ITS Cavour has started sea trials to achieve the certification for F-35B aircraft.

The flagship of the Italian Navy is testing the F-35B aircraft in different conditions.

The Italian Navy is replacing its 16 Harriers with 15 F-35B Lightning IIs. Last year 2020 the carrier underwent modernisation to support the F-35B. Cavour will have room for ten F-35Bs in the hangar, and six more parked on deck.

According to the Italian Navy:

“With her departure on the morning of February 28th from the base of the US Navy’s Second Fleet in Norfolk, the aircraft carrier ITS Cavour began the “hot” phase of the “Ready for Operations” campaign. The first landing of an F-35B aircraft on the deck of the Italian Navy’s aircraft carrier Cavour represents an important milestone in the integration phase with the fifth generation aircraft.

The purpose of the Sea Trials, which will continue in the Atlantic Ocean for a further four weeks, is to achieve the certification of the operational envelope of Cavour’s flight deck. Following this, it will be time to verify the impact of the fifth generation aircraft on the ship in various conditions of wind and sea when taking off and landing in order to achieve the “Ready for Operation” certification.”

After demonstrating safe launch and recovery of the aircraft, ITS Cavour will be declared ‘Ready for Operations’, which will allow her to start tests with the F-35B that will lead to the achievement of the Initial Operational Capability by 2024.

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

100 COMMENTS

  1. Great stuff, hopefully Cavour will be able to sail out to meet the QEC Battlegroup when they transit through the Med.

  2. Fabulous to see an ally doing this.

    I am sure the ski jump experience from QEC has helped with this. Do we have any Italians embedded on our F35B program?

    With 15 F35B onboard the Cavour would be a pretty potent defensive weapon for a low intensity conflict. Certainly enough to make a to pause for thought.

  3. I am surprised that Cav’s hanger can store 8 F-35Bs, so it will not have room for anything else?
    Or Is Cavour a Tardis as well?
    Where are the ASW helos?
    What about AEW helos?
    So the Italian Navy does Not believe there is a Sub threat?
    So No helos!
    So I wouldn’t expect more then 8 F-35Bs + a few credible helos as a full complement on this
    carrier.

    • Cavour is about the same displacement as ex HMS Hermes so 28,000 tons. She is a capable light carrier platform.
      Hermes packed in Helos and about 20 Harriers in the falklands with more parked on deck. So no reason Cavour couldn’t fit 15 F35Bs and some helos onboard.

    • Hello,

      Cavour‘s operational load has typically been 8-10 AV-8B+ and 12 helicopters up to the size of the AW101, with the specific variant depending on the mission function – of those procured to date, four are the EH-101A HEW (AEW), eight are SH-101A (ASuW/ASW), and ten are MH-101A (ASH). Though of course helicopter operations are not exclusive to the AW101 and the NH90 is also available (ex, for the trip to the United States Cavour has aboard two in company with the AW101’s, an SH-90A and an MH-90A).

      The IOC set for 2024 is for GRUPAER aboard Cavour, for eight F-35B and twelve pilots, but it should go without saying that this would be far from the only aircraft aboard. These will naturally always be operating alongside the embarked helicopter groups, which remain one of the main points for having the carrier in the first place. If one starts to take more than 12 F-35B there will have to be cuts to the helicopter compliment to avoid playing tetris with aircraft on the deck and in the hangar.

      • Thanks for this info, Phoenix_jz!

        Yes with F-35B being a much larger aircraft then the Harrier, it would be a struggle to get more then 10 F-35Bs with essential helos, I think.

      • The AEW variants of the AW101 that the Italian Navy developed are in storage and have been for 5 years now, it never really worked.

    • Maybe the Italians are going to use Sub -> Sub? It is the Med after all.

      All I would say is that seeing an F35 on Cavour makes you realise why QEC is the size it is and rightly so.

    • Also remember that Cavour is intended to operate chiefly in the med, a very different operating environment than what the QE’s or even Invincibles are inteded to operate in. For most of Cavours Med service it’ll be in range of Italian Airforce assets.
      Edit: Also don’t forget about Trieste, the dedicated Helicopter carrier/LHD that will be around as well.

    • Surprisingly, it’s as long as the 1970s Ark Royal though narrower with no angled flight deck. It does look to be a very flexible ship with space for troops vehicles and stern ramps to offload them.
      Dimensions are similar to the Japanese Kaga class which will also operate F35.

      • Agree similar to Izumo class 28,000 tons or the more amphibious focussed Adelaide class in Australian service.

  5. Any read the recent suggestion by an Air Force senior figure that the F-35 has been a flop? Brown, suggests that they need a low-end fighter, basically a modern F-16 because the F-35 has abnormal parts wear, the engine is degrading a lot quicker than people thought, and the pilots get about 1/3 of the flytime because of such issues. The costs are spiralling out of control too. Now total program cost is set to go from $1 trillion to $1.7 trillion.

    A lot of people poo-poo F-35 sceptics, but there’s a reason why the Navy want their own fighter in the F/A-xx program and JSF proponents admit they won’t do a project like this again. Simply asking one jet to do too much. I think it could have been a great jet. But as ever, large mil projects rarely live up to their promises.

    • The F-16 replacement proposed, is for the Air National Guard, and for Export as well, that does Not need state of the art F-35s. A fighter suitable to sell to countries like Turkey as well, which got kicked out of F-35 program.
      Brown has reaffirmed the USAF F-35 commitment.
      Can You Not read?

    • Not sure all those facts are true. The US needs a cheaper but capable gen 4.5 jet to replace ageing F16s. Similar to F15 X series the US airforce has returned to production to replace older model C/D and strike eagle F15s.
      Take an old air frame design. Modernise it with advanced engines and sensors and hey presto for not too much cost (much lower then trying to design and manufacture a new aircraft) a gen 4.5 replacement. Due to cost they will keep these aircraft as polyvalent units but rely on F22, F35, B21, F117A, cruise missiles and drones etc for “kicking the door down”/ first day or 2 of war.
      Russia and China aren’t developing 5th generation aircraft to challenge F35 yet in enough numbers. So a gen 4.5 aircraft in U.S. service should suffice.

      • As Typhoon has shown it is very capable of taking on a 5th Gen opponent at least as long as conditions are not ideal for the latter in the battle space. If ever that ideal is rarely the norm in a serious conflict for long so I really do think a very competent 4.5 gen aircraft is still very relevant esp when considered that the extra cost to get that added superiority of a 5th gen over it results in an arguably less reliable and battle ready platform even before the vagaries of war play in. I guess its only an answer we will fully have a chance of understanding should that sort of conflict take place. In lower level conflicts in the air the answers will tend to favour that expensive aircraft as and when its needed… if its actually needed and I guess thats an added complication to the mix. How much and how wide a range of scenarios (and how they may change in the future) is I suspect something akin to the ultimate question that seems right out of Hitchhikers Guide to the Universe… so its 42 then.

    • He is not the only one. Will Roper, head of aquisition for USAF, is also underwhelmed by the F35, and wants alternative solutions and reduce the number of F35 planned purchases by 40%
      Makes me laugh to see all the fanboys who drink the kool aid running out of excuses as the facts become ever clearer about the Fail35
      Meanwhile Nato allies buy the “turkey” to fund the US development of its next “eagle” (NGAD, FA/XX, F16 gen 5-)

        • Harrier was viewed as an interesting aberration, including by Sandy Woodward, who gave a very unfortunate briefing on pilot survival chances.

      • The F-35A is to be based permanently.by the USAF in the UK later this year

        No way they would base F-35A here if it was, what you said!

        So you can take a trip over to Cambridge to see them performing for yourself later in the year!

      • ‘Fail35’ I find it very difficult to take an argument seriously when playground insults of that nature are preferred over intelligent debate. You just lose any credibility and authentic points just get ignored as a result.

      • Will Roper did not advocate reducing the F-35 buy by 40%. That’s a total fabrication. Will Roper had his own agenda which the Air Force repeatedly ignored and that was his advocacy for the Digital Century series. In any event Will Roper is now in private industry and his views with him.

    • The biggest concern expressed by Brown is not so much the acquisition cost but the combination of sky high operating cost and poor availability. The F16 is still in production, mainly for export, but it has relatively short range. What is clearly now in some doubt is the original plan for the USAF to replace all its F16s and A10s with F35A. The F35b looks safe because there is no alternative for the USMC to operate from their America class or for countries like Japan, UK and Italy.
      Cost constraints mean even the USMC is likely to reduce its planned buy though the total will still be @300.

        • I wonder what Brown is really after. Trump claimed to have won price cuts after criticising the plane but the result was largely smoke and mirrors so it must be more than that. Is he perhaps looking at a simplified version of F35 for his 4.5 gen. idea? A ground up new design would take years and the USAF fleet is getting pretty old. Would it be possible to dispense with those things that continue to cause high operating costs and poor sustainability?
          Eliminating the stealth coating and the all round sensor fusion could still deliver a low observable airframe with a powerful radar; a simpler IRST system like that retrofitted to the F18 could be adopted.
          Most warplane designs tend to be made more capable and complex over time. The F35, because of ” concurrency” has in effect started out with maximum complexity already built in.

          • Brown is an F-16 pilot and has spent his entire flying career in them with almost 3000 flying hours. He has been at PACAF for the last couple of years and CENTCOM prior to that. He has combat and extensive command experience but has been out of the Pentagon for a decade. The Air Force is reinventing itself to face China at the same time it finds itself with an aging inventory and technological advancements by its near peers. There has been intense debate within the Air Force on how to meet these challenges. A big part of that is the NGAD, something Brown has only been in on on the periphery. Brown walked into this and, I think, without being fully immersed in the subject, gave a premature press interview and got caught showing his F-16 background. Brown, undoubtedly, will have a big say on where the Air Force heads and I think he just made a rookie mistake.
            Bottom line is I think where the USAF is going is dependent on the NGAD and no one knows exactly what that entails.

          • You may be right about the background to Browns statement. But concern about the cost and sustainability of F35 is widely reported and based on real experience. So it does seem fair to assume some reassessment will happen.

      • The only modern F16 replacement is the SAAB Gripen E/F. It is a genuine 4.5 gen fighter. New design just coming into service, not a F16 block XX.

    • Maybe it did cost loads of money to do three versions, but we are so lucky they did because we certainly wouldn’t have built a 5th generation stealth V/STOL fighter on their own and we would not have returned to fixed wing naval aviation.

      I do think there is an argument for a hi-lo mix, but when you see the per hour costs of Typhoon I dont think there is money to be saved. Maybe Gripens and F35s….

      F/A-xx is for the same reason we will build Tempest: an F35 with range / persistence and greater weapons loadout whilst in ‘stealth’ mode.

        • I posted this in another thread which will open up further debate on what we might expect to see on the carriers in the future.

          All very interesting!

          “UK issues RFI for shipborne aircraft launch and recovery equipment
          by Richard Scott

          Almost a decade after dropping plans to introduce catapults and arrestor gear on one of the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) is seeking to be appraised on shipborne assisted launch and arrested recovery systems applicable to both crewed and uncrewed air vehicles.”

          https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/uk-issues-rfi-for-shipborne-aircraft-launch-and-recovery-equipment

          • “(MoD) is seeking to be appraised on shipborne assisted launch and arrested recovery systems applicable to both crewed and uncrewed air vehicles.”

          • How about Gripen (sea Gripen} do you happen to know if it could take off and land on the carriers under the current weight limits?

            It’s a true 4.5 gen aircraft that may be a useful asset like the USMC F35’s in the future.

          • The Gripen does fall within the limits but it is not structured for marine use. The airframe would need strengthing.

          • Cheers, we could see other nations flying off the decks of our carriers sometime in the future?

            Sea Gripen NG

            MTOW of 16,500 kilograms and a maximum landing weight of 11,500 kilograms. In a STOBAR concept

          • Also the A-10 falls within the range of the weight limits as well.

            Give it folding wings.

            A handy battle field warpon, to bring along on a carrier!

          • Let’s hope the powers that be can finally see what the full potential of a UK carrier air wing could really look like in the not too distant future!

          • Should be able to launch and land an E-2D. Might not launch with maximum fuel but E-2D can be re-fueled from MQ-25A, so shouldn’t be an issue. Not saying that either aircraft is what the RN plan to use, but they might like the option. Particularly because the RFI is asking for the launch and recovery system to be “… suitable to fit to a vessel within 3 – 5 years” which seems an aggressive requirement for any aircraft not already in existence.

            The RFI document actually states –
            “The Ministry of Defence (The “Authority”) is currently seeking information in order to qualify requirements and develop our understanding of the potential for the market to provide assisted launch and arrested recover for a range of air vehicles, which would be suitable to fit to a vessel within 3 – 5 years. This is to support the development of the RN’s Future Maritime Aviation Force (FMAF) with potential for use with both crewed and un-crewed air vehicles.”

          • You are right as well, and with about 2/3 of fuel load within limit. I never expected the E2-D to be as light as 19500kg gross! It looks far heavier then it really is!
            Thanks for that!

      • “The operational suitability of the F-35 fleet remains at a level below Service expectations”

        For a project that has had as much funding and as much time, this simply is a moment to say, YIKES! Thank god we’re not thinking of buying 100+ of these failures. F22 is still the only real 5th gen in my view. Hopefully with Tempest, we can leapfrog the others. USA seems to have really put all their eggs into one basket. Now they want an F-16 type of fighter? And the F/A-XX??

        They are up to their eyeballs in debt, how even the world reserve currency nation afford all of that? And if they cut their F-35 numbers short, that does not send the right signals abroad. Other nations would have reason to cut their orders too. Then they’d really be left holding the bag.

          • I’m a chap from the Midlands and if you insinuate foreign collusion by someone who merely has a dissenting opinion on a subject that most others don’t have, it appears to me that you are the one on the Kremlin’s payroll. Here in the West, we can disagree and not be called a traitor who should just fall in line.

            But I think most of us have exhausted our patience with you. You appear to be a very emotionally charged person, so I’ll avoid your ramblings from now on.

          • So in support of posters whom have got No reply to my rebuttal?
            What a good choice of friends your got!

          • If you say you are British, why Did you make that Anti-American rant in the last paragraph of your previous post.

            The UK is in just as in same financial situation as the US, or even worse because the £ is no longer the worlds reserve currency any more.
            And at least the Americans are making an effort to broaden their fighter jet portfolio to which you contradictory criticised, as well as F-35, so the US can’t win either way, you will rubbish an outcome of any new fighter jet proposed. So who is emotionally charged here, with these contradictory criticisms then?
            I concluded that only a Kremlin troll can play such a game as this!

          • Hi John. Don’t want to get involved in the conflict above. merely as a matter of interest and I promise no hidden agenda-you described yourself as a Rhodesian in a previous post. I went to school in Salisbury, Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland in the early 1960’s-Mountpleasant Boys High. Did you live in SR?

          • Hi John-greetings then to a fellow Southern African although I was born and brought up in England /Ireland, left in 1961 as an 11 year old. Now live in Durban. Done lots of work in the Eastern Cape.
            Cheers

          • The weather is a huge plus John but we now have to deal with the ravages of the Zuma era. Toss up who was worse between him and Mugabe!
            All the best John

          • Hi Bro. You may have heard they just changed the name of PE to Gqebhera!! Only pronouncable by less than 1 percent of the worlds population so will be wonderful for the tourist industry!! :). Even the Mayor who is a Xhosa has condemned the change! While Rome burns..
            Cheers

          • Hi John & Geoff- late greetings from an ex Cape Townie living in NZ. Enjoying the banter!

        • While submarines are undoubtably very effective, they lack the ability to have an obvious affect unless they sink something. In the Falklands war, the sinking of a major warship by a UK submarine had a major effect on the war. Argie navy went to port. They knew the submarine was there but not where. One? submarine effected a larger area of sea than the actual surface fleet.

          Most nations notice an aircraft carrier off their coast, or even a couple of destroyers or frigates. Message sent & received. Submarines tend not to, as a submarine on the surface is at its weakest. You want to make a tanker turn around? Put a destroyer or frigate in front of it & it will. An HWT torpeedo definately has an effect, but the tanker won’t won’t be turning arround, it will be going down.

          • Hi DJ, can’t say that I agree with ur theory ref submarines and their lack of ability to have an obvious effect!
            Just have one sail into an area then dive, now you see it now you don’t! I think that sends a message better then anything else.
            Part of the problem the Argentinians faced and you have alluded too, is they didn’t know how many submarines they were facing or indeed where they were, but it was more then 1…..
            You don’t need to sink anything to send a very meaningful message.

            Cheers Deep32

          • I too wonder about the survivability of surface ships in a peer conflict. I have just read an article that lists all UK warship losses in WW2. By far the greatest losses were to torpedoes, mostly from submarines but some, like POW and Repulse from aircraft. It surprised me, with the exception of the fight for Crete, how few were to aerial bombing.
            It is all but impossible to find any evaluation of the effectiveness of modern ASW platforms. In a one on one operation, how effective is the single frigate? Since our Type26 will cost as much as an Astute, have we got the balance wrong?

          • It is You, have Got it totally wrong!
            Lesson to be learnt is, large surface fleet allows a navy to dominate the surface and to blockade the enemy.

            Bring Back the Depth Charges!!

          • You got it wrong again!
            Here is an example of having a large surface fleet!

            At the time of the Cuban missile crisis, the USN had a big enough surface fleet to blockade Cuba, and stop the Soviets bringing their transport ships with a few sub escorts, which resulted in standoff in the Caribbean. The subs would had run out of Oxygen and be force to surface and surrounded. The missile carriers had to turn around to home in the end.

          • There were five nuclear submarines and two (?) conventional UK Oberons involved in Corporate.

          • They weren’t all on station at the same time though, Op. Corporate ran until well after the official surrender.

          • I defer to your specific knowledge!

            Anyway the point is there was more than one sub in theatre most of the time so the Argentinian navy never really stood a chance of a surface action but they did try it all the same certain in the knowledge that we had subs in theatre…..

          • Despite everything, I do think that they had to try, unfortunately, the result was the loss of the Belgrano!

          • I agree.

            Sadly it probably saved more senseless deaths to sink the Belgrano than to procrastinate: it shut down the surface war.

            War is not a nice thing and attacking a combatant isn’t glorious. But it had to be done.

            That being said: what did the Argentine admirals expect going after a navy with nuclear subs?

          • Have to agree mate, it was almost suicidal when you consider the extent of their ASW capabilities were vested in 2x SSKs (1 Guppy and 1 209), and their two T42’s. It was never going to end well for them!

          • Hi John. Ike was not only brave to make those comments but unerringly correct in his prediction. The situation has got worse with the conglomeration of Defence giants into huge monopolies. Think of the UK post war with more than a dozen Aircraft manufacturers-now there is one. Similar situation in the USA. Also agree about vast amounts spent particularly in the planning stages.Literally hundreds of millions of pounds with virtually nothing to show in feasibility studies and the like!

        • Morning George, the F35 program polarises views like few others (except maybe Strike!), I believe that it’s fast becoming a bottomless money pit that’s become too big to pull out of.
          Yes there are plenty who see it as the saviour of all of the UKs and NATOs needs. Unfortunately I don’t think it is, and agree with you. It may have started out as a well intended program, but has since been diluted to a nearly adequate aerial platform, saved by a suite of excellent sensors and fusion technologies. If you were to put them on a Typhoon or F15EX, then I suspect the F35″wouldn’t get a look in. Stealth isn’t the saviour many would have us believe either!
          Only my thoughts on it!

          • Hi Deep32, you’re right about stealth. From what I see, jamming technology is the way forward. Stealth is good but it can’t do much to save you when spotted by eyesight or when the aircraft is locked. But jamming and decoys can help in a wider sense.

            Both are needed, but so far stealth is the only money-pit of the two. We need to make stealth affordable and much more versatile. The F-35 can’t go Mach 2, not because it lacks the power but it’s stealth coating would melt off or rip away. F-22 does not have that problem, but it cost $200m+ each.

          • Which, added to the stratospheric running costs of the F22 are undoubtedly the two reasons why the order was chopped at 186 airframes. That is unfortunate, as the F22 is an excellent aircraft.

          • I hope that the Tempest project are coming up with a new stealth coating or stealth tiles that can just be replacec indiviudually, or doesn’t melt or rip off at high speed. What would also be better is a modular aiframe, which cna quickly have large parts taken off and replaced, i.e. wings and panels, etc.

            One of the reasons why F-22 was so expensive is because they did the same thing with the F-35, massively underestimated cost and thought they could rely on mass-producing an aircraft no one had ever done before. The technology was world-beating but never tried before. But now, hopefully, we have the manufacturing base, skills, talent and equipment to get it right first time. Let’s hope our researchers find a way to make Tempest stealthy but not unable to fly at high speeds.

          • The UK has never built a true stealth aircraft before, so it will certainly be a learning curve for the British aero industry!

          • Hopefully this turns out to be the case George, the next decade will be interesting to see how we progress with Tempest. With luck we might attract a few more countries to participate, perhaps the Australians and Canadians, as I don’t believe the F35 is a good fit for their requirements, just a choice born out of necessity-lack of choice really.

          • That’s pretty much what is driving people to go with the F-35. It’s the only 5th gen on the market they can buy.

        • You are wrong with the F-35Bs, they can take-off without a long air strip.
          And each aircraft has its own hardened shelter as well, HAS, at Marham.
          Marham was redesigned in the Cold War.

  6. Well done Italy. Yet more 5th gen capability taking to sea. China & Russia has nothing that can compete. F35 is expensive, and has many hurdles still to pass, but it’s capability is shining through. We need to remember, this project is enormous. And we only know about the problems because we live in the age of the Internet and social media. Imagine the defects list from the F16 and F15 in the early years of those projects. Imagine the problems the Russians are keeping to themselves with the SU57, or the Chinese J20. Back to the F35, the pilots love it. It dominates in large scale exercises. It’s a complete shift change on how we will operate in the future. And it’s the best capability we can buy to fly from our QE class carrier’s.

    • Thanks Alex. Lovely ship, built with typical Italian flair. The flight deck seems very narrow though considering she is half as big again almost as Invincible class. Wonder if they will adopt the RN landing technique instead of straight down!? Amazes me that they can produce coatings that will withstand the heat of VL!

      • Italian Navy is sadly limited by the old bridge in Taranto Port.
        I thin that RN technique would be good to be able to land with some ordenance.

        • Wow did not know that Alex! Amazing though if that is allowed to limit vessel dimensions. You would think that they would make another plan.

          • The size and weight of the Sherman tank was dictated by the need to be able to use US highways and their bridges that existed in the 1940’s well before the interstate highway system (think American autobahn). To put everything needed into a tank that was width limited, the Sherman ended up tall and narrow. I also seem to recall so.ething about Kriegsmarine capital ships being restricted in mast height to be able to pass under a bridge at one of their ports.

          • I learn something every day Cap’n-thank you. With regards to the Kriegsmarine, the other restriction was of course, the Treaty of Versailles!! Hence “Pocket” Battleships. Cheers

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here