HMS Queen Elizabeth is the largest and most powerful warship ever constructed for the Royal Navy, but what will she carry?

The term now used for the carriers embarked squadrons is ‘Carrier Air Wing’ (CVW), the previously used Tailored Air Group (TAG) has fallen out of official use. The vessels are capable of deploying a variety of aircraft in large numbers, up to a maximum in the upper fifties in surge conditions.

Captain Jerry Kyd, commander of HMS Queen Elizabeth, commented on the initial deployment and the gradual increase in air wing numbers:

“We are constrained by the F-35 buy rate even though that was accelerated in SDSR in 2015, so initial operating capability numbers in 2020 are going to be very modest indeed. We will flesh it out with helicopters, and a lot depends on how many USMC F-35s come on our first deployment in 2021. But by 2023, we are committed to 24 UK jets onboard, and after that it’s too far away to say.”

In addition to the joint force of Royal Air Force and Royal Navy F-35Bs and their pilots, the air wing is expected to be composed of a ‘Maritime Force Protection’ package of nine anti-submarine Merlin HM2 and four or five Merlin for airborne early warning; alternatively a ‘Littoral Manoeuvre’ package could include a mix of RAF Chinooks, Army Apaches, Merlin and Wildcat.

We understand that vessel would still carry at least one F-35 squadron aboard in such circumstances to offer air defence as well as support to the helicopter assault activities. The Crowsnest AEW&C aircraft will come from a number of the embarked Merlins (any of which can be fitted with the sensor package), the number again scaling with requirements.

Recently, the Ministry of Defence confirmed plans for the deployment of American F-35 aircraft alongside British jets aboard HMS Queen Elizabeth. It is understood that the US aircraft will augment British jets on coalition operations.

We discussed claims that the vessel will not have enough jets assigned to her with retired Air Marshal Greg Bagwell who said:

“There is absolutely no need to fix a flexible capability so far in advance – it hems politicians in unnecessarily.”

A source we spoke to, currently flying the jet, explained to us that the vessels will deploy with the number and type of aircraft required for a specific deployments:

“Where F-35B is based is entirely down to the most suitable basing option for the tasks/missions is being sent to do. If that’s a well-founded host nation base, great; if it’s the Carrier, great; if it’s an austere location, fine. Range, logistics and other ‘enablers’ such as AAR and connectivity will determine what’s the best option.”

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

Uniquely for a vessel of this size, it will be common to see the jump-jet F-35B appear to land conventionally. Although the F-35B is fully capable of performing vertical landing, in a similar fashion to the way that the Harrier and Sea Harrier operated, this method of operation places limitations on the loads that the aircraft is capable of returning to the ship with.

As a consequence, to avoid the costly disposal at sea of both fuel and munitions, the Royal Navy is developing the Shipborne rolling vertical landing (SRVL) technique. SRVL is a process designed to land jump-jet aircraft that uses both the vertical thrust from the jet engine and lift from the wings, thus maximising the payload an aircraft can return with and stopping the financial waste that comes with dropping expensive weaponry in the sea in order to land vertically.

Another operational advantage of this technique is that it can increase the landing payload capacity of a V/STOL aircraft, which can be restricted when it lands vertically. It can also reduce the level of wear on the lift engines and extend their operational life. Similarly, it can reduce the amount of wear upon the deck surface of a carrier caused by the downward jet exhaust from vertical landings.

The Queen Elizabeth class mark a change from expressing carrier power in terms of number of aircraft carried, to the number of sortie’s that can be generated from the deck. The class are not the largest class of carrier in the world but they are most likely the smallest and least expensive carrier the Royal Navy could build which still have the advantages that large carriers offer.

British F-35B initial operational capability is scheduled will be declared in December 2018 for land and the from the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers in 2020.

A very informative timelime from Save The Royal Navy.

41
Leave a Reply

avatar
16 Comment threads
25 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
24 Comment authors
Shlomo GoldbergstienDavid StephenDave BranneyJohn HartleySteve Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
Jack
Guest
Jack

Exciting times. The Royal Navy are in the process of regenerating capabilities we haven’t possessed as a nation since Ark Royal (R09) was operational.
Thank God we didn’t go down the route of “Invincible plus” light carriers which some people who should have known better, were advocating.

Julian
Guest
Julian

Yeah, and it’s not just QEC and F-35B at the party. With first steel cut we should also see T26 becoming real over the next few years and hopefully the highly capable in its primary role T45 getting its fixes and able to perform its role without the current anxieties (T45 has performance anxiety?).

andy reeves,
Guest
andy reeves,

has anyone seen the new u.s.s sea hunter? at less than£100 million, its got be something the u.k has got to get to the forefront of. especially if you want to expand the fleet faster and cheaper. forget the type 31 build a dozen of these.

Harry bulpit
Guest
Harry bulpit

Four opration squadrons of F35 simply isn’t enough. We realistically should have 6 minimum. This could easily be achieved as we do plan to punches 138, and instead of creating the planned two extra typhoon squadrons with older aircraft simple give them the F35.

Daniele Mandelli
Guest
Daniele Mandelli

Harry the reason the extra Typhoon squadrons are standing up is to keep squadron numbers current once GR4 retires. If not the RAF has 6 Fast Jet Squadrons left, 5 Typhoon plus 617. Unacceptable given that in 2010 the RAF has 12, and even that was unimaginable at the time when once there were around 20 just 6 years earlier. Giving these squadrons the F35 is not possible as the aircraft does not exist in numbers yet for us and will not for some time. The Tornado crews are here now. We need the Squadrons now, even if its spreading… Read more »

Harry Bulpit
Guest
Harry Bulpit

Fair enough. So in that case we should convert those two typhoon squadrons to f35 in time.

Daniele Mandelli
Guest
Daniele Mandelli

Yes that is indeed the plan Harry.

As enough F35 come on line the older retained Tranche 1 Typhoon retire and F35 squadrons increase to 4.

Leaving the current 5 Typhoon squadrons and 4 F35 Squadrons.

Of course with endless cuts plans change before they are even fully realised.

Harry Bulpit
Guest
Harry Bulpit

Well my point is we should have 6 f35 squadrons.

Lee H
Guest
Lee H

Typhoon and F-35B fulfill different roles.

David
Guest
David

Hard to believe but back in Gulf War 1 the RAF had 31 fast jet squadrons!

Daniele Mandelli
Guest
Daniele Mandelli

Don’t. It’s painful to think.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

That’s actually a little bit scary.

Alan Reid
Guest
Alan Reid

You can justify some of the reduction in 30 front-line RAF fast-jet squadrons (plus two FAA units) from 1991, in terms of the expensive, but effective, smart-weaponry that today’s aircraft carry.
Back in 1991, the tactic was mainly low-level attacks using “dumb” thousand pounders, or the JP233 sub-munitions dispenser.
Today, the air-force is using advanced weaponry, and less risky stand-off tactics.
Still, only nine squadrons is indeed SCARY; the reason why I would like to limit the F35B purchase to about 70 airframes for the FAA – and supplement the superlative Typhoon in RAF ranks with an F-35A buy instead.

Harold
Guest
Harold

The ship that cost the rest of the Royal Navy dearly.

Jassy Spik
Guest
Jassy Spik

What are you talking about? It’s the budgets cuts over the last 30 years that are responsible not these ships.. Get over your obtuse reasoning and grow up..

Harold
Guest
Harold

At gone 70 and being a ‘time served’ sailor in the Andrew, may I take this opportunity to tell you to go fuck off Jassy Spik,

Daniele Mandelli
Guest
Daniele Mandelli

Harold.

I respect your time in the navy greatly, but I’m curious about your dislike of the carriers.

Would you have preferred Ark Royal and Illustrious were not replaced?
Or would you have liked to see smaller carriers?

As a naval type do you not agree that to control the sea the two greatest assets are carriers / carrier aviation and SSNs.

Pacman27
Guest
Pacman27

This is all good news – a couple of points: 1. It is regeneration of a capability that was cut due to budgets – it should therefore have had a separate budget to regenerate – as to do this is more expensive than to continue. 2. It is a game changer for the UK and gives us real scale of capability. 3. It is innovative in so many ways and from an engineering point of view – unique. 4. It is actually very good value for money when set against peer vessels. 5. It is the fulcrum for the expeditionary… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Guest
Daniele Mandelli

I’ve no doubt you two go together hand in hand.

Daniele Mandelli
Guest
Daniele Mandelli

And as that rag has a vendetta against the likes of GCHQ who work to protect this nation yet happily supports the likes of Snowden and Islamist terrorists coming and going as they please no one here is even mildly surprised you are finding enjoyment at whatever nonsense that left wing pile of garbage is saying.

Evan P
Guest
Evan P

Let’s cut the nonsense Daniele. While I disagree with the comments made about the carriers, don’t be so stupid that you pretend that it’s only people on the left that disagree with their building. Many officials on both sides are concerned about their vulnerability, and other obvious right wing orientated people on this website have expressed concerns that they have no point defense missile system, potentially making them convenient targets for hypersonic missiles being developed, that we currently know little about. Corbyn himself is going to be talking about tax avoidance at a UN event, if he could sort it… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Guest
Daniele Mandelli

Don’t believe I pretended anything Evans. And where did I say “only” people who are left leaning in my dismissal of the Guardian above?

You are putting words in my mouth.

Are you denying islamists have returned to the Ok? Seriously? Believe it’s been well documented so no I’m not lying to myself.

Happy to agree to disagree.

Chris
Guest
Chris

Evan P – Bypassing the Left vs Right debate above I did smile at your childish belief Corbyn a) talks any sense whatsoever let alone to the UN, b) can come up with any half sensible ideas on tax, c) will ever be in any position to do anything and d) if he ever got his hands on any new money it wouldn’t be gone in an instant on Socialist baubies and welfare black holes. You really believe a man who is a lifelong member of CND, who has suggested we send Trident subs to sea with no missiles and… Read more »

Evan P
Guest
Evan P

Preventing corporations from avoiding tax sounds sensible to me, Chris. And Daniele, by calling it “left wing” you are implying that that in itself is a bad thing, and a reason for why the author is against the new carriers. You used his opinions to count against the left, which doesn’t make any sense.

Geoffrey Roach
Guest
Geoffrey Roach

Corbyn sorting out tax. You jest.

Kev
Guest
Kev

I thought the Vangard class were the RN most powerful warships……

Pacman27
Guest
Pacman27

Good point Kev. they are – and hopefully never to be used….

R Cummings
Guest
R Cummings

Notice that people keep referring to an eventual total of ‘4’ Lightning squadrons. That is certainly all that the MOD has announced so far, 2 x RN and 2 RAF. But that doesn’t compute with purchasing 138 aircraft, if the putative order is ever fulfilled without further cost and capability cuts. A squadron has a nominal allocation of 19-20 aircraft – 12 front line, 3 squadron reserve, 3 wartime reserve, 1.5 attrition reserve to cover accidents and write-offs. 6 squadrons – which I think is the actual target – would therefore total up to 120 aircraft. Because of the simulator… Read more »

Pacman27
Guest
Pacman27

I read an article in Wired magazine where Captain Kydd stated that each QEC can take 70 F35B’s in surge conditions (+helos). I suspect the most we would ever put on one would be 48 so a frontline force for the RN of 96 seems reasonable. A similar force for the RAF would be ideal – but actually if we went 64 for each force with an assumption that in surge with a 2 carrier force the RN would need 96 of the 128 force then this looks reasonable. I find it fairly pointless to run the Carriers with anything… Read more »

Robert Blay
Guest
Robert Blay

138 commited to order, but only 63 in the active fleet. It will be a very long time,if ever, we see 36 British F35’s on one of our carriers, classic British defence . Cut like mad to secure a game changing capability, only for that capability to be cut back as well. The carriers are a huge achievement to be proud of, and even a small number of F35’s on-board will be very capable. Just a shame we can never seem to do things properly due to budget cuts, I couldn’t imagine the USN deploying a nimitz class with only… Read more »

Pacman27
Guest
Pacman27

It really does beggar belief – we have a requirement for 2 carriers to sail together (I know they wont most of the time but that is beside the point) and each carrier can easily take 36-48 of these planes creating an optimal FAA force of 72-96. It is fairly pointless IMHO to sail around the 2/3 empty and whilst I am not saying we need to have this capability day 1 – it does need to happen within the next 10 years. If we dont do this then we take the risk of becoming a laughing stock – all… Read more »

BRADLEY CAMERON
Guest
BRADLEY CAMERON
Chris
Guest
Chris

Did anyone else give a fist punched ‘YESSS’ to see our new DefSec had a right go at Hammond this week. To the point where Mrs May had to separate them and the pair were ushered into the Headmistress’ office for a bollocking. Good to see him standing up Defence….

Hammond is quickly becoming an out of step liability with contradictory comments everywhere. Even David Davies had to slap him down on the BBC this morning (politely of course). Mrs May is now secure for some years now and she should kick Mr Hammond down the road ….

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

I believe an f35 air frame has a projected life of around 36 years ( 8000flying hours) with a planned production run of around 50 years. So we are unlikly to ever see an inventory of 138 air frames, with the first decades purchases being scrap by the time we see delivery of the last air frame. Also I’m not seeing much chance of a direct replacement to the F35 (manned single seat fighter jet) ever being produced so I imagine the last decade of both the F35s and Queen Elizabeths will see them trying to keep current in a… Read more »

David Stephen
Guest
David Stephen

I agree, we will never have 138 in service but we could aim slightly higher than 4 frontline squadrons. I would aim for eventualy 6 Typhoon and 3 F35B squadrons for the RAF + 2 F35B FAA squadrons and the OCU and the 3 airframes at EAFB. So frontline strength of 60 +15 (75) and a sustainment fleet of 20-25 with the rest as replacements for early airframes and attrition over the lifetime of the programme. There seems to be a perception that the carriers are designed to operate more aircraft than is actually the case. She may be able… Read more »

John Hartley
Guest
John Hartley

Based on the offer to Belgium, F-35 are costing $190m+ each! Much as I would like to see the RN have 60 Block 4 software, Block 1 engine upgrade F-35B, I cannot see the money being found, anytime soon.
Its too late to argue about the carriers. We are where we are. However, if you wanted 2x 65,000 ton, you should have gone CTOL with cats & traps. If you wanted STOVL, then 3x 35,000 ton Super Invincibles, would have been more flexible. All academic now, however.

Steve
Guest
Steve

The 3x smaller would never have worked, since it would require almost 50% more sailors over 2x larger, and the navy just doesn’t have the crew needed.

Could we have gone 2x smaller and saved a load of money, who knows. I suspect the savings wouldn’t have been as big as we might expect due to R&D and fixed costs around construction.

John Hartley
Guest
John Hartley

Having 3x carriers means 2 can be frontline carriers loaded with fast jets, while the third is loaded out for the assault carrier/commando role. Also gives you a breathing space for refits. If one is in dock, you still have the other 2. Also means you can have a long deployment task lasting years, as you have 3 carriers to rotate through it. We are where we are. Chances are there will be no more F-35B on our new shiny 65-70k carriers than there would have been on a 35k carrier. Bit sad to waste fuel on a big carrier… Read more »

Dave Branney
Guest
Dave Branney

Righto, need to get this off my chest as I think I’m missing a trick here! There has been a lot of talk about the increased sortie generation that the QE and the F35 will bring to the party, but I don’t see the logic. 1. The ship does not have an angled deck which is the norm post WW2. By having an angled deck you can carry out consecutive take-offs and landings. I hate to make a comparison between the QE, the Kuznetsov and the Liaoning. But they have a similar size and length flight decks (although the Kuznetsov… Read more »

David Stephen
Guest
David Stephen

SRVL is for when aircraft are returning to the ship with unspent ordance, to avoid ditching expensive weapons to land vertically. Maybe in a high sortie scenario most returning aircraft will have expended most if not all munitions and should therefore be ok to land vertically. Not sure that’s actually the answer though as the sortie generation targets have been around since before the idea of SRVL. The real question is will the F35B Support the proposed sortie rates? The target is 110 sorties per 24 hour period which is almost exactly what 36 F35B flying 3 sorties per 24… Read more »

Shlomo Goldbergstien
Guest

Why are Anglos always such war-horny retards eager to die for their Jewish-banking-mafia-masters?