The Royal Navy say its Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers will be interchangeable with US Navy carriers.

First Sea Lord Admiral Tony Radakin was addressing the second Atlantic Future Forum, onboard HMS Queen Elizabeth while the ship was moored in the Chesapeake Bay just offshore of Annapolis, the US Naval Institute reported.

“As she has demonstrated already, we can successfully field a combined US, UK carrier strike group. I look forward to this developing further, moving to the point where we are not only talking about interoperability, but we are looking for interchangeability.”

F-35Bs on HMS Queen Elizabeth.

Commodore Steve Moorhouse, Queen Elizabeth’s commanding officer, reportedly told members of the media:

“What we’re trying to do is get beyond being interoperable. There are lots of nations that can do that. What we want to be here is absolutely integrated, so almost it doesn’t matter what flag you’re flying; the U.S. ship or aircraft can dock into our strike group seamlessly as though it was a British ship. We’ve made some huge strides this autumn getting into that.”

An MV-22 Osprey from HX-21 Air Test and Evaluation Squadron lands onboard HMS Queen Elizabeth.

In 2021, HMS Queen Elizabeth will deploy with two frigates, two destroyers, a nuclear submarine and support vessels. The ship will also carry 24 F-35B jets, including US Marine Corps aircraft, in addition to a number of helicopters.

Captain Jerry Kyd, former 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.”

British F-35Bs onboard HMS Queen Elizabeth.

After the deployment, by around 2023, the Ministry of Defence have indicated that 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.

Avatar photo
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
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

128 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Herodotus
4 years ago

According to a couple of newspapers this morning it will be a darn site more than integration (read: hire out/loan/sell). Oh, and the Army to be reduced to 60,000…or is it fake news. I for one, always expected the carriers to slip away into the night!

Mike
Mike
4 years ago
Reply to  Herodotus

Great news. I could always see this coming. Once the other countries have broken free, little England will have to face reality. Strange to think this has occurred under the hated Tories. Roll on the freedom referendum!

Herodotus
4 years ago
Reply to  Mike

I don’t comment on Scottish Independence, that is a matter for the Scots. Quite how you link the reduction of British Armed forces with Scottish Independence is somewhat tenuous. But, I wouldn’t bother banging your drum on this website!

Mike
Mike
4 years ago
Reply to  Herodotus

It is delicious news though isn’t it? Seeing the right wing English militarists squirm is going to be great!

Herodotus
4 years ago
Reply to  Mike

Not really, I’ve never been a fan of petty nationalism or the childish pleasure that some of it’s supporters take in seeing others humiliated. ‘Oh wa God the gift to gee us, to see ourselves as others see us’

Levi Goldsteinberg
Levi Goldsteinberg
4 years ago
Reply to  Mike

Yawn

Herodotus
4 years ago

Probably the most intelligent comment that you have made on this website. By the way, are you an anti-Semite?

Douglas Newell
Douglas Newell
4 years ago
Reply to  Mike

Scotch Nationalists need to look to the wonderfully experienced armed forces of Eire to see what their forces would look like after Indy. Once Alex Salmond gets out of prison for sexual impropriety and becomes Scotch PM he can maybe ask the rUK to police his skies as he doesn’t have an airforce … just like the irish have.

Herodotus
4 years ago
Reply to  Douglas Newell

Doug…’Scotch’ is an alcoholic beverage! It is Scots or Scottish!

Alan Reid
Alan Reid
4 years ago
Reply to  Herodotus

“Scotch?” …. nonplussed look. Thank you, Herodotus.

Douglas Newell
Douglas Newell
4 years ago
Reply to  Alan Reid

Scotch is increasingly being used to desctibe the SNP’s special brand of anti-english (sorry anti-Westmister) nationalism … mainly because it bothers them.

Andy P
Andy P
4 years ago
Reply to  Herodotus

Unless of course you’re doing it deliberately. It happens….

Douglas Newell
Douglas Newell
4 years ago
Reply to  Herodotus

Not when you describe the Scotch Misty Swivel Eyed Haggis Botherers of Scotch Nationalism. And I say that as a Scotsman myself. :o)

Herodotus
4 years ago
Reply to  Douglas Newell

My, you are a naughty (pronounced Nockty) boy….aren’t you?

Andy P
Andy P
4 years ago
Reply to  Douglas Newell

While it doesn’t bother me, I can see why deliberately mispelling a nationality might bother some, whatever your personal justifications. Each to their own I guess.

Douglas Newell
Douglas Newell
4 years ago
Reply to  Andy P

I’m not mis-spelling their nationality, just their “nationalism” … there is a difference.

Andy P
Andy P
4 years ago
Reply to  Douglas Newell

That was very hard to discern from your use of it earlier.

Is it all forms of nationalism you’re not fond of ?

Douglas Newell
Douglas Newell
4 years ago
Reply to  Andy P

You’re one of those fella’s who alweays wants the last word aren’t you?

On ye go, have it.

Andy P
Andy P
4 years ago
Reply to  Douglas Newell

OK, cheers Douglas. I’m guessing you’re not willing to answer the question on where you stand on all forms of Nationalism then. I can now see why you might thought it was a trick question….

Andy P
Andy P
4 years ago
Reply to  Douglas Newell

Is Ireland any the worse for it ??? We’re all here because we have an interest in defence matters (and Scottish independence it seems) but whisper it, a lot of people don’t really give a crap about defence. They’d rather the money was spent on other things, I’m guessing the majority of Irish voters feel this way or there would be more calls for Irish jets and destroyers.

Mark B
Mark B
4 years ago
Reply to  Andy P

Perhaps the Russians will slip ashore on the Irish coast and bag themselves a few Atlantic ports, some good airfields, a strategic position in range of Western Europe and a place in the EU.

farouk
farouk
4 years ago
Reply to  Mark B

Mark wrote:
<b<"Perhaps the Russians will slip ashore on the Irish coast and bag themselves a few Atlantic ports, some good airfields, a strategic position in range of Western Europe and a place in the EU."

That’s something, that I have wondered is what the SNP would do if they left the union simply to P off the English and Americans.

Andy P
Andy P
4 years ago
Reply to  Mark B

Well they’ve kept that quiet, is it like some hollowed out volcano lair or something ?

Feel free to work yourself up over this but IT HASN’T HAPPENED.

David Flandry
David Flandry
4 years ago
Reply to  Andy P

It is easy to spend your money on other things when other nations spend theirs on your defense.

Andy P
Andy P
4 years ago
Reply to  David Flandry

Yes David, it is.

Ireland are maybe taking full advantage of their geography knowing that they’re unlikely to be invaded. Its not something I lose any sleep over.

David
David
4 years ago
Reply to  Mike

It’s always amusing when we hear one of the Scottish SNP brigade post with a massive chip on their shoulder about the English. Even when the SNP decide a good deal of their own laws and spending they still find time to blame it on the English when it goes wrong. I can only think that when independence comes, at least the English will not have to listen to the small minded and bitter drivel anymore from the 10% of the Scottish people who have nothing left to do in but complain about everyone else.

Herodotus
4 years ago
Reply to  David

You reckon…..seems to me that anti-Englishness is an anal fixation with many nationalities….most of all, the Americans!

Airborne
Airborne
4 years ago
Reply to  Mike

And once again it’s a yawn! Your contributions are valuable, do keep them up.

Herodotus
4 years ago
Reply to  Airborne

Douglas Newell…the above contributor (?) is another that always has to have the last word. Infantile?

Mark F
Mark F
4 years ago
Reply to  Herodotus

Well said that Man.

Andy P
Andy P
4 years ago
Reply to  Mike

Thanks for the change of pace Mike, usually when an article that has nothing to do with Scotland but ends up being about Scottish independence is sidetracked, it by some phuqtard Morris dancer. A phuqtard Sweaty sock doing it is really really refreshing……. NOT.

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
4 years ago
Reply to  Mike

Mike, Mike, Mike, you are entitled to your views. If Scotland votes for independence let’s see if you are still singing and happy in your splendid isolation in 10-15 years. The minute Scotland votes for independence is the minute rUK pulls all investment, jobs, Barnett formulary etc out. You can also take a share of the national debt with you that you have in no small way contributed towards. Say 250 billion sounds about right. How will you fill the £16-18 billion a year deficit that the rUK currently pays for? I wonder if the SNP are telling Scotland vote… Read more »

Douglas Newell
Douglas Newell
4 years ago
Reply to  Mike

Another Scotch Nationalist Troll talking haggis.

Yawn.

farouk
farouk
4 years ago
Reply to  Mike

MIke, a little bit of reading from the Scotsman: Russia and China ‘using Scotland as backdoor to influence British policy’ A foreign affairs expert has claimed China and Russia are using Scotland as a backdoor to influence British policy. John Hemmings, a director of the Asia Studies Centre at foreign policy think-tank Henry Jackson Society, said authoritarian regimes were finding a “friendlier ear” in Scotland. The society has accused China of waging an intellectual war on Britain. Scotland has Confucius Institutes based at the universities of Strathclyde, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Heriot-Watt.Russia has meanwhile prominently featured high-profile Scottish politicians, including… Read more »

Airborne
Airborne
4 years ago
Reply to  Mike

Yaaaaaawn, sorry did you attempt some sort of xenophobic abuse?

The Artist Formerly known as Los Pollos chicken
The Artist Formerly known as Los Pollos chicken
4 years ago
Reply to  Mike

Mike whars yer trousers min ? yer talking total and utter pish. The silly wee nats and their wee crowd of baw bags are in for a big disappointment . You probably missed it last time but us Scots voted to remain in the glorious greatest union the world has ever seen ??????????? it’s just a pity all these dafties don’t actually realise the wee nats don’t really want to be a self governing nation they want the EU to be in control . You do realise without your own central bank and ability to set interest rates it isn’t… Read more »

Andy P
Andy P
4 years ago

That’s the irony of an SNP ‘independence’ (which is currently and likely to be the only form of independence), leaving one Union in which Scotland is a small (about 10%) player to throw themselves on the mercy of another Union where we’ll be an even smaller player.

At the risk of being picky, it doesn’t sound very independent…..

Anyhoo, Aircraft carriers……

Ernest Harrison
Ernest Harrison
4 years ago
Reply to  Herodotus

I read that – Also I read the army wanted us to lease a carrier to the US – Main report over 60,000 army came from The Times. Boris has said he will maintain defence spending but has not said, he will keep the forces at their current size.

Herodotus
4 years ago

Hi Ernie, are you an ex Racal employee?

Mike
Mike
4 years ago

Great news and as I and others have been forecasting as the soon to be defunct UK faces reality – aircraft carrier to be passed to USA and army to be massively reduced. This will make the world a safer place as the English Government will be uable to sabble in other country’s affairs! Sense at long last. Next step, referendum and let’s break up the UK.

Herodotus
4 years ago
Reply to  Mike

‘What we’re trying to do is get beyond being interoperable’….yes Commodore (soon to be Rear Admiral) we now know what ‘getting beyond interoperability actually means!!!!!

Cam
Cam
4 years ago
Reply to  Mike

Th British get far more done around the globe using soft power than hard you idiot, but it’s nice to know you have the hard option and thankfully the UK has and will have for years to come, carriers for 50 years, nuclear armed for many years both brand new big hard options.

700 Glengarried Men
700 Glengarried Men
4 years ago

Mike what are you on the Lib dems haven’t legalised it yet, this seems like an evolution of sea power, it’s very unlikely the uk could, would want an independent carrier task force except the unlikely scenario where a Falklands island type incident happened, the sharing of knowledge of carrier borne operations and how best to operate these new carriers in this role seems like common sense, who knows the US might see how good they and t26 are and order a few

Geoffrey Roach
Geoffrey Roach
4 years ago

Here we go again. Carriers won’t be built, Royal Marines for the scrapheap, seventh Astute cancelled, Type 31’s won’t be built and on and yawn… on we go. The doom mongers are at it again Royal Navy and U.S.Navy warships have been inter operable since the war and nothing is being suggested that makes any real difference. As for Mile and the scary lady is concerned there will be no Trident, no ship building, no defence no anything so good luck pal. ONE VERY SERIOUS NOTE…whatever we might think about this government a hard left ,socialist,Labour party backed up by… Read more »

Alan Reid
Alan Reid
4 years ago
Reply to  Geoffrey Roach

Hi Geoffrey, The SNP is not a hard-left party. It “talks-the-talk” to pick-up disaffected Labour voters, but in practice – it is constitutional, moderate and pragmatic. It has also run a devolved administration in Edinburgh (recently in partnership with the Greens) for over ten years, and has been largely ineffectual in delivering its stated policy objectives in health and education. But a future British government at Westminster should not be in cahoots with the SNP, and if Corbyn thinks he can “play” the separatists to get into power, he is conducting a very dangerous game – and like Cameron before… Read more »

Andy P
Andy P
4 years ago
Reply to  Alan Reid

Yup, there was a time when the SNP were branded as the ‘Tartan Tories’ but they realised that if they wanted to get their way they were going to have to rebrand themselves. It really is a case of its all about independence.

As you point out Alan, they’ve been poor in their day to day administration of the country, no surprise really as they spend more time on their ‘pet project’ than the day to day stuff.

We seem to have dived back down the rabbit hole again, now where were we… Aircraft carriers. that was it !

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
4 years ago

I hope to God the claims in today’s papers are lies and HMG are NOT considering reducing the army to 60000 and sell off one of our carriers + 3 frigates, 4 patrol craft river type1s and reduce RAF. Utter BS we might as well all vote for corbyn if that is what happens under the Tories.
Worryingly it is the military top brass that have broken rank on the issue.

Herodotus
4 years ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

Well ‘ding dong’ the Mail doesn’t usually get things wrong! Except when it supported the British Union of Fascists in the 1930s….a minor indiscretion!

Andy P
Andy P
4 years ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

I have no problem with any UK government reducing spending on Defence/Armed Forces. If we were to reduce our defence footprint that’s fine, what I not keen on is trying to piss with the big boys but on a budget which is where we’ve been for a while.

Herodotus
4 years ago
Reply to  Andy P

We are not a world power…that period has long gone. I think what most people want from our armed services is that our nation is adequately defended. We need some sort of national agreement on what our role should be in the future. The way that really important issues such as defence and the NHS are used as political footballs is disgraceful. Time for change in 2019!

Barry Larking
Barry Larking
4 years ago
Reply to  Herodotus

Great Britain has never been a major power. Too small, always. The U.K.’s strength, it’s extraordinary ‘soft power’ as the modern expression has it, was the influence of ideas, trade and laws. Witness Hong Kong voting today and the protests that have marked that tiny British (and never let it be forgot, Scottish) colony’s determination to hang on to the vital legacy of the often mocked but wholly misunderstood Empire. India would not have been British for a month if the Indian populace had not wished for this to be so well into the last century. Nationalists and Marxists squirm… Read more »

Steve R
Steve R
4 years ago
Reply to  Herodotus

Regarding the NHS I’ve started to come to the idea that maybe it should be made independent, likecthe Bank of England. Fund it by the taxpayers but let them run themselves, instead of changing every 5 years on the whims of whichever party gets into power. That way the only involvement the government has is in funding.

Alan Reid
Alan Reid
4 years ago
Reply to  Andy P

I assume the Top Brass are just jostling for position, there must be another defence review coming up!

Andy P
Andy P
4 years ago
Reply to  Alan Reid

Oh Alan, you’re such a cynic.

Tried to reply to a post of yours from yesterday but can’t find it, did you delete it ??

Alan Reid
Alan Reid
4 years ago
Reply to  Andy P

Hi Andy, I assume George did – he must have thought we went a bit off-topic! LOL

Andy P
Andy P
4 years ago
Reply to  Alan Reid

Read it in m notification email, good post mate.

Steve Martin
Steve Martin
4 years ago

The comments section on this site is degenerating to being slightly (and I stress the slightly) above the absolute tripe you get on twitter et al.

Herodotus
4 years ago
Reply to  Steve Martin

Yeah Steve…but your films are crap. Will the next one be funny?

Steve Martin
Steve Martin
4 years ago
Reply to  Herodotus

Cheaper by the dozen 12 – Friday 13th you mean? Ill have you know its absolutely smashing the reviews.

Roxanne said: amazing, this will change your life.

Andy P
Andy P
4 years ago
Reply to  Steve Martin

Brilliant.

Please don’t do another Jerk, we’ve plenty on here……

Barry Larking
Barry Larking
4 years ago
Reply to  Steve Martin

Absolutely Steve.

Steve
Steve
4 years ago

From my perspective, this is not good news, quiet the reverse. We know we don’t have the escorts or the jet buy rate to have our own carrier strike group operational, with any reasonable numbers (2 escorts and 12 f35 would stretch us to breaking point for anything other than an occasional duty), integrating with the US is effectively being used to hide this issue, and it will of course not come free, the US will have expectations on us as part of the deal. I would prefer that we had our own task force that was clearly was weak… Read more »

Robert blay
Robert blay
4 years ago

This is about closer operations with the US Navy and Marines, we are not going to give them a aircraft carrier. It’s about a QE class bring able to take on a operation a Nimitz class could undertake, such as the US carrier stationed in the gulf. This has always been the plan. Could you imagine the Americans buying a foreign aircraft carrier, not a chance. This is good news that we finally have a capability that can match it’s peers in the US Navy, this was never a option with the Invincible class.

Sean
Sean
4 years ago
Reply to  Robert blay

Thank God someone finally talking sense in this comments section, instead of Scottish Nazi Oarty members and conspiracy theorists thinking the Royal Navy is going to be put on eBay… ?‍♂️

Robert blay
Robert blay
4 years ago
Reply to  Sean

? thanks Sean, I try to keep it real, and look past the I’ll informed newspapers, and the many who use this site, who have some rather interesting views shall we say ?

Herodotus
4 years ago
Reply to  Sean

I would dismiss most articles in the Mail however, the Sunday Times is another matter!

Expat
Expat
4 years ago
Reply to  Robert blay

Isn’t this no news we were always going to embark US Marines F35s, so that’ll mean spares maintenance personnel etc, US will want to ensure the carrier with US personnel is adequately protected so supply the escort or majority of it, US marines need to be resuppied so carrier needs to integrate with US military logistics. For me this news has been around for years and people just didn’t realise what it meant. Now should the UK get reimbursed for providing what is basing for US personnel? You’d like to think so. If the US army was using UK base… Read more »

Rob
Rob
4 years ago

Defence cuts reported today in the Times & Mail. Lease PoW and we lose all year round carrier capability. Cut the escort fleet and the one carrier we have becomes vulnerable. Cut the Army to 60,000 and we can’t field a division. Cut the RAF jets and we lose control of our own air space let alone be able to have an influence abroad. The Armed Forces are operating at the minimum at the moment, cuts now would remove the UK from any military ability to influence events. Put the defence cuts together with the loss of influence created by… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
4 years ago
Reply to  Rob

“No party can be seriously considering this retreat from world affairs;”

You think? That is EXACTLY how I read the ideology of the people currently running Labour. I hope I am wrong. But I feel even the hint of Great Britain being involved in the world geopolitical game offends.

Steve R
Steve R
4 years ago

Under Corbyn we would retreat into ourselves, the armed forces hollowed out into a pure self defence force with no offensive or power projection capacity. Our only involvement abroad would be purely humanitarian.

What is needed is for someone to link our defence budget with our foreign policy. We are no longer a world power like the US or China, but we are still a significant player on the world stage, and we need the military force to back it up.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
4 years ago
Reply to  Steve R

“We are no longer a world power like the US or China, but we are still a significant player on the world stage, and we need the military force to back it up.”

Agree Steve. Big time.

Frank62
Frank62
4 years ago
Reply to  Rob

Probably below minimum already, certainly in the RN. Our carriers are already very vulnerable. Minimal(below that I’d say) self defences, an escort fleet so tiny that other vessels do many jobs & so small any losses would be catastrophic for the fleet & country. So few shipyards that we can’t build replacements promptly. Recruitment at crisis levels & now handled by an incompetant private company. When we have “capability gaps” that means we’ve dispenced of essential warfighting systems & that is below minimal. Foolish & reckless cuts caused the Falklands war & will only embolden our adversaries & diminish us… Read more »

Peter Shaw
Peter Shaw
4 years ago

I think this is usually the lazy news period. The UK will not drop our defence budget below 2% of GDP which is enough to fund the two carriers. Interoperatibility and integration is a wise idea given almost all peace keeping in the western world is done by the US and UK in partnership. As for reductions in the army to 60,000 I think again this is a lazy news period it simply won’t happen.

Frank62
Frank62
4 years ago
Reply to  Peter Shaw

Most well informed military observers are aware we’ve not spent even 2% GDP on defence for over a decade, probably two. HMGs claims are based on accountancy tricks to give a misleading spend figure. It’s just government spin.

Peter Shaw
Peter Shaw
4 years ago

Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, has catagorically refuted the Sunday Times and Daily Mail claims via twitter: https://twitter.com/BWallaceMP

So please everyone calm down. It’s fake news from both papers and they should be ashamed for scare mongering and fake news. Ben Wallace states he is planning to increase the numbers in the army.

Mark B
Mark B
4 years ago
Reply to  Peter Shaw

Yes this is just politics. Conservatives = funded effective military and Labour = pointless toothless military blah blah blah but this article to me is more about our position if the EU Army goes ahead. We integrate with the Americans and to produce a mini NATO partnership. Might be necessary.

Herodotus
4 years ago
Reply to  Mark B

The irony being, of course, that it was a Labour administration that ordered the carriers in the fist place. And, Cameron would have cancelled them if he could!

Mark B
Mark B
4 years ago
Reply to  Herodotus

hmm the days when Labour was a proper party. As for the Conservatives I hope they have learnt not to elect a leader until they have checked that he or she has a proper job first. Too late for the lib dems.

Herodotus
4 years ago
Reply to  Mark B

In fairness to the Lib-Dems, they didn’t have much to choose from!

Mark B
Mark B
4 years ago
Reply to  Herodotus

Good point!

Expat
Expat
4 years ago
Reply to  Herodotus

Yes but Blair and Brown are not Corbyn he’s a different animal. To be honest it’s like comparing apple with cheese when it comes to defence.

Sean
Sean
4 years ago
Reply to  Mark B

Given the increasing anti NATO stance of the EU, with France as usual in the lead on this, a mini NATO of USA, Canada, UK, and Norway might be a very good idea.

Mike
Mike
4 years ago
Reply to  Peter Shaw

He only mentions the strength of the army. Not the flogging off of PoW. In any case, no one wants to join the army. They can’t even hit recruiting figures.

Airborne
Airborne
4 years ago
Reply to  Mike

Many want to join, numbers remain the same for recruitment as a percentage of serving, the issue is the recruitment process and Capita. Look it up, try to do some research first before posting chuff. Good lad!

john stone
john stone
4 years ago
Reply to  Peter Shaw

With all the goodies being promised and no tax increases the obvious something has to be cut so a defence review with the new aircraft for the carriers and ships cut and people cost money don’t believe a word Ben Wallace says

David Barry
David Barry
4 years ago
Reply to  Peter Shaw

Except, when you consider the Army is already undermanned has medically downgraded (not fit for ops) into several thousand and calls recruits undergoing phase 2 training as soldiers trained, then 60k is an actual number however, the Army won’t release the PIDs to the Royal and the RN – that is the fight!

Steve
Steve
4 years ago
Reply to  Peter Shaw

Def sec refutes the claims, so cuts are confirmed then.

This is the normal game plan, leak massive cuts and then refute them, paving way for smaller cuts that by comparison don’t look so bad.

Ron5
Ron5
4 years ago

Excellent news on the US/UK integration.

Less than excellent to be reminded of the dismal number of UK F-35’s. Come on Boris, buck up the numbers!

Helions
Helions
4 years ago

I see interoperability already. Scroll down, the F35B photo in this piece is a UK bird :D.

https://defensemaven.io/warriormaven/sea/new-f-35-armed-navy-amphib-completes-trials-WluOFAz3QUu4alDRB75W5w/

Cheers

Joss
Joss
4 years ago
Reply to  Helions

Pretty sure thats a picture from the QE…

Ron5
Ron5
4 years ago
Reply to  Helions

Taking off from QE

Helions
Helions
4 years ago
Reply to  Ron5

They need better editing on these pieces…

😀

Herodotus
4 years ago

Aside from the main thrust of this article, I must admit that the two photographs of twilight operations on the QE are amazing!

700 Glengarried Men
700 Glengarried Men
4 years ago

Might be a bit mistaken but I seem to remember when ordering 2 carriers POW carrier being touted for loan to the French when the CDe Gaulle was to be refitted if the USA want to lease it for a period of time and the money recovered goes to the Mod budget so what .Unless in an emergency I don’t think we could run2 carriers at the same time in the foreseeable future.

Matt C
Matt C
4 years ago

This really is nothing new.

Dave Wolfy
Dave Wolfy
4 years ago

This is the only way that these carriers will be kept, once we make an arrangement with the US we will have to keep it. There is no way that these carriers will replace a US carrier, but they could be used in such a way that the ever decreasingly available US carriers will be released for more relevant jobs.
Or, if the US wants to guarantee our involvement.
As US forces are on-board, if the US requires that we deploy them – we are involved in that operation, like it or not.

Andy P
Andy P
4 years ago
Reply to  Dave Wolfy

I suspect your take will be the price to pay for the short term benefit of having a full compliment of aircraft.

Airborne
Airborne
4 years ago

Pretty normal stare of affairs, just doing it better and more streamlined in the future with the yanks. And if anything, more like we will work even closer with the French (despite that moron Macron) when the CDG is unavailable, which will be in for extended periods of maintenance and refit.

Andy P
Andy P
4 years ago
Reply to  Airborne

Airborne, whether you think Macron, Johnson, Corbyn, Trump or Merkel are idiots, they’re all relatively replaceable, this is where a bit of tolerance comes in, call it diplomacy if you will. While dealing with some governments/regimes is a bit unpalatable at times, at least the ones who have the ability to change the corrupt B’stard at the top from time to time means we can get someone we like at least some of the time.

Airborne
Airborne
4 years ago
Reply to  Andy P

But confused what your reply is directed at. My post is that we work with the yanks and the French, and that while the CDG is in refit we work closer with the French! Despite the irritant Macron sounding off for domestic consumption.

Andy P
Andy P
4 years ago
Reply to  Airborne

Hi Airborne, you were criticising Macron, my point is that Macron will be gone relatively soon and the French will get someone different. Our working relationship with countries continue whoever is calling the shots. Trump is a pretty unpopular President with most UK residents but we still have to play the game as we are closely tied to the US and he’ll be gone at some point. This for me is where Corbyn showed his lack of statesmanship when he made a point of not seeing The Donald when he was over here, its not the man (or woman) its… Read more »

pkcasimir
pkcasimir
4 years ago
Reply to  Andy P

You have the story wrong. Corbyn requested a meeting with Trump but Trump refused to meet with him.

Julian1
Julian1
4 years ago
Reply to  pkcasimir

Wasn’t that after Corbyn refused to go to the palace for the state dinner because of Trump? Possibly because of the Queen too since he is a republican (as in anti-monarchy) rather than GOP?

pkcasimir
pkcasimir
4 years ago
Reply to  Julian1

Corbyn refused to go to the state dinner after Trump snubbed him. He couldn’t very well show up and have Trump turn his back on him which Trump probably would have done or made some snide comment. In any event, Corbyn came out the loser in this.

Airborne
Airborne
4 years ago
Reply to  Andy P

Completely agree, just that Macron likes to talk tough for his domestic audience and I personally think he is a bit of a preening bell end! Cheers mate.

Tim Uk
Tim Uk
4 years ago

The whole point is strategic reliance. Make the americans reliant on our carriers like they are GCHQ, our vote on the UN security council , BAE , potentially reaction engines , special forces and SIS.

Herodotus
4 years ago
Reply to  Tim Uk

Is that reliance, or just exploitation. History would suggest the latter!

Ron5
Ron5
4 years ago
Reply to  Tim Uk

Reliant? What on earth are you smoking?

Herodotus
4 years ago
Reply to  Ron5

Not reliant….reliance! See the post above mine…twit!

Herodotus
4 years ago
Reply to  Ron5

Sorry, difficult to tell who is responding to who on this websiter!

Helions
Helions
4 years ago

I posted this as a reply to an earlier piece here, but this is my take on this subject for what it’s worth… IMO the QEs are not a one for one substitute for the USN’s carrier force. The QEs have the limitations of being non CATOBAR capable vessels which puts sharp restrictions on the force projection capabilities they possess. They wouldn’t do well in a fleet on fleet strike carrier role in the Pacific, which just by the sheer vastness of that ocean, demands CATOBAR equipped carriers for deep, blue water operations where survivability is dependent on “getting lost”… Read more »

Herodotus
4 years ago
Reply to  Helions

Hmmmm posts going missing again!

Ron5
Ron5
4 years ago
Reply to  Helions

Oh puleeze, the UK carriers will have 100% 5th gen jets, an excellent AEW, and top notch Type 45 & Type 26 defensive escorts that more than match the US equivalents.

I’m an American too but not quite so blinkered.

Helions
Helions
4 years ago
Reply to  Ron5

You’re absolutely correct on your points, that doesn’t change the fact that they don’t have high altitude, extended surveillance range AEW or an air to air refueling capability that drastically reduces the combat range of thire fast jets…

Our America class LHAs, which can theoretically stand to sea with up to 22 F35Bs, along with CV22s, and Choppers face the same constraints on independent operations despite having a potent all 5th gen air wing and no doubt AB and Tico surface escorts. This isn’t a barbed arrow shot at the class, it’s merely pointing out some very basic facts…

Cheers!

Julian1
Julian1
4 years ago
Reply to  Helions

I get it, I think QEC was meant to be way beyond invincible class but still someway short of US CVNs. Lack of range, size and strength in depth of air wing in comparison make that clear. In terms of innovation, automation and bang for buck, perhaps still a clear leader and better than any other carriers away from USN currently

Steve H
Steve H
4 years ago
Reply to  Julian1

You’re right mate, we haven’t gone for full fat super carriers because we simply can’t afford to have one that big, let alone 2, so we’ve gone for a decent semi skimmed mid size carrier design that we can afford and is pretty bloody good actually.
We just need to get the F-35 production process sorted to speed it up a bit, I’d like to see a decent number of aircraft on the decks of both ships.

Steve H
Steve H
4 years ago
Reply to  Julian1

We’re almost there, but not quite…. We’ve fallen short of where the 2 new Carriers could’ve been, we should’ve been that little bit more brave and just gone for it. Had we done it, the Carriers would’ve had more range, we could’ve had the more capable and longer range “C” version but as we’re British, we always seem to sell ourselves short…..which is a shame.
Still, they’re 2 pretty decent, pretty capable flat tops……as long as we’re not too far away from land….

Julian1
Julian1
4 years ago
Reply to  Steve H

If we had gone with the “c”, wouldn’t we still be waiting for them?

Steve H
Steve H
4 years ago
Reply to  Ron5

No-one is saying that we’re not happy with our 2 carriers or our nice, shiny new F-35B’s but as it’s a VSTOL aircraft it does have limited range due to fuel, weight, weapons load etc….there’s no substitute for a catapult or a long runway.. Even though the UK test pilots have invented a unique way to land on the carrier without having to either bomb the shit out of somewhere or dump the unused fuel and weapons in the sea….which is expensive, the VSTOL carrier and aircraft lacks the range, fuel load and weapons load of a CATOBAR carrier and… Read more »

Julian1
Julian1
4 years ago
Reply to  Helions

Good post as always

Helions
Helions
4 years ago
Reply to  Julian1

Thank you Julian.

Cheers

Steve H
Steve H
4 years ago
Reply to  Helions

Helions, I don’t think this deep blue water, in the middle of nowhere operations was ever in the pipeline really which in my opinion, is a shame as it could’ve provided the Royal Navy with huge capabilities but, for one reason or another, someone up high in Whitehall decided against it. Maybe it was after discussions with the Pentagon, maybe it wasn’t, I don’t know but now we have a couple of flattops which will only ever be useable in locations that aren’t too far away for the B version to operate. You could argue that after seeing what a… Read more »

Julian1
Julian1
4 years ago
Reply to  Steve H

I can’t really think of a conflict we would fight in far away from land. Effective force projection to land from sea is the primary reason for the carriers rather than any kind of blue water strike, we can use the Astute boats for that.

Ben Prewitt
Ben Prewitt
4 years ago

This is something the US Navy has already been working on with the French Navy, operating Rafale-M squadrons from the Harry S Truman and even doing an engine change onboard. USN and USMC AWACS and F/A-18 Hornets have landed and taken off from the deck of the Charles de Gaulle, and C-2 Greyhounds operating in the Carrier Onboard Delivery role have made operational deliveries to the French flattop in the Med, Arabian Sea, and Persian Gulf. The concept of interoperability with Royal Navy carriers is a leap that wasn’t possible until the introduction of the F-35 into British service. The… Read more »

Steve H
Steve H
4 years ago
Reply to  Ben Prewitt

We’ve either made the decision ourselves or it’s been made for us by the Pentagon…I don’t know which one it is…that we will work with the USMC and support them with our Carriers. It’s a good idea but it’s still a shame that we weren’t a little bit more brave and knocked out 2 65,000 tonne CATOBAR carriers with the more capable and more rangy “C” version. We could never afford to go to the full fat 100,000 tonne Supercarriers but a couple of semi skimmed ones with the C on board would’ve been phenomenal in my opinion……. Never mind,… Read more »

David Bevan
David Bevan
4 years ago

Carriers and task group make UK a power with global reach. That is politically significant. Politicians like being significant. I would imagine in a post EU world having the capability to impress the Americans and also having the ability to “kick in the door” of potential adversaries might be something government would want to retain.

Steve H
Steve H
4 years ago
Reply to  David Bevan

It doesn’t give us quite the global reach we could’ve had if we’d gone for 2 CATOBAR carriers with the “C” version on board…..the VSTOL B has limited range and weapons load unfortunately mate. The aircraft would be able to achieve more if the QE Class had a catapult to launch them, there’s no denying that fact mate.

Steve H
Steve H
4 years ago

I don’t see why anyone should be surprised here, it’s been common knowledge ever since the Carriers started taking shape that they would be fully integrated with the US Navy, in particular the USMC Carriers that share the same aircraft. Both Navies have done, currently do and will provide escorts for each others Carriers, the US Navy like to use our Type 23’s as specialist ASW duties and our Type 45’s as air defence for obvious reasons. I’m sure they will have their eyes on the build progress our Type 26’s when they enter service as the World’s most capable… Read more »