of aim of defending Europe (government policy), we would not order 2 65000 t carriers. There’s quite simple more effective way to achieve those goals. So we now people try to justify the carriers that we’re order for a defence strategy that no longer applies.
And as for these critical assets we’ll.its looking like Labour will mothball one and reduce F35 buy. Personally I hope they don’t but logically it makes sense they free up surface combatants and funds to reach their strategic goals.
What the government also knows is there won’t be a protracted naval.confrontation around Europe. A NATO Russia confrontation will very quickly move to tactical nukes which will either escalate further to strategic nukes or end at the negotiating table.
Oh no! Better tell every carrier operating Navy in the world that they need the sea to be millpond smooth to operate. Good thing we went for STOVL then that can operate in higher sea states than any other form of Aircraft carrier.
I’m sure the Royal Navy will be glad of your opinion, and take note of it, since clearly the policy of using carriers as air defence in the North Atlantic that was a primary driver behind the RN carrier force in the cold war was entirely in error and nobody managed to spot it.
After that asset has been spotted, the F-35A scrambled from the UK, flown a few hours out over the North Atlantic, and then engaged it, hoping that there is no Russian aircover anywhere near it as it’ll be at maximum combat radius, and ignoring the fact that the 900m range of the F-35A is carrying only light Air-to-air missiles…. Oh and QRA is for defending UK airspace, Typhoon doesn’t have the range to cover the GIUK gap from the UK, hence: Carriers operating in the Atlantic helps plug that gap (and again, you don’t seem to understand how long it would take a Typhoon intercept to get out to maximum range to intercept a Russian bombing raid with long range cruise missiles….)
We don’t own LRASM, and have no plans to aquire it as we have domestically produced equivalents in the pipeline.
You have this weird myopic idea that we’d never deploy a fleet out of region, which even in the Cold War, when the RN was specifically targeted at defending the North Atlantic (and even then, as I pointed out, had carriers), wasn’t the case: they still did out of area power projection.
You seem desperate to justify cutting the carriers at any cost, while ignoring the realities of geography, defence economics, power projection and history. As for you claiming that you want the carriers to be kept and saying that people can’t “get their heads around you arguing vehemently for something you claim to not want,” it’s not like you’d be the first person to lie on the internet.
You seem angry and getting into personal attacks really no consequencesfor me so carry on if thats your thing. I made my personal position clearly I’m pro carriers and pro global.deployment of them. I also stated I was arguing but rather naking points but you again ignored that wanting an argument. That fact you completely ignored, these points nakes me questioni if you even even contemplate anything I wrote. The art of critical thinking is to examine something that you don’t agree with and draw conclusions from it those conclusions may not fit with what a person wants or believes. Try it sometime you may find it liberating. And because I’m thinking critically I can actually agree with your points on keeping the carriers as they do also have logic and benefits.
The bottom line is getting emotional over it is irrelevant the government is changing our defence posture and is examining how or carriers will be used or not used. By entertaining all possibilities I will not be shocked by any outcome.
I would suggest a ketter lobbying your MP on the future of the carriers would be better time employed rather than attempting to pick an argument with an anonymous online avatar
who actually agrees with you. 😀
Only 1 carrier in service means periods of none available
“…Only yesterday we enter into an agreement to develop maritime drones capability and German P8s will now patrol for UK bases further removing the need for carrier based aviation…”
No, more P8’s are being deployed, is due to the threats have increased, not to replace carrier based aviation.
Actually two carriers gives the RN more options than just one carrier. E.g a second carrier could be deployed in an emergency for just ASW, with some aircraft from 207 Sq.(OCU), OCU squadrons are also reserve squadrons.
Another answer stating the obvious.
I personally believe more F35B will be bought, but fewer, enabling 3 Sqns.
As there is no money for lots of F35 and Tempest.
With UCAV, and both Carriers kept, I’d bite the hand off.
My ideal is more personnel too, so an LPD can be used as well as the Carriers.
It’s sad to see LPDs lay because of personnel issues. The word what have HMGs done spring to mind again 🙄
If RFA pay was sorted they could be RFA crewed with RN on the weapons and C2.
They are big useful assets and making them usable in the world we are in now is sensible.
Personnel is becoming a big issue and needs sorting. On the plus side this government and SSoD have been talking a lot about improving conditions for personnel.
Cheers CR
Improving conditions for personnel is good and is what a good employer should do…and it is relatively cheap. Might take the sting out of complaints about any defence cuts in head count or platform count.
Very sensible assessment I think.
Yup, its called “Project Mothball”.
it may well be. 11 Downing St needs to find £40 billion soon if it doesn’t want to borrow more. that money has to come from somewhere and it can’t be just tax hikes. i get the feeling that politicians being politicans will choose voters over military.
we will see on Oct 30th when Reeves will present her budget plan.
Interesting how the black hole has jumped from £22bn to £40bn overnight and without explanation.
Yes and it’s interesting that they didn’t know this whilst formulating their plans to govern. We seem to have been gifted a Cowboy outfit from the previous bunch of Clowns… what will we get next ?
Cowboys and Clowns you’re being far too polite 😀
Yeah given it wasn’t really 22b to start with. Essentially of the 40b approx 75 % is their own doing. I really hope some of the 49b is going to increase defence spending.
Enjoy the 2 carriers at sea , in a few months one of them Will be mothballed.
I wonder if this is a move to get the funding for project Ark Royal?
We need more Navy Jets and Sea Ceptors as stated elsewhere. Both carriers should be able to go sea fully tooled up. You can also make sure RAF has full capability of planes as well….there should be 300 at least and id argue other variants for RAF…..but im no expert
Total overspend .£100 million s pop before a gallon of fuel is put in the tank. Total reliance on USA once again not good in these changing times. What will they be used for who are we going to fight anyway please dont tell countries in the other side of the world we would get our arses kicked once again. No supply ships carriers eould be blown out the water on day one anyway
Can I ask where you got the £100 million for fuel costs?
I think he means the cost of buying an F-35B. Obviously, he’s ignored the fact that the Treasury gets maybe 8% of every F-35 sold, via taxes on the UK industrial share, meaning we effectively get all the planes for free with a healthy bump on top.
F-35A is $140m, F-35B is $160m, US FY 2025 budget request.
That’s absurd! A 60% year on year increase. Are you sure?
Its in the US budget request. LM pretends that an F-35 costs $85m, but that price does not include an engine, or other non LM bits. US budget price is the ready for operations price.
The flyaway price won’t fly because it’s engineless? Blimey! I had no idea.
[And I apologize for using exclamation marks in successive posts.]
But only if the UK buys 138
I think that is really fat dave again!
Daves hatred of the concept of carrier aviation and sea denial continues.
I take it you are also against air power? As in the RAF?
Because you must be. The carrier is just the enabler for flexible deployment of air power.
Why please, are nations around the world trying to or are building them?
It good that people are focused on the number of Lightnings available, but let’s not forget two other related challenges: combat drones and the Crowsnest replacement. For AEW we have four paths that are being talked about, all of them probably unmanned:
1 Cats and traps conversion (hybrid carrier) supporting a current-tech very large antenna on a heavy fixed wing platform
2 A rotary, with next gen compact radars and comms.
3 A tiltrotor using a current tech medium-length antenna.
4 A fixed wing STOL drone, with next gen compact radars and comms.
Option 1 is the most expensive by far, up front and ongoing. It’s also the best in terms of immediate capability, with the least risk, and high flexibility, helping out with combat/refuelling drone possibilities.
Option 2 is what we maybe should have done with Merlin but were too cheapskate. Develop top-grade, next-gen multi-functional radars while keeping the platform old school rotary. Leveraging radar work done on Tempest for something AEW in the early 2030s would not be cheap. Add to that an upgrade path with the possible use of exotic materials to allow for longer wavengths with shorter antennas and it’s a continuous twenty year plus project to reach something with unknown ultimate capability.
Option 3. We know that we can get a capable tiltrotor out of the US Army’s FLRAA project, not to mention the NATO Next Gen Rotary (NGRC) is expected to have a tiltrotor entry from Leonardo. It should be able to carry an antenna like the Elta one for the P600 AEW (S-Band), however it may need some redesign work to achieve that, extra processing to get around rotor shadow, etc. It could have positive knock-on effects for the Army and change the standard for medium/heavy Navy and Marine rotary use.
Option 4. This is one route the Navy seem to be looking at seriously. STOL Protector with underslung AEW PODS. In my opinion this will be the least capable, giving the worst bang for the buck. It will be the closest to off the shelf, so as long as the RN don’t fiddle with it at all, it could be low risk with an upgrade path.
Need to move quickly and sell both obsolete carriers. There remains no credible justification for keeping them.
(waits for nuggets to try to justify them)
Nothing is needed, until it is.
Better to sell all the armed forces isn,t ? , are you happy ? , you seen to be a russian/chinese supporter.
Don’t bother. He made no argument and made it clear he was going to be dismissive with that statement.
I am waiting for you to justify your statement, starting with,
why are they obsolete?
Because we’re now Europe focused and having 2 large carriers floating just off the coast of 27+ allied nations where there’s literally 1000s of airfields millions of km of tarmac isn’t really necessary. They also tie up frigates, Astute, and T45 as escorts, assets ggst are critical protect other infrastructure. The strategy has been defined now the review will be based on the strategic goals. Labour will keep one in service more because of the optics than necessity.
Personally I support global deployment of the carriers but the public voted for the opposite so we now need to cut our cloth to fit.
I disagree.
The carriers are there for war time, not peace.
It is almost certain that if NATO goes toe to toe with the Russians, top of their list will be closing the Atlantic. The carriers will be fundamental in keeping the Atlantic open.
Further when China makes a move on the Pacific , notice I said when not if. They will be needed as we will have very few cm of Tarmac to fly from
The credible justification for carriers is to project airpower far from where we don’t have access to allied bases. Give the Strategic direction is now Europe first your assessment is correct they are surplus.
When they build a runway in the middle of the Atlantic let me know, further given the strategic and economic importance of Taiwan , I doubt we will be able or wise to sit out any conflict in the Pacific.
Ps how long do you think runways will last in a shooting war .
Ps if your assertion is true regarding our defence being Europe focused. The carriers are redundant NOT obsolete!!
So explanation what a carrier will offer in the middle of the Atlantic. F35b have no anti ship or anti sub capabilities. Whilst P8 can hunt subs, Astutes can hint subs and ships. T26 will be able to hunt subs and can deploy anti ship missle via mk41. Almost every others asset is far more useful mid Atlantic than the carriers which ties up all those assets as escorts.
As for far east, Dont shoot the messenger, it our new government that’s prioritising Europe best you get clarity from your new labour MP or if they’re from another party ask them to ask the question in parliament.
As for runways and shooting war. Ukraine airfields are still up and running after nearly 3 years of war, France UK and Germany have nearly 600 airports a airfields alone. And Europe has masses of equipment in the civil sector that could turn around runway repairs meaning it’s would require high volume sustained attacks daily to prevent us using these airfields. Additionally to this there quite literally millions of km of roads that can also be used.
They can operate anti sub assets to back up those off the sub hunters and if the shooting war starts. They will come after convoys with a lot more than Sub. The primary ship killer will be aircraft.
So what weapon will our F35Bs be targeting these ships with? We have torpedoes available on the Astutes and P8s, we have anti ship missiles on some of the surface ships. We have anti ship missile on some our helicopters which can deploy from frigates and destroyers.
I said aircraft not ship.
And why would transatlantic shipping operate that far north would be foolish to take peace tome routes. Russias longest range bomber is dliw and propdriven has a combat radius of 3900 miles it would need to travel within range of n allied country to be able target transatlantic shipping taking a southern route. Russia has had trouble targeting static assets with its long range missiles so hitting a moving ship is going to be a challenge especially as even civilian ships would start deploying thing like GPS jamming and spoofing as well as other counter measures.
There are such things as flying tankers which can extend the range but hopefully the Russians have forgotten they have them as well.
But hey I hope the Russians have your attitude if it comes to a shooting war.
Oh dear.
If you say so.
RN is still having trouble getting it’s subs out to sea.
ASM from helos are for smaller vessels and craft.
Perhaps if we didnt need 2 65000t carriers we would ve able to.focus morecres on subs.just thought.
The sub issue will be sorted hopefully sooner rather than later
A QE carrier can embark a number of Merlin ASW helos for a substantial submarine hunt, if needed to be done. No doubt the ruZZians may try to interfere from the air, which the air group of F-35b will come handy.
Yes, but you also.need to provide the carrier 1 airdedence destroyer one RFA vessel and 2 frigates one being a T26 possibly 2 depending on T31 availability and 1 Astute. So I have 6 Assets in confined area dictated by the carrier location
Alternatively I could have 2 t26 operating independently an Astute operating independently a Merlin operating from a T45 all hunting over wider area. Not only that, I afree up the running cost of the carrier and a minimum of 700 crew, which could man 7 sub hunting frigates.
You would not want a ASW frigate near a carrier, but many miles away on lookout for following, or escaping enemy subs and vessels of sorts(an outer screen). The close-by escorts would be at least 2 AAW/BMD destroyers on lookout for long distance air threats. As I said a carrier operating a number of ASW helos will sanitised a large area of ocean, better than lone frigates.
Because the RN has only a limited number of ASW frigates, due to their high cost.
🙄
For a brief moment, I thought we might actually have a realistic defence review. Then I gave my head a good wobble and reminded myself not to be so stupid.
SDR98 was a good defence review, but Gordon would not fund it, so it was death by a thousand cuts after that.
Time will tell, the world is a lot more dangerous than in 98.
Putting Cats and Traps on the Queens is very necessary, not just to handle heavy weight unmanned loyal wingman but interoperability with NATO.
Giving the Queens improved self defence is also essential , the more layers of defence , the more likely a missile will be stopped , although how exactly you do it, is a good question.
The unpalatable truth is the USA is no longer a dependable defence partner and Europe needs to rapidly adjust to that fact.
Hang on…. what Aircraft are you proposing we embark here ? None will be suitable other than the C&T F35….. Why spend untold millions just to go from B’s to A’s ? I’ll await your answer rather eagerly.
I said unmanned loyal wingmen and interoperability with NATO allies.
Nowhere did I suggest the U.K. should buy the A variant,
Almost certainly if a war broke out , carriers will primary targets. And being able to fly off another nations aircraft would be very advantageous.
I don’t understand the interoperability argument. Consider the current NATO exercise, Neptune Strike, which features HMS Prince of Wales, USS Harry S. Truman, USS Wasp, Turkey’s TCG Anadolu, and Italy’s ITS Cavour.
The only one of those ships that has cats and traps is the Truman. All the rest were designed or adapted for the F-35B. It seems there’s plenty of interoperability, wouldn’t you agree?
The fact we played with a group of nations that mostly use the F-35b neither disproves or proves my point.
In a shooting war the ability to operate other nations aircraft will be very valuable.
Do you propose we continue to also use up F 35B airframe tine with them acting as tanker and are we also developing VTOL loyal wingman.
The F35B has limited range or do you suggest we continue to use other F35 S tankers burning up airframe time. Further as the intention is to operate the F35B with loyal wingmen. How do you suggest we get them off the carrier, given anything ski launched will have the same problem regarding fuel and stores.
Like it or not to get any meaningful size of loyal wingman/ tanker is a catapult.
Further if we are in a situation where we are in a shooting war and the Russian inconsiderately take out a carrier that doesn’t operate VTOL aircraft, where do you propose they operate from ?
HI John, I think the real trouble started with the 2004 SDR cuts.
True, but they were the result of SDR98 not being funded.
Something tells me we will lose 1 carrier in order to justify a global capability. You couldn’t make it up, New Labour bought these carriers into being and now Starmers Labour see them as a millstone.
Your assumption is based on what info?
If anything we need a third not one less.
any idea when this review will be available?
Early 2025
sounds positive! fingers crossed.
Great picture in this article I have to say. So good to see all those aircraft embarked.
After the review, for aircraft carrier capability, look at Bulwark and Albion currently. And 48 F-35Bs is all we will get.
The one key missing element in this discussion time and time again is AFFORDABILITY. The RN has turned a Nelsonian eye to this for far too long.
So BM capability there really no change was on the agenda before July good to sea this continuing.
It’s odd the government has committed to somethings prior to and during the review like the treaty with Germany yesterday, so I assume the review will say drone capability with Germany must be expanded.
So it’s not quite true outcomes will be shaped by the review. decisions have already been taken and the review will have to suck them up. Tbh the government knows what they want from the review which is an endorsement of their decisions and policies. The review will deliver this and politicians will the brandish around it’s ‘independent’ credentials as a means to give themselves credibility. It’s all to predictable
The Trolls and drive by shooting one liners doing the UK, and the Carriers down are out in force with this article!
These things are the new dreadnoughts, their window is closing fast.
Beware the swordfish Otto. 😉
it should look at them as military assets and not as a platform for for playing with remote controlled toys
Probably means no need for them.
The Royal Navy’s much reduced operational requirements are and have been known for a decade and more; unfortunately, the governmental responses have, incrementally, reduced them and allowed capability to deteriorate to the extent that the few ships we do have are often effectively laid up even though they are urgently required to be at sea. Our aircraft carriers are very over extolled in spite of their extreme vulnerability; the UK does not have sufficient or the right kind of ships and submarines to provide the necessary protection for them. The only fully capable assets held are the submarine force and there are too few of them. Should you require a continuing assessment of our lack of overall capabilities, I would refer you to the DefenceSynergia’s website.