The UK now has two large aircraft carriers at sea ready for operations after HMS Prince of Wales was recently declared operational.
The Royal Navy say here that a fortnight-long international exercise off the Scottish coast “put the stamp on two years of intensive training for the Portsmouth-based warship, 700-plus crew, the Royal Navy and RAF squadrons who will operate aircraft from her flight deck – including the fifth-generation F-35 Lightning stealth fighter – and thousands of military personnel and civilians who support and maintain the endeavour”.
It means HMS Prince of Wales can join her sister HMS Queen Elizabeth on operational dutues when required; the latter is currently beginning the second half of her maiden deployment leading a carrier strike group in the Pacific.
“We have excitingly jumped the final hurdle and are now a fully-fledged strike carrier, ready at 30 days’ notice for operations around the globe,” said HMS Prince of Wales’ Commanding Officer Captain Steve Higham.
“This is a significant moment for the ship which will see us operate with fighter jets, helicopters, drones, and other vessel. We’ll achieve all of this by working with our friends and colleagues from the RAF, the British Army and across Defence to deliver our contribution for the UK as a problem-solving, burden-sharing partner nation. The whole Prince of Wales team are grateful for the support of our followers, our families and our friends and hope that they keep following us towards our first deployment.”
According to a news release:
“The final act of the new carrier’s preparation for operations was participation in the largest military exercise hosted in the UK this autumn. Thousands of military personnel from a dozen nations took part in the combined UK/NATO exercise Joint Warrior/Dynamic Mariner which ended yesterday, testing their abilities individually and collectively to deal with global events. More than 20 warships and submarines, plus maritime patrol aircraft, helicopters and thousands of military personnel from a dozen nations are taking part in the fortnight long combined exercise.
Ten Royal Navy vessels, plus elements of four Fleet Air Arm squadrons (troop carrying and submarine-hunting Merlins, Commando and anti-surface Wildcats and Hawk jets which have decamped from Cornwall to Scotland), Royal Marines of 3 Commando Brigade and the guns of their supporting artillery regiment, 29 Commando RA, plus senior staffs – around 2,000 men and women in all – represented the Senior Service.”
HMS Prince of Wales is due to return to Portsmouth in the small hours of Saturday October 2.
For more on what HMS Queen Elizabeth is up to, click here or visit the link below.
With no aircraft ?
It can fly 2 f35 and 20 choppers…
wouldn’t make much of a photo
Will have more F-35s when QE is mothballed at the end of CSG21.
Clearly it has aircraft onboard for it to be declared operational. And if you’d bothered keeping up with the news over the last couple of weeks then you would have seen pictures of them too 🤦♂️
You’re just embarrassing yourself 🤷♂️
2 F35’s. Cosmic.
It can and will carry far more F35bs!.
It can and will carry More Choppers too!.
Just a commando helicopter force of say 10 Merlin HC4s with Chinooks, Apaches and wildcats is a force only a handful of nations can muster..Then add just 8 F35s on the carrier for top cover…
Presumably that’s for amphib operations. The American assault carriers have only 6 fixed wing planes so that configuration is entirely feasible.
But the plan to spend @£70m adapting POW for amphibious operations has been dropped. Instead we are looking to EMCATS and drones to make up numbers. Quite why anyone thinks that operating unmanned full sized aircraft is going to be easier or less expensive than manned CATOBAR which we opted to avoid ( twice), I don’t understand. Given the limited F35 fleet, the amphibious role looked sensible.
2 None*
(* which is what you originally disingenuously claimed.)
So you’ve demonstrated your basic maths skills suck. 😆
If 2 F35’s are all that’s needed to test and validate operational capability… then why on Earth would you have any more? It’d just be wasteful. 🤷♂️
(Or do you think you know better than the senior officers of the FAA and RN – which would add hubris to your list of deficiencies…)
Like I said, you’re embarrassing yourself.
Come on. That’s enough. If you read here you know that F35’s were on deck. Cannot see the purpose of your post. Thank you.
And Anyway, Flight disembarks prior to Entry into Portsmouth you can’t disembark a squadron once alongside , A the Ship is not into Headwind B Pompey City Council would Fine the Navy for Noise pollution, Can’t wait too see Insulate Britian laying on the flight deck during Navy Days James
I have actually seen an F35B leve the deck of QE while she was docked in Portsmouth.
Always one isn’t there…
i always enjoy tongue in cheek posts
Quite a few at the moment mate!
You’ll enjoy this:
I’m having a argument on Twitter over the new Army Smoking Regs to come in in 2022 (my position fwiw; broadly in favour, but forsee lots of teething problems).
Best comment so far is someone who seems to think that soldiers have a choice to “pay” to grow their sideburns out.
Couldn’t seem to get his idea around the fact that Queens Regs are non-negotiable and that just because Civies can choose to do things doesn’t mean the Squaddies can.
Ah Queens regs, that most flexible and changeable of publications…..😆!
Lots of angst coming from (mostly civies) about the Army banning smoking it seems.
“You can’t stop soldiers from doing legal things, they’re adults it’s their choice. What about alcohol!?”
Meanwhile the Army be like “Is that on informed sports lad?”
They’re stealth aircraft, so you’ll have to squint to see them if you haven’t had the proper training.
😆😂🤣
Spot on Tomartyr, that’s one of the reasons why the Flight Deck teams form a line across the Flightdeck not just a FOD PLOD but also too find those illusive Stealth fighters
PoW could sail in virtally any direction and be joined by F35B’s from many nations not to mention other aircraft. It is even possible F35s might be flown half way across the world from the QE. Flexibility. 😀
It would be nice to have greater numbers of F35s but this has surprised people because it seems to have been declared operational 18 months early? I thought the target was 2023? Correct me if i am wrong guys.
I think from 2023 the PoW becomes the Flag Ship for a while, and goes on a worldwide cruise with 809Squ(FAA).
The QE goes into refit for a several months.
Yes there were aircraft aboard from 207 Squ. use to qualify pilots for future carrier operations. And the testing of new drone aircraft including jet powered ones.
I count 14 F-35s on the deck in the photo.
Formidable capability and a huge improvement in RN operations. I wonder what the turnaround time will be to operate two carries simultaneously? The likelihood of dual operations is probably small, but it’s a good feeling to see both at sea after all this time.
We needed two carriers to retake the Falklands. Thats why we need three carriers.
We needed three in Falklands because the Invincible class (and Hermes) only had very limited operational capabilities….
A single QE class can carry far more ‘effective’ combat capability in aircraft, drones, Royal Marines etc than all three Invincible class ships could dream of deploying if they were to operate together.
In reality only two Invincible class ships were ever operational.
ark royal was retired 5 years early because it was too expensive to operate ditto the entire type 22 class some were barely run in
What happened to the B3s was a disgrace. The best frigates the RN ever had…
Spot on Andy, the type 22 batch 2s went before their time ,
John, we had 2 carriers on Op Corporate. Probably not because they had limited capability but to avoid putting all eggs in one basket aka redundancy. Argentine jets were looking to take out a carrier and it is widely believed that when they attacked MV Atlantic Conveyor they were going for and thought they had got a carrier.
Correct Graham,25th May Xhxtty day , Argie Press showed Fake Photo of surpossed Bomb damage too Flightdeck of Invincible with smoke emanating from Inside the Hangar. Loss of AC meant no replacement Harriers and Chinos for troop airlift
Loss of Chinooks (bar one) for troop lift meant that the plan had to be recut for 5 Inf Bde – they were not fit enough to do a megatab (they had only just come off public duties – and they were not in the same fitness league as Paras and bootnecks), so they were sailed around to Fitzroy, with disastrous consequences.
Thanks Graham , I know people on this Thread will say that Was 39 yrs ago .So what , Lest we Forget , Bluff Cove could have been averted ,1 RM officer told a senior Army officer it would be best too get the guards disembarked at first light Snd was basically , just ignored , Hope Inter service Co operation has been also Been Rectifed
Hermes used too sneak in close after Sunset, Invincible stood off Hermes
Departed July Illustrious turned up too releive Invincible beginning of Sept .Invincible returned to Portsmouth Friday 17th Sept .82
if we bought a roll on roll off ferry and put a full length deck on it we would have. after all its only a step away from what was done with atlantic conveyor in 1982we’d also restablish all that was lost when ocean was sold
I thought HMS Ocean was quite a bit better than just a ferry with a full deck. She was very capable and modestly priced. In losing the LPH, we have lost a lot. Now we have to deploy a larger, more expensive asset to deliver helicopter aviation and commandos.
She was already knackered – built to commercial standards
Rfa Argus ,was R on R off problem was FWD superstructure width way across beam to beam
I always thought we should have kept HMS Invincible (or Ocean) to use as a FOB for F35B strikes. It could have been kept with a skeleton crew closer to enemy positions and enable Elizabeth to stay out of harms way.
We needed two carriers to retake the Falklands because the Argentinians believed we were two weak to even attempt to take the islands back. They were wrong. Now we are a stronger more self assurred fighting force. I can’t see many countries looking at the QE Class, type 45s etc. and thinking we are a push over. Had we had this type of kit before maybe many lives would have been saved.
The United States does not deploy carriers with a ski jump configuration as does the UK, India, Russia and China as a flat top design allow multirole fighters to be catapulted from the flight deck with a much heavier weapons load. China’s third super carrier -estimated to be 100,000 tonnes by US survelience satellites will be launched at the end of this year, with fitting out/commissioning likely to take 18 to 24 months. US flat top design but far more streamlined stealth profile than Uncle Sam’s with a more advanced CATOBAR system and electromagnetic (EM) launch catapults. As opposed to… Read more »
I think you are missing the point Terry. It should not and will not be up to one nation to defend against dictatorships. The are far more free nations who if they wish to remain free will outpace the advances of any single nation. China will also need to keep in mind that their economy is built upon the delivery of goods to the very nations which are concerned about their new offensive posture. Whilst I agree that western nations have been slower to respond to China you must remember that many western contries sustain far higher spending on defence… Read more »
We deployed 2 carriers to ensure redundancy. If we had deployed a single carrier and lost it to breakdown or enemy action, the operation would have been aborted.
The Argentine junta did not think Britain was militarily weak – our Navy was more than twice today’s size then, but that we did not have the political will to launch a task force.
Point taken however I wonder if Fieldhouse, given the option, would have preferred the superior fire power and resilience of today’s fleet against the numerical superiority available to him at the time? A few type 45s would give any air force something to think about and provide a few more options to the commanders. The much meligned drone technology will provide the option in the future of cheap rapidly produced platforms in numbers not seen before. Victory will definately go to the nations with the most open minded approach.
Graham we deployed 2 carriers because that’s all we had Bulwark the carrier was in the Basin Pompey would have taken 6mnth too bring her too readiness, Illustrious was speeded through all works
Thanks Tommo. My point was that we needed 2 carriers for Op Corporate to create redundancy (avoid all eggs in one basket). Could we deploy 2 carriers again out of a complement of just 2? Hence we need 3 carriers in service.
Thanks got what you meant ,Graham
We had 31 Sea Harriers in 1982 (subsonic, crap radar, only WVR missiles, excellent pilots), of which oinly 20 made it to the Falklands on May 1st – even today we can put 20 F-35Bs on two carriers – aircraft which pretty much trump anything in the air put up by any nation. Definately + 1982.
All that is true except that I had heard that Sea Harriers radar was quite good; at least they had a radar unlike the RAF planes. I am aware that the 2021 capability is well up on the 1982 capability. My point is that we deployed 2 carriers in 1982 to ensure redundancy, as a single carrier lost to breakdown or enemy action would have led to the operation being aborted.
To be sure of 2 carriers deploying you need 3 in service, and a modicum of luck that the gremlins keep at bay.
The Blue Fox radar that was on the SHAR was OK for the time. But it wasn’t really suitable for what it was being asked to do. In typical RN fashion they got the most out of what they had and all credit to them for that. The SHAR neither had the space of electrical capacity for anything fancier at the time. Processing wise you then had to contend with what a pilot could do on his own in an aircraft that was quite quirky to fly which was, at the time, limiting the processing power wasn’t that compact. So… Read more »
Blue Fox was very basic derived from the Sea Spray radar on the Lynx helicopter. Blue Vixen on the SHAR FA2 was much better, but did not enter service until the 1990s. Blue Vixen is the ancestor of the CAPTOR radar on Typhoon.
Crap radar ? Reckon you should read Sharkey Ward’s book. The CAP was used incorrectly more often than not.
Hi James, During the Falkland’s campaign, Harrier numbers peaked on 20th May 1982 (the day before the San Carlos landings) – 25 FAA Sea Harriers and six RAF Harrier GR3s. On that day, there were 15 SHARs on Hermes, plus the GR3s – and 10 SHARs on Invincible. Thereafter, attrition reduced those numbers during the remainder of the campaign. As well as redundancy, two carriers were needed to deploy sufficient air-resources to recapture the islands. Sandy Woodward stated the loss of one carrier would probably have forced the British to abandon the campaign. I agree that British carrier air-power is… Read more »
Thanks Alan. It sounds like you are unconvinced by Merlin/Crowsnest as AEW, yet its endurance is fairly good.
You forget the massive increase in stand-off weapons and the capability for precision strike that comes with a single bomb where previously several would have been required with no guarantee of a hit. See “Black Buck ” missions for an example of this
Did somebody mention Trafalgar/Astutes and TLAm?
I totally agree with that. Now you could put a line of bombs down the middle of a runway dropped at very high level: with total confidence and a ridiculous degree of precision. To be totally fair there were a couple of laser packages down South in ’82 and they were not really used to their best potential. It was pretty much untested kit at the time. I think one of the SF ones got dropped in the drink? The GR’s with laser targeting could have done a much better job than the Black Buck’s did. The argument was really… Read more »
They deliberately didn’t try and go along the runway to ensure that at least one hit it…. The mission was a success. However, one major point was by showing we could hit the falklands with vulcan we also showed we could hit the Argentine mainland if we chose to. This meant they had to keep a significant number of aircraft at home to protect against that option.
Yes, I know all that: hence why I phrased it the way I did.
“Personally I am not so sure: as it showed that if we did heavy dumb bombing we could only achieve WW2 levels of precision”.
I agree SB – in fact, the Vulcan’s main bombing-aid was essentially an updated version of H2S (ground mapping radar) carried by Lancaster bombers over Berlin in late-1943.
Exactly.
The flip side of Black Buck was is showed UK airpower limitations perfectly. If you are doing that there isn’t anything else in the cupboard.
I was always a bit surprised that there was no attempt to link up SF laser designator with the Black Buck bombings. I suspect the problem was the weather conditions. Anyone know?
Speaking of Black Buck, I would be interested in strategic assessments of its overall effectiveness. Did it surprise the Argies or did they hear about it coming, did it draw a lot of Argie resources, etc?
As we joked whilst down there oh the Invincible taken up on Station as South African Guardship Don’t think they got the joke though . Graham
When is the maiden deployment? 2023?? Anyway this is very good news not just for the RN but for the country.
For the Anglo-sphere!
-From Canada
Canada should join in “CAUKUS?”
We could build you a few Carriers, T45s that work etc.
CANCAUKUS.
CAUKUS
no, wait.
CAKES R US more to my appetite!
Haha! When I was battling the ScotNats on the Glasgow Herald ten years back I said WISE for the UK-Wales,Ireland,Scotland,England. One smart ass Nat retorted-SWINE-Scotland,Wales,Ireland North,England.😂 Had to concede a few points on that day!
If Scotland does a runner followed by NI teaming up with Ireland, then what remains should be called KEW, Kingdom of England & Wales. Appropriate given that we like our gardens.
👏Nice one Graham. Impressive fleet with PoW!!
Or maybe good WINES.
Indeed Frank-from the Cape of Good Hope!!
Hey Geoff what’s up -you must have enjoyed the Rugby on Sunday – what a game!
Howsit Klonkie-nailbiter and nice consolation prize for the Boks! Always good to beat the AB’s in their own back yard!
Cheers from a wet and cold(like NZ😉) Durban
Nice one Mate!
canada actually need a military first with some first rate equipment and not clapped out hand me downs
😀I think this alliance will be producing the best that Austailia, the US and the UK can produce as new kit. Hand me downs are only relevant when the kit has exhausted its useful life and only then non nuclear tech. Some countries will want to go it alone but some will recognise that they will get a greater quantity and depth of quality kit. You pays your money you takes your choice.
Won’t go down well with those Peskie French Canadians in Quebec though Mark
😀That’s democracy.
Their Gaelic flare, won’t cut the mustard, so too speak Come and join The Anglo pact the waters lovely LOL
Looks like PoW’s maiden deployment to Australia in 2023!
Speak softly but carry a big stick.
Congratulations to everyone involved in the QE carrier programme. Just need to get those F35s rolling in and integrate weapons on them. Outside of the USN this is a world beating capability.
agreed just need those t26 and t31’s asap
Wise words. Seem familiar 😊
Well said. All part of global Britain. And to think Cameron wanted to stop the PoW build almost on his first day in office.
I still get annoyed at some Americans demeaning the capability because it is not CATOBAR or nuclear powered – very irritating.
A 65 000 ton aircraft carrier with no aircraft. How can anyone put a positive spin on this. Absolutely disgraceful.
The USA only has 32 active F-35B’s. 12 are on the QE. They also have 80 harriers. With 9 STOVL flat tops are they also disgraceful?
Well said Chris, negativity for negativity’s sake seems to be a British disease, there’s a lot to be negative about but this particular situation needs to be put into perspective. I spent last night educating a friend on Britain’s launcher/spaceport plans who was being derisive of them without any real knowledge of the actual plans or technology being developed. Criticise fine, but let’s criticise based on some actual facts.
It needs to be put in perspective. The USN is the only navy with multiple real operational blue water carriers. The PRC and Indian operations are really experiments. Look at how the French baby Cdg. This is rare air, it won’t come overnight.
Chris, you raise an interesting issue. With the USN down a carrier after the fire loss of BonHomme Richard, and with USMC aircraft active on QE, there may well be plans for the QE or more likely the PW to easily join into a USN Carrier (LPH) Strike Group with both RN/RAF and USMC F35’s on board.
Bonhomme Richard was not a carrier, it was an LHD, money is starting to be allocated for a America class assault ship (LHA-9) to replace Br
I know, and it used to carry F35B’s and Harriers. Both helicopters.
Hi James, don’t wish to appear picky, but the BonHomme Richard isn’t a carrier, it’s a amphib assault ship. Depending on mission carries between 6-20 F35Bs.
Spot on Deeps mk 1 eyeball for recognition Or Jane’s
Yes I know, the point is it used to fly F35B’s, it no longer does.
BHR was not a Fleet Carrier.
I thought only 10usmc were aboard..
Correct.
They have not been delivered yet. Are you aware of Block IV integration costs on F35, which have meant the MoD decided to slow deliveries rather than buy quicker then update them? Having 2 carriers means 1 is always available. There is also currently only an air group for 1, that is Merlin ASW, Merlin ASCS, F35. If necessary in war both would be used and whatever aircraft available, including helicopters of the AAC and RAF, and other nations F35, could use her. Advances in UAV hopefully will also fill both carriers out. If we had the aircraft and no… Read more »
Indeed you can’t guarantee the concurrent timing of two separate and disparate tech programmes especially when one is effectively a foreign one so let’s be a little patient.
One carrier will always be available when they are in ‘the first flush of youth’ barring unscheduled maintenance – but as they age, that cannot be guaranteed. That is why we should have three carriers. In an ideal world we would have a LPH in addition. But I know none of that will happen.
We should have had three carriers, but that ship has long since sailed.
It would have required the full orders of Type 45s, Type 26s, and Astutes to have been built and *manned*. The latter being one of the bigger issues as we currently struggle to provide enough personnel as it is.
All that would have required a significant (though manageable) increase in the MoD’s budget. Perhaps 4 or 5% of GDP. The political will and public stomach for that just wasn’t there.
No way… three is fat too much…we wouldn’t have any or just 1 if there wasn’t a contractual agreement meaning we would lose all the money anyways. We need more frigates, subs and destroyers first.
Are you “with no aircraft” people Russian trolls, blind or just plain daft? Despite having seen pictures of F-35s, Merlins and even Banshee drones operating from the deck of PoW over the last few weeks, Apaches and Chinooks over the summer, you still trot out the same old lie: “with no aircraft”. I would spell it out for you. That PoW is operating at the same time as its sister ship is deployed abroad. That the helicopters are aircraft. That more F-35s are being bought. That fixed wing aircraft currently in use for training can be deployed in an emergency.… Read more »
Apparently if you have a difference of opinion on here you are a troll. As a ex member of the Royal navy I just find that laughable. I was waiting for the positive spin and wasn’t surprised. I remember the old ark royal sailing without its phantoms buccaneers, gannets, sea Kings and wessex helicopters but that was when it went to the breakers yard. As for my self I did deterrent patrols on Hms Repulse and Revenge but before we went to sea we always remembered to pick up our Polaris missiles. Mind you on here, some of you would… Read more »
Your argument is weak, even if there aren’t currently enough F35b available there will be. Are you saying we should have delayed design/construction/certification/work up of QE & POW until all our F35 squadrons were fully equipped and operational? Procurement of such complex aircraft/warships is a hugely time consuming & difficult process, we are still in the middle of that process. Your negative comments indicate you think the process is now over, I would kindly point out that as a former submariner you should know all of the above. And one final point, we’re you as critical of the effectiveness of… Read more »
I hope you read some of the responses and accept some of the very pertinent points made. I am not sure what you want here should they have slowed the build till enough planes were available for a full load? Of course it’s not ideal but the F35B is a complex aircraft more complex than the other two indeed and there are limited supplies and as Daniele has stated it’s best to time their complex arrival so that costly updates aren’t required while we work up the carriers and to do otherwise just to show numbers on deck just seems… Read more »
Hi fella, while I accept the rationale behind delaying the purchase of more F35s to avoid boating for costly upgrades, I do wonder how much a F25 is going to cost once the Blk 4 improvement s have been implemented? Currently the cost over runs are somewhere in the region of $2 billion. These costs will be added onto the price of every new build airframe, so one has to hope that that increase is substantially less then the cost of any upgrading of older airframes. Come 2026, it will be interesting to see how much each one is going… Read more »
How long did that Ark Royal fly its Phantoms and Buccaneers? Less than a decade for the former I think, a bit longer for the latter. The ship spent more time in refit than in operational service and was nearly scrapped before the Phantoms flew at all. Care to wager how long HMS PoW will be flying F-35s? I was at Wallsend when the following Ark Royal was launched in ’81. If it hadn’t had been for the Falklands it wouldn’t even have been fitted out, much less had aircraft operating from it. If you really want to stay with… Read more »
Wow, I certainly do not wear rose tinted specs unlike the majority of contributers on this site. I was in the royal navy during the falklands war so I don’t need a lesson on that. The plain truth is the royal navy has not got enough ships. The royal navy has not got enough aircraft, fixed wing or rotary. The RAF has not got enough planes. The army has not got enough tanks. But when people keep putting positive spin on everything, and do not face reality that is the issue. So maybe some on here should look at what… Read more »
So keeping a sense of reality that you keeping talking about. Considering the current financial climate, a global pandemic recovery to pay for. Voters far more interested in more money for the NHS and adult social care, education, green energy ect. What would you do about it all then? Or you just hear to talk fantasy fleets,and fantasy budgets from back in the day.
Well 37 billion on test and trace would be a good start. Oh what about the over 100 billion on HS2. If you want a global Britain, and you want to deploy global forces, yes you are right they don’t come cheap. But you don’t put positive spin on things saying you can do things when clearly you can’t. That’s the reality I am on about, be honest with people.
37Bn hasn’t been spent on test and trace.Thats the budget, it doesn’t mean they have spent that much. And during the last 18months, I’m bloody glad that money has been available. Tens of thousands of people have been employed to man testing centres, and administer vaccines. We would be in a far worse position if that money wasn’t available. And the RN has continued to operate globally throughout all of it. HS2 will affect the lives of millions of people. And create a lot of job’s. High speed rail is good enough for France/Germany, so why not us. And Global… Read more »
I agree with you on test and trace, which could of been done much cheaper using local council staff using local phone numbers.
I agree that the RN doesn’t have anywhere near enough ships; I doubt you’ll find many people on this site who would disagree with that assessment. I also agree that the root cause is the lack of overall defence spending. I even agree that having 90+ F-35Bs simultaneously would be required for both carriers under sovereign control, operating in full strike mode without any other fixed wing craft. Not to mention additional RAF requirements. While the MoD have already said it’s ordering more than 48, the pundits reckon somewhere in the 70s is likely, so not enough for that. But… Read more »
Hi Peter, Firstly, thank you for your service it is appreciated. I think most of us on here recognise the lamentable state of defence that you describe and it is for that reason that so many are pleased to see the carriers entering service. Many of those above have critised the slow build up of the F35’s at some point, including myself. However, I and many others have come to the opinion that the slow procurement rate may actual work out well in the long run because of the development issues that the programme has encountered. It is not ideal,… Read more »
Thank you for your reply. All I said was it was a disgrace having a huge 65000 carrier without aircraft. I did not expect the Spanish inquisition. We will never have enough aircraft for both carriers. As for unmanned aircraft, drones etc they could be years if not decades away before fully operational. We ordered the carriers in2007 so we have had 14 years to order enough aircraft. My concern is that if the next 14 years are like the last 14 your dream will never be fulfilled.
The intention has never been to operate both carriers at the same time. Having two means one will be available 365 a year to work around maintenance, and refits. The plan was never to have enough jets to put 36 on both vessels at the same time. Even 24 F35’s is a huge capability to take to sea. Only somone from the UK would call it a disgrace when a new 65k aircraft carrier is declared operational. Regardless of how many aircraft are available. This is a good news story after years of hard work, and another step forward down… Read more »
Well said.
Hi Peter, Yup, I agree with everything you say and so would most of the posters on here. I also recognise that the fleet has not yet increased in size and as many have commented on here such is the nature of politics it may not grow ever again! However, there is at the moment at least, a little room for optimism and I guess we are focusing on that for this story at least. Even without sufficient aircraft the second carrier reaching operational status represents another significant step forward but as you rightly point out there is still much… Read more »
The F-35 program is years behind schedule, Peter because of past development problems with this type of aircraft. That is out of our hands, you need to blame LM there! It has also affected deliveries to the RN over the past few years.
Yes we should of kept some Harrier GR9’s for battlefield support etc until in the future drones can provide this sort of capability.
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
The positive is the ship has been declared operational and is now part of the navy. Means other one can have a rest and fix up when it gets back. I’m sure we would all love to see more equipment and funding for the forces and monies to be spend wisely.
With current tax/NI rises about to come in and benefit cuts for lower income people I imagine a further tax rise to double armed forces budget would be about as palatable a day trip to the conservative conference.
There’s a difference of opinion, and then there’s repeating the same old (very tired) bits of misinformation that have been peddled for years and disproved multiple times.
Well stop doing then
Someone break your translator there comrade?
😝👍
As ex RN, then you should know better shipmate. Carrier Strike isn’t regenerated overnight. It’s very complex, and expensive. 48 F35’s are on order, more will follow. This is a 5th gen stealth fighter that eclipses anything we have operated from a carrier before. AEW and A2A refueling and strike UCAV’S will follow ect. But it takes time, and a lot of hard work and cash. Just like the new Dreadnought class won’t be in service and doing 3 month patrols overnight.
I think Daniel and Spyinthesky have made valid points re current F35B numbers. Firstly, HMG has made a wise decision in delaying the purchase of further aircraft simply because there are too many problems to be ironed out in the hardware/software. Clearly, rising costs are a concern. Secondly, new engines will be required to support future upgrades to both hardware and software to the F-35 fleet and this is in the very early stages, to say the least. For now, we will rely on USMC and other NATO allies F-35B’s to increase the numbers and let’s not forget, we only… Read more »
August 12
The Pentagon is exploring its options for a more efficient and powerful F-35 engine
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/08/12/the-pentagon-is-exploring-its-options-for-a-more-efficient-and-powerful-f-35-engine/
A more comprehensive report (FY2020) can be found here.
DOT&E F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2020/dod/2020f35jsf.pdf?ver=C5dAWLFs4_N3ZLrP-qB0QQ%3D%3D
Pretty sure I read somewhere that those more powerful engines were for the A and C models only. May need an international ‘B’ club working with RR to generate a B upgrade.
Correct! Which begs the question, what will be in place for block 4 software currently due in 2026 after further delays and at what cost to us? Sept. 10, 2021 GE Says New Engine for F-35 Possible by 2027, but Not on STOVL Version “While “we think we have a very competitive offering for the F-35A and the F-35C, … we did not design the AETP engine to integrate with the F-35B. It was beyond the scope of what we set out to do,” he said. While Tweedie did not comment on how hard it would be to adapt AETP… Read more »
“Latka said the F-35B’s unique short take-off and vertical landing lift system can’t accommodate the AETP engines.
To create competition with GE, she said, two variants of each company’s engine would be needed, with parallel repair and supply chains. That contributed to Pratt & Whitney’s $40 billion cost figure, she said.”
https://www.airforcemag.com/pratt-pushes-alternative-to-new-adaptive-engine-for-f-35/
You should read your own articles properly. AETP isn’t designed for any F35 version, It’s for a potential 6th gen aircraft, and more than likely, won’t be seen on any F35. Engine upgrades for the F135 are in the works for all current variants of the F35. F135 just like the airframe is at the start of it’s development cycle, with built in growth, just like EJ200 has considerable thrust increase potential.
As I said, at what cost to us? For the Air Force’s F-35A, “the technology could be remarkable,” Fick said. But, GE and Pratt & Whitney’s AETP engines would “require significant modifications” to fit in the Navy’s F-35C and are “completely a non-starter” for the Marine Corps F-35B, which has vertical takeoff/landing capability. Both engine makers have said the AETP engines will not fit in the F-35B. It might be possible to alter the AETP engine to fit in the F-35C, and if so, “some cost-sharing there might be possible,” Fick said. But at a minimum, choosing to put AETP… Read more »
This is also worth noting. At some point, we will find out!
“The F-35 Block 4 upgrade has been included in the UK F-35 programme budget since its inception. Decisions on the number of aircraft to be upgraded will be made on the basis of military capability requirements.
The costs of the Block 4 upgrade are managed through the F-35 Joint Programme Office and, as one partner in the multinational F-35 programme, the UK is not in a position to share detailed cost information,” the minister said.”
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/uk-may-not-upgrade-all-f-35bs-to-block-4-standard
Sounds like the OCU may miss out and therefore only limited potential for an effective surge or reserve capacity. When numbers are low we need all units capable of operating at maximum potential to mitigate attrition risk.
Thank you for your very detailed reply. My concern is you have rightly said the new engine and software is in very early stages. We may not see that come to fruition before 2030. The f35 has enemies in the US. The air force have ordered a new version of the good old f15. The US navy have ordered more good old f18s, only ceasing production in favour of a new aircraft, not the f35. If the f35 is cancelled or production is drastically reduced we will be up the creek without a paddle.
You’re welcome! and thank you for your service. The F35 was initially designed to fill the gap between 4th and 6th gen aircraft. Sadly, that has not gone to plan, creating some real headaches for the military commanders to sort out due to China’s ever-growing military capabilities and huge investment in additional military equipment over the coming decade. Some very tough decisions will have to be made going forward, including the amount of F35’s that the US and her allies will actually purchase in order to maintain a technological advantage over future adversaries. “According to Janes forecasts, China’s defence budget will grow… Read more »
Re “production is drastically reduced”
It appears they are working on fixes for the premature distress of rotor blade coatings, the issue with the canopy and maintenance schedules.
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/02/12/an-engine-shortage-is-the-newest-problem-to-hit-the-f-35-enterprise/
It is very unlikely that F35B development would be cancelled given how much of NATO and other allies like Japan, who are mission critical to US foreign policy, are buying it.
If you cancel if then you cancel anyone trusting in joint programs with USA.
You’re off your rocker. The F15’s and F18’s are pork spending to help Boeing, who’s fighter biz is in great peril.
Nigel, how about a retractable or raiseable ramp at the bow(in front of the CAT), for STOVL operations?
That would make a great deal of sense if they could achieve it but the ramp is curved and you would lose a great deal of internal space too.
No expert here, but would it make sense to have EMALS with a reduced ramp across the entire front end?
One for Gunbuster I’m guessing!
Best to ask the Russians. One of their recent model carriers that they bring out to display at shows was designed similarly, with reduced length catapults behind ramps. I like the idea, but you need different undercarriage strengthening for ramps than you do for cats/traps. It’s hard to say if the F-35C could handle it without further adaptation.
And I remember a Polaris boat at the end of its life having helos fly spares out to it to keep the thing at sea as a “deterence”
Things have moved on since them.
Yes, they use tugs now to do the job instead! 😂
Don’t know why you are showing a tug next to an American submarine. Have I missed something.
“And I remember a Polaris boat at the end of its life having helos fly spares out to it to keep the thing at sea”
Yes, clearly a poor attempt at a joke!
Nigel is having a laugh mate, humour……
Thanks Mr Blythe , One has too educate some people that Royal Navy subs have never had planes attached to the Conning tower or Fin (yank slang) Our boats Planes ,are placed either side of the Hull
Complex platforms won’t need spare parts in future? Things really have moved on that we now have 100٪ reliability and availability.
Those boats where a nightmare towards the ends of their lives. Once Trident came online there was an audible sigh of relief from the engineers in Faslane that was heard in GUZ! .
With more modern systems, maintenance regimes and reliability they should never get to the position they where in with the last polaris deterrence patrols.
Thanks for the reply. I once heard that a SSN/SSBN was as or more complex than the Space Shuttle. So, I am not surprised some things break down on patrol. I was in REME for over 30 years so have some affinity with this.
Hang on a minute. We now have 100% reliability and availability. Would you like to reconsider that statement in relation to the type 45 destroyer. Or do you know something that nobody else does.
45s the piece of equipment that you’re referring too Is Guess what ? American And we fell for it as the Yanks would say “SUCKERS”
I was being ironic, Peter, as regards the incoming comment.
I think you will find that most things break down towards the end of life. Apparently according to you things have moved on. Really, did not a type 45 destroyer Break down whilst accompanying the Queen Elizabeth on her deployment, and haven’t these wonderful vessels have a history of breaking down. Did you forget this. Polaris submarines had a hell of a better reliability rate than this. Between 1969 and 1996 the CAS deterrent never missed a day. Something to be proud of. Bloody hell, you have me putting a positive spin on something.
Hi Peter, I think you will find that between 1969 and now, CASD has never missed a day. Something to be said about that I think.
All things are relative of course, MOD pours a lot of money into our nuclear programme to keep it running.
Stuff breaks … there is no denying that and some of it breaks without warning. However things such as MMS have thankfully gone by the by. The RN no longer takes stuff apart for the sake of taking it apart to check that it will still work after you put it back together. RCM is a far better way of maintaining equipment. Equipment is more reliable. The way equipment is manufactured and put together is far better. Solder joints replaced by crimps, Keelering couplings replaced by more modern joints. Electronics replacing valves… That said the Polaris boats had huge issues… Read more »
Anything mechanical is subject to failure. Polaris boats suffered towards the end of their lives because they reached the poi t they were designed too. They never got life extension refits. The vanguard class boats are now operating passed their design lives. They are doing this because they received major life extension refits. Otherwise they would be experiencing the same problems polaris boats did. The same as type 23 frigates. All operating way passed their design lives, purely and simple down to lifex. A friend of mine told me that iron Duke was in such a state they considered scrapping… Read more »
The Ark came back from Norfolk Va 78 was on the old DLG HMS London massive exercise North Atlantic ,hit big storm , 2 F14 slide off one of the carriers, The Ark lost nothing , Might have been smaller than A nimitiz class but boy at least the deck crews knew Chocks and Lashings why because we’re Professional
I was on DLG Hms Kent at the same time. Was also in Norfolk Virginia and I remember the tomcats going over the side. But apparently that was so long ago it doesn’t mean anything on this site. Can’t give history lessons.
And with a spitty attitude like that you wonder why you’re being branded a troll LOL
I presume replying to gunbuster and explaining why experiences from 50 years ago should be relevant would just be too hard compared to complaining to another poster about it.
It’s called experience, knowing what happened in the past allows to to design equipment for the future. Something obviously you know nothing about. Your entire contribution to this debate is to call me a troll. This seems to be the extent of your knowledge. And for your information I was replying to tommo so you can’t even get your facts right. Keep on contributing drivel you do seem an expert at that though.
LoL, once again not actually responding to anything I’ve said instead going off on your own tangent.
But I didn’t call you a troll, I pointed out your spitty attitude was leading to you being branded a troll. And holy crap you can’t even read.
You where bitching to Tommo about someone else in this thread (I assume GB but possibly Airborne), instead of actually having a conversation with GB about why your out-of-date (alleged) experience is relevant. That’s what I was picking you up for, get with the program.
Like I’ve said before ,” If you forget your past then your condemned to repeat it again Ad infintum
DERN ,What I was saying was a reply about the old old Ark And how Nimitiz class 90,ooo tons plus RN carriers 30.000 tons alot smaller but crews more professional and how the yanks lost 2 tomcats overboard Hope the same can be said of today’s QEs class crew a third smaller than the Ford Class carrier not mk 2 cortina
I know, I’m tracking.
It’s Peter complaining about Airborne and GB that’s got my goat up.
Thank god we’ve got two other colours too the national flag of the union Blue and Red if you catch my drift Dern
Pull up a bollard ,and I’ll spin you a dit after you’ve doused that glimpse Mr Blythe
How can anyone be so negative or are you just trolling?
There’s even a picture with f35bs onboard, 4 have been onboard to get the necessary qualifications to be declared operational, while her sister ship is currently on deployment in the Far East .
Yes we don’t have enough yet but this is just the beginning!
Must admit far too long ago but I do wonder if the first Polaris submarines and the first uk Polaris missiles and warheads were actually all ready at precisely the same time. Of course back then it’s highly unlikely we would have known the real truth.
Polaris patrols stopped in 1996, a whopping 25 years ago, so not that long ago. We keep mentioning the falklands war and yet that was 14 years earlier. Funny how things get twisted around.
Selective reading there eh?
Well I do know the answer to that but I don’t think this forum is the right place. I do remember having to sign something to stop me from doing that.
Sure thing comrade. Yes, you’re totally telling the truth. *yawn*
So quite obviously your the know it all. So I am arguing for a big increase in defence spending and you are calling me comrade. As an expert on everything I thought you would have got that right. Maybe if you stopped yawning and woke up you may display a shred of intelligence. Won’t hold my breath though.
You’ve come in here spouting the same tired old misinformation, that is what got you branded a troll (I wouldn’t be surprised if you are Captain P on another fake account tbh given the tone of your insults). I will continue yawning at you comrade (because that’s what you are if you’re not a troll) when you actually have something that isn’t a tired, boring, debunked cliché to say. Oh and re intelligence, plenty of people here have posted well reasoned, intelligent replies to you that you simply have chosen to ignore, probably because you’ve got no actual reply, so… Read more »
So I have come on this site to offer my opinion. I did not realise that I had to get your permission dern. I do not contribute to any other sites, but it does appear YOU seem to have a problem with people who happen to have a different opinion to you. You also seem to be very happy to keep saying comrade. Can I suggest you stop looking in the mirror because history teaches us it’s people like you who hate other peoples opinion that’s the real problem. Your attitude would have gone down great in the old Soviet… Read more »
Wow, you can’t even invent your own insults. You are entitled to have an opinion, and I’m entitled to tell you you’re stupid for voicing it, especially after several other people explained (patiently) that you’re wrong, and, assuming you’re not who I think you are comrade, you’ve been watching this news for long enough to know better. Grow up. Say stupid things you’ll be called on it. Don’t like it, that’s not my problem. *Edit* For the record: “I think we should spend more on defence” = an opinion. “The Aircraft carrier doesn’t have aircraft” = demonstrably false misinformation designed… Read more »
Just out of interest we’re you on the boats when the 1983 bbc documentary was done. Been watching it on you tube. First episode was perisher, then on warspite still got to watch the 3rd episode title Polaris
I was on boats between 1980 and 1987, before that general service on destroyers.
Thanks for the response and your service. Looked like good times in subs. Drinking, smoking on board. Obviously the job got done aswell. I always thought hot bunking was still going on but the program from 83 said it was no more. That was on warspite anyway
Observed and agreed!
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/second-british-aircraft-carrier-declared-operational/#comment-587906
I believe this is directed at you or GB.
What is the focus thing on the Falklands by everyone. The main thing to come out of the Falklands lessons learned for the RN was the need to improve Damage control and Fire fighting which they did to a huge degree
Its now the same amount of time from the Falklands to today as it was WW2 to the Falklands …40 + years!
As technology moved on from WW2 to the Falklands era, things have move on immensely from the Falklands to now.
Spot on.
Exactly.
But I would add to that – discarding out of date carp weapons systems so you can focus on the ones that you need.
Alright Gunbuster ,WW11 at least they wore Cotton Action working dress , We wore Fxxxing Nylon Action working dress 39 years ago A year after in 83 we reverted back too Cotton We learnt that i things fromHistory Can be the best things too use
The only good thing about polyester 8s was that they didn’t shrink when the dhoby wallah got his hands on them.
When the first new cotton/flamban 8s came in my shirts turned into muffin tops…great on a 18 yr old girl…not so good on a 20 something hairy arsed matelot.
It takes time to build the F-35Bs – be reasonable.
If you read here you know it had F35’s on board and flying and qualifying pilots.
No Reaper is right.
Thanks Dern 👍
Let me second this.
It has aircraft, if needed to be deployed, UK has more f35s coming this year and could easily be equipped with apache and 8 f35s
I know. Some of the comments here are beyond parody. To be fair, 2 F35’S were sighted on this fully operational battle star, sorry aircraft carrier.
In a relatively short period of time there will be plenty of aircraft from all nations including ours on the deck of this ship. It will provide security to many nations throughout the world. This is a positive step in the right direction.
Hi Mark this exactly what I am on about. The only fixed wing aircraft that can operate from the carriers is the f35b. Yes helicopters and eventually uav will be able to operate from them. But these vessels are supposed to be a sovereign asset for a global Britain and yet we all know we will never have enough aircraft for them. Can you please tell me what other countries that operate carriers go to sea with more aircraft from other countries on their decks.
You will know from the Falklands that the days of the UK dominating the battlefield in all areas without the need of allies has not been a reality for a very long time. Currently we do not have an economy to support that. We can only work with other nations to keep the peace although perhaps a Falklands sized campaign would be possible. I would probably say the the F35 will be our last carrier aircraft. Drones are I’m afraid the future. Rapid production methods are possible and likely and the UK is well placed to take advantage on our… Read more »
Can drones really deliver the firepower onto land and littoral targets that F35s can, and take on and defeat peer enemy aircraft? That is optimistic.
It all sounds like the comments about the end of the tank etc.
I really could not see senior officers in the RAF or FAA accepting that we should now contemplate the end of manned aircraft. And how about the carriers as a base for multiple manned helicopters. Do you think drones can deliver commandos?
Not only do I think they can deliver commandos but I think that will be one of the next uses. It is one of the biggest mistakes that all humans make at some point or another. They come to believe they are indispensible. It is no longer necessary for the human and the kit keeping them alive to be lashed to the top of the engine. Indeed it merely increases the cost. History is full of examples of tecnology moving on. The horse, the machine gun, the tank, the plane, radar, the missile, nukes, the beard and sandals in a… Read more »
Not only the F-35B can fly from the QE carriers, but the Harrier AV8 or GR9, if need be. Other NATO countries operate them.
We are still officially meant to be buying 138 F-35s however realists consider that we will procure 60 – 80. That is still enough to equip 2 carriers. Why do you not understand that it takes time to build new aircraft, everyone else does.
Japan is on boarding USMC F35B shortly so that’s one other allie And they are doing this for the same reason we are. We have operated F35Bs from USMC Carriers like Wasp and we have pilots flying FA18s. Also we do this cos we can, what other allies have carriers that can support these sort of numbers. Virtually none. Most of the time the Inviceable class deployed with just 4 Harriers. If you want have political dig fine but these Carriers are one area where we’ve upped our capability with higher sortie rates and far more capable aircraft.
Japanese, American, South Korean, Italian…
Remember when we had people moaning how we couldnt have Allie jets aboard our carrier like how the French can because we were STOVL!
Quite.
F35B is a big multinational program.
We have good interoperability with friends.
We have the best F35B platforms in the world.
And looks like we will hav3 the best F35b platform or decades to come. Unless india showing of decides to build better, indias all about Willy waving,, te have losing assets but do nothing with…
Don’t you be upsetting the armchair admirals, they heavily outnumber you.
Correct coming into Portsmouth if someone even moved whilst fallen in at Alpha Before the Ship got alongside some retired Admirals in old Portsmouth would have complained to Semifore Tower whod then inform the Ship of the 4th person upper deck between midshipman bollards and boat Derrick moved his left arm when coughing . I wonder if that tradition is still alive Palaboran
Predictive txt struck again Read Midships not Midshipman Palaboran
Definition of the word Aircraft –
An aeroplane, helicopter, or other machine capable of flight.
just saying…
Not sure what your solution is, tell Lockheed Martin to hurry up?
As I understand it we already have the bare minimum numbers for two carriers ordered.
I agree we should have done more earlier, but we didn’t and nothing can fix that.
I think people’s optimism comes from seeing a branch of the Armed Forces grow, and achieve long term goals, after the decades of cuts and mismanagement we’ve become accustomed to.
👏👏
Kudos all round. The result of a lot of hard work.
The RN just needs another 25 warships and 10 SSNs to be a credible navy.
How did you get those numbers?
We need another carrier, an LPH, 6 more Type 45s, up to 12 more frigates and at least 10 more submarines (mix of SSN and SSK).
But I know that none of that will happen.
Well, I’m fine with the 24 escorts total planned 6 45s, 8 26’s, 5 31’s, 5 32’s.. maybe more if type 45 replacement ups to what we need 8 minimum. Can’t see atack subs number going up due to how FUCKING HUGE COSTLY AND DEADLY Drednoghts are…they are out trump card when comparing navys…the Royal Navy is top5 most deadly going on firepower even if Japan has 24 destroyers.,,
Good points. I think we should buy some SSKs as they are cheaper than SONS. 7 attack subs, of which only 2 or 3 might be available for ops is not enough.
We sold our Last virtually brand new Upholder class ssks so as Britain’ went totally Nuclear in our Submarine Sevice boats Another waste of Taxpayers money I don’t think we made a profit selling them
SSNs, not SONS!
So is the USN the only credible Navy currently on the planet then?
Might be the biggest but 2nd best in personel
Let’s live in the real world here. Just because the RN declares a ship operational doesn’t mean more than than it can sail the ocean blue. Nothing more. It is not equipped with the necessary strike aircraft and ready to be sent into combat, especially against a peer, and won’t be for many years to come. While one can applaud the achievement of building it and getting it functional, let’s not delude ourselves that it represents any real combat capability in the near term.
Ummm
So say putting 12+ F35B and 10 Merlins and some Apache onto a QEC has no combat capability?
Interesting.
So if say there was a rerun of the Sierra Leon intervention you are saying that would be no good?
Or if there was a rerun of the Balkans that wouldn’t help?
I would beg to differ.
I would also suggest that even with the amount of F35B that we have kicking around in the UK it would not be far off the Air Power you would need to rerun Corporate. Given that the opposition have, well, less aircraft!!
Precisely. The UK doesn’t have 12 F-35Bs to put on the POW. And the UK is not going to send any AC into the Eastern Med to support action in the Balkans unless it’s protected by the Sixth Fleet.
I was more referring to the Yugoslav issues….
And one singular QEC in action at a time.
For a low intensity non peer conflict we do have a very decent capability.
At a deterrence level we have a rapidly evolving capability.
Did it 93/94 not under Nato or the Un but the EU what a waste of Aviation fuel it was Groundhog day everyday
207 Sqn: 8 F35’s
17 Sqn: 3 F35’s
RAF Marnham: 2 F35’s
That’s 13, not including those on QE, so… yeah the UK does have 12 for PWLS if it was absolutely desperate.
Not sure why the 6th fleet is relevant, the UK can deploy a CSG into the E. Med with or without their help to be fair.
You are on form tonight mate! Crack the troll whip and get them dancing 👍!
I worked in Naples as part of the NATO HQ. The Sixth fleet is 4 ABs and some Supply ships. The ABs are based in Rota , Spain. Mount Witney is in Gaeta. Anything else drops in and out of control as required.
Well firepower.. the Royal Navys cruising the oceans constantly with Nukes.. enough to destroy most nations…
Yes, well done. Operational means that a vessel can be sent on operations.
It’s still a landmark even in her life. If needed she can be sent.
Does anyone actually know what the operating plan for 2 carriers over the next 5 years is? It is clear that we won’t have enough F35s for both any time soon, if ever. The RN are looking at EMCAT to be available by 2023/4 but that is a major and likely expensive project. An earlier plan to adapt one carrier to carry out an amphibious role has been abandoned. Obviously, refits will mean that at times only one will be available but for much of the time both will be potentially operational. Or will one be kept in extended readiness… Read more »
They are both crewed and likely to be kept that way.
Docking periods will mesh with leave.
They are designed to not need very long docking periods.
So yes both will be operationally overlapping. Even if working up alongside.
I’ve never been a fan of the carriers. Whilst the key early decisions looked logical (STOVL, large size for future flexibility) success depended totally on the ability of the F35 programme to deliver what it had promised – an affordable replacement for several types of legacy platform. That promise has not been achieved- costs of acquisition have soared, operational costs are far greater than those of aircraft replaced and technical problems persist. All this 20 years after LM won the JSF competition. So we are now stuck with an aircraft we can’t afford in the numbers planned to make full… Read more »
Really? I heard unit cost of F-35 was reducing.
You are correct, they are. Unfortunately still not to the levels that were promised – believe the latest figures negotiated between LM and US DOD are somewhere in the region of $33000 per flt hour by 2023. This I think, is still some 25-30% higher then was originally forecast. Whatever the reasons, LM are currently still unable to deliver on their sales pitch for the F35 programme. Added to that, the late arrival of Blk 4 increment upgrade, and its associated cost over runs will only increase the price of later aircraft builds as LM look to recoup its development… Read more »
I recognise those numbers. I think that the hourly operating cost is @ 3 times that of aircraft like F16/F18. Shortages of spare parts is also reported to be affecting operational availability.
The flight control software seems to be working well. The problems are with other software- ALIS, its intended replacement and the hugely complex sensor packages. Makes me wonder if a more austere and affordable version might be possible.
I wonder if that is one of the reasons behind the USAF wanting a cheaper clean design new fighter to supplement the F35, that and the fact that in some instances, the F35 is too much of a fighter for what is needed?
Might also just be the USAF,s way of getting LM to pull their finger out and start delivering on what was promised!
“the fact that in some instances, the F35 is too much of a fighter for what is needed”
You hit the nail on the head with that as this is precisely what was stated by the UAF chief of staff. The F35 is a scalpel that is designed for high intensity against combat against peer adversaries and it does not make financial sense to use it for missions that can be handled by less sophisticated/expensive aircraft such as the f15.
If that is the case, then it leads one to wonder why the US effectively stopped any future replacement designs for its ‘Teen series’ jets or indeed the venerable A10?
Whilst we have undoubtedly benefited from the production of the B varient, I’m not entirely convinced that the USMC need something this focused or expensive for what is essentially a CAS requirement on their part! Yes it can undoubtedly do the job, but, the costs are horrendous, also, if not the B varient, then what to replace the Harrier with? A conundrum I imagine.
I think you make raise some valid points and from what I have read with the regards to the A10, the USAF do not believe it is survivable against a modern adversary and will only grow more expensive to maintain as time goes by as parts were last manufactured decades ago. Rather than designing replacements for the teen series they have proposed buying even cheaper options for the low intensity and COIN type scenarios.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/10289/three-planes-will-square-off-in-the-usafs-light-attack-experiment
An interesting read tavm. Will be very interesting to see which way the
US decides to go with this.
I think they will also push hard for a slightly more capable design too, a F16 replacement if you like, wIth the aim of perhaps a high-medium-low mix of capabilities. Just speculating of course, but the rest of NATO needs to up its game too, take some responsibilities instead of just relying on the USA.
utterly fantastic. move over frenchies with your obsolete de gaulle you can scrap it now and marvel at the mighty u.k with two supercarriers
Frenchie here.
CdG has Asters, Rafales with Meteor and nuclear missiles, long range projection and AtA refueling, proper AEW Hawkeyes and a newly refit ship. I agree that 1 is not enough but I would hope my British friends agree it is not too shabby a CSG.
It’s not, it’s impressive.
I think you will find that many are a little jealous of your capabilities, if the truth be told!
It may only be one, but it’s a pretty good one!
And Rafale with Exocet missiles… for naval warfare that’s a match point..
CdG and it’s battlegroup are a genuinely impressive asset, the only issue I have with it is that it’s so expensive that there’s only 1, which means limited availability, and the only reason I harp on that point is because people seem to think Nuclear is all positives with no draw backs.
Total waste of money and resources. Can be sunk with one missile.
I think you have all forgot that the F35s are all sheared with the RAF, The few F35s we do have can all deploy on one Carrier (they were designed to carry up to 70 airframes.) but with both carries active they will only deploy with a much reduced airwing as the RAF also have to keep their commitments up.
if ever the money did become available a better solution would be for the RAF to have the F35A’s a far cheaper version so then the poultry few F35B’s we do have could be fully committed to the RN.
Hello Jay, I think you might be overstating your case a little, The QE and PoW carriers are good but could be better, they are the centre piece of the RN’s surface fleet so with all that demand to be at sea they should be Nuclear powered, The Americans and the French under stand that so why can’t we!!. secondly we need more types of aircraft, like the Osprey which has a better range and lift capacity and speed than the Merlin’s. The RN has taken a large step forward but how much further forward would we be if the… Read more »
Why should they be nuclear powered? It’s overrated for carriers; escorts aren’t nuclear powered, nor are the aircraft or crews.
If they were nuclear powered we would only have one. And even fewer escorts for it. All for no significant increase in capabilities over a conventionally-powered carrier.
Hello Steve, Fuel carried to run the vessel takes up a lot of space, space that could be used to carry extra fuel for the aircraft on board allowing the carrier to stay on station longer. The amount of money spent in the development costs for the engines for the QE/PoW far out strips the cost of 4 nuclear (2 for each carrier) engines, the same engines that go into the SSNs. Like the SSN’s fresh water is in ample supply so there is no need to fill up with fresh water as well. The Americans have had CVN’s since… Read more »
Search this on Navy Lookout.
The reasons HMS Queen Elizabeth is not nuclear poweredVery educational rather than subjective.
Hi there, A good read but a lot of it you have to take with a pinch of salt, for example in the first chapter “Tactical” the QE is already sailing vast distances around the world and this is set to continue with the current government insisting we show the flag around the world (especially around the Pacific). Some of the Financial argument is a bit one sided as it dose not take into account the development costs to date of the propulsion systems in the QEC just a one off cost of filling up with diesel, you then have… Read more »
I think the constant production run of Nuclear submarines is keeping the training of Nuclear engineers going.
We dont want too many of them as each one is a potential security leak from such programs!
Hello James. We are all potential security leaks, our own government wants to invite our potential enemy into the hart of out Nuclear programme.
We want our carriers to be able to dock anywhere.
They need supplying regularly anyway, so nuclear doesn’t really help.
We use nuclear-powered vessels for where they are useful (submarines).
Worth noting that if they where Nuclear powered, we’d have only gotten 1, and then we’d only have a carrier available some of the time. Like the French.
Not a great position.
Hi there. I guess we will never know as we did not opt for the Nuclear option, so now we are left with a hi-bird option with 2 vessels. The basic numbers for any class should be 3, 1 at sea, 1 in port ready to deploy, 1 in maintenance/refit.
As we have no reserve fleet if we do have a problem (damage/accident) then it takes months to put right or if the vessel is lost years to put right. But we have to run with what we have got and like you said 2 is better that 1.
No, but we can compare to similar projects in other Navies, The MN has a similar budget and size to the RN, and has now twice chosen to go for a Nuclear design, in both cases resulting in a fleet with only 1 carrier (plus a heavy reliance on the US for pilot training due to CATOBAR). We can also compare with Gerald Ford. Okay CVN-78 is bigger, is build with CATOBAR and has several new and innovative technologies built in all of which drives the price up, but at the end of the day CVN-78 was twice the cost… Read more »
Hello Dern, The RN is also reliant on the Americans for training, Pilots and ground crew are we not. Plus with only one type of fixed wing aircraft the QEC are very limited to the type roles it can take on, we have gone down the STOVL route so we should be augmenting our carriers with a mix of aircraft like the MV22 Osprey which can fit a hole F35 Engine in is hold, the Merlin’s cannot. It also has for more range and payload than the Merlin’s. The USS Ford (CVN-78) is I agree well over the original budget… Read more »
Not entirely. We where reliant on the USN to keep our pilots current during the carrier “holiday” we took between 2010 and 2018. Without that it would have taken a lot longer to regenerate our Carrier capability when the QE’s came online. The difference is that during the periods that we actually have carriers we don’t need US aid in keeping our crews competent because 1) STOVL requires nowhere near as many flying hours to be competent as CATOBAR and 2) with multiple decks it’s easier to find the time to keep pilots current. MV22 Ospreys are ridiculously expensive though… Read more »
We are effectively keeping a reserve fleet already as we have a number of T23’s laid up for spear parts and at least 1 T45 has been canalised to keep the others at sea. The modern Frigate and Destroyer is not designed to take incoming (they have no armour) so with any engagement that involves them taking punishment will soon take them out of the operational fleet with no possibility of replacements around the corner the war of attrition will be a short run affair. I am not saying we need a massive reserve fleet but what I am saying… Read more »
Um. 5 Are deployed in UK Waters, 2 are attached to the CSG, 4 are in refit/regular maintenance, and 1 is fwd deployed. This is exactly in line with the 2 operationally available 1 in refit/maint ratio that most navies aim for. None of them are laid up for spare parts. The Type 45’s are slightly worse, with 2 deployed, 1 ready to deploy and 3 in maint/refit. Dauntless was laid up when the RN was short of crew, but it hasn’t been cannibalised and is now having it’s engines upgraded in the PIP program. Again, the cost of maintaining… Read more »
Hello Dern, It is common practice to take parts from a vessel that is in refit to keep the vessels at sea going but this practice keeps the vessel in refit longer and just compounds the problem as it take the vessel in refit longer to get back to sea to replace the ones who then need to get into refit. Crew shortages have played there part but it dose not takeaway the fact that the T45’s have spent more time along side than they have at sea. With the extremely limited number of vessels the RN has been left… Read more »
So you think it’s commonplace to strip the components of a ship that is being upgraded? The Type 23’s have also spent more time alongside than at sea, they only average about 180days at sea, so that’s a bit of a moot criticism. The only ships in the Navy that can manage a positive sea-port ratio IIRC are the Rivers. If anything the RN has gotten better availability from it’s fleet in recent years than other navies, and it works hard to do so. Getting a “mothball” fleet would directly undermine this (again and be expensive something we can’t afford).… Read more »
Hello Dern, The Co-operation as you put it would have a good test if the RN is deployed on a UK only engagement like the Falklands, I just wonder how far that Co-operation would be extended then.? I agree 100% the QEC are not Commando Carrier but with the present F35 availability that is effectively what they become. If telling the truth is being a Troll I had better check myself in the mirror and look for horns!! The availability of ships is improving in the RN but that is as a direct result of the carriers coming on line… Read more »
By definition “UK only” won’t have co-operation because it’s UK only. If you are comparing to the Falklands, you mean like when the Americans gave us access to their Satellite imagery? Sorry but you seem to be ignoring what I say, they are not Commando Carriers or Helicopter carriers and saying so is what I’d class as devolving into trolling. They are a fully fledged Carriers which have a better airwing already than their predecessors. Of course the Rivers are not Frigates, that is why they have such great availability. Rivers don’t fill the role of Frigates, they fill the… Read more »
The Americans also gave use the latest Sidewinders so that we could test them out in the Falklands, but what they did not give us is personnel on board our vessels which is the problem we have at the moment. But with the uptake increasing for personnel hopefully that will be remedied in the not to distant future. Yes the QE has deployed with more aircraft than were on the Invincible class but it dose not take away the fact that half of the F35’s on board her are from the USMC, The Rivers are a good class but are… Read more »
Except that we don’t rely on US personnel on board our ships. We do the occasional exchange program which is co-operation, but if all US personnel went home tomorrow the RN could continue. You are confusing the odd exchange program with “we need the US to man our ships” which we do not. So where you incensed when Illustrious deployed with a USMC Harrier Squadron on board? Ho boy, no they haven’t. River B1s: Doing Fisheries protection and monitoring Channel transits. Does not require a Frigate. ATP(N) : Humanitarian Relief and Drug interception. Does not Require a Frigate. Mediterranean Patrol:… Read more »
We have been cross decking equipment and personnel with the US since WW1 and with other allies as well since the turn of the last century. But it was the Canadian Navy that helped us out in the 2000’s with personnel based on our ships as there was a shortage of RN trained personnel. The USN and USMC has helped us over the low point in the RNs history since the 2010 government wiped out of UK’s Naval airpower. We are now starting to stand on our own feet again but to be fully independent is going to take a… Read more »
You’re behind on your Rivers. The Batch 2’s where originally meant to replace the Batch 1’s but no longer, the Batch 1’s are now all recommissioned into the RN. I’ve literally listed every single tasking Rivers are on, and only one of them, ATP(N) was previously done by a frigate. Please explain why patrolling the Caribbean on constabulary and HADR duties requires a frigate. Contrary to what you’ve said, the Rivers are perfect for the roles assigned to them. I know it’s been a long time since we had a 2,000t frigate, that description is of a River B2, which… Read more »
The fact of the matter is that they are being deployed to areas like the Black Sea, Pacific, Middle East were there is a strong possibility of getting incoming so with the lack of armament and sensing equipment we are putting our most precious commodity, our brave men and women who staff these vessels in harms way were if they were on a more heavily armed vessel which has the ability to at least detect incoming they will have a better chance of getting through the encounter. The River’s are glorified guard ships that should be guarding our extensive coast… Read more »
I’ve posted exactly where each River is posted, what their tasks are and you’ve literally got no response to that, it’s like talking to a brick wall.
None of them are deployed to high risk areas, and if you REALLY are that concerned about it, why not mention of the MCMV’s in the gulf hrm?
(Hilarious btw that you say that HMS Spey (not Spay) is doing it’s designed job, for a number of reasons. Pretty much showing you don’t know what you’re talking about when it comes to the Rivers.)
I did not mention the MCMV’s based in the gulf because we are talking about the River class batch 2’s being under armed and with very little sensing equipment being asked to go to places were a better armed vessel would fair better. So the Black sea is not a high risk area, the Middle East, is not a high risk area !! To return the conversation back to the carriers, it is the same as sending one of the carriers to sea without proper escort or sufficient aircraft, Oh but that is the current view point.!! The problem is… Read more »
Plus the fact that most countries on deployment jollies would refuse us entry too most ports of call because their the Devils energy (Nuclear) nukes don’t use shore supply Fossil fuel does 1 is a lose, lose 2 is a win,win
I know Steve they should have been Nuclear but Can’t wait too see Extinction Rebellion trying too block the Flight deck during any flying stations it will be worth the Fossil fuel being used by both Carriers whoops Heads will roll along with other body parts
Hello Tommo, You are right, may be we could get David Attenborough to make a documentary of them getting pushed off the flight deck then with the money we could buy some extra F35s
I’d even hose down and conduct a Bod plod rotarblades can avf throw bits of the Anatomy at full revs they would be extinct
Sounds like reality TV to me
I doubt if they at Ofcom would allow a second episode Steve
They allow Jeromy Kyle to keep going!!!
Please don’t Judge me as a person who does not Have his finger on the pulse of Today’s daytime TV society but I’m sure I saw said Jeremy stacking shelves at Tescos Steven
So many problems with nuclear propulsion for a carrier – and just one theoretical advantage – you don’t have to refuel one ship in the CSG by RAS every 19,000km.
Steven, nuclear power should only be for long range subs. The Americans and French do not have better judgement than us in fitting nuclear propulsion to carriers – we weighed this up and favoured conventional power. The one advantage of nuclear power for a carrier is that you do not have to refuel at sea one vessel in yor CSG every 19,000km. There is no speed advantage in nuclear propulsion and even if there were it is irrelevant as the carrier cannot go faster than the slowest escorting ship (some of those MCMVs are slow). Disadvantages: higher purchase price, higher… Read more »
Hello Graham, I am sorry but you are wrong on so many levels. The advantage of a carrier having a good burst of speed is not to out pace its escorts but to lunch its aircraft as you need a good breeze over the deck to help lift the aircraft that are heavy with armaments and fuel so need all the help the ship can muster. Having a more nuclear vessels especially carriers take commitment from the government and that commitment is just not there as the RN and the armed forces in general are just seen by our political… Read more »
The RAF has deployed STOVL aircraft on carriers for over 40 years. Do you fear that they may not do so in future? I don’t think the RAF has much by way of commitments for their F35s outside of carrier operations.
Hello Graham, What I am saying is because there are so few of them the demand put on them from the 2 carriers and the RAF wishing to deploy ( the resent deployment to Cyprus comes to mind) will have a rather negative affect on the few airframes we do have. As I stated above the RAF would do better with the F35A as it is considerably cheaper than the STOVL F35B’s. This would leave the RAF and RN able to deploy independently and have less stress on the airframes. The USMC are already finding it hard to get the… Read more »
Hello Stephen, There are few F-35s in British service at the moment, about 18 I believe, and many of those are in the training organisation. But that will change over time. We are likely to get 60-80 in service rather than the 138 originally ‘promised’. It will be a very rare occurence that both carriers are at sea at the same time – and I have heard some claim that there will only be one active air wing, that being deployed on the at-sea carrier – not sure if that us true. I did not know that the RAF had… Read more »
Hello Graham, The numbers banded around at the moment is 48 based at RAF Marham for RAF/RN front line use, also the government have stated that both carriers will be used at the same time or at least one in /one out routine, so with this amount of airframes the turn around is going to be high not to mention the back to back deployments for the pilots and ground crew. The Tempest is some way off 2030+ in the meantime I would have thought it would be better for the RAF to have a couple of squadrons of the… Read more »
Evening Steven, whilst it looks extremely attractive having some A varients if we could afford them, it won’t happen. Given that the F35s are supposed to be a replacement for both the SHAR (58ish) and Tornadoes (64ish), the numbers we are going to purchase 70-80, do not make it a cost effective choice to have 2 varients. The B can do everything that the A can, albeit at a slightly reduced range and payload. Whereas the A can’t operate off of a carrier, which is the main requirement for this aircraft. Perhaps if we were buying say 150+airframes, then a… Read more »
Hi there. I agree absolutely that we need more more airframes the 48 that the government have committed to (at the moment) just will not cut it. If we do end up with the numbers originally talked about (130+) then it would solve the problem but the government are now talking of 100+ over the lifetime of the program but only having 48 for front line duty at any one time. So my read on that (I may be wrong I oftern am) is as the lose airframes from wear and tear/ accidental loss they will be replaced to keep… Read more »
Are you a farmer? Sheared, poultry? 🤣
Yes Mr Troll, get a life
😂
😆😆😆
Quite a bit of negativity on this story, and if truth be told quite a few “one story” newbies who aren’t seen on other stories. Possible trolls, yes of course as we all have come across Mike, who is the regular saddo troll with numerous previous avatars but all whining the same chuff in the same, easy to spot, way. Anyway some of the negative posts are from many who clearly don’t understand the military. Being declared operational doesn’t mean it sits in port with a full crew, all in glass cases, a shit load of F35s and Merlins on… Read more »
👆 So much this. It just seems like every time certain stories come up we get the same 2-3 posts by new accounts that spout the same guff “carriers without aircraft” and then get spitty when called on it.
It’s annoying and tiresome at this point.
Not shocked though that you don’t keep your grenades in your sock drawer, I keep mine in the fruit bowel.
Dead right! Easy to spot trolls! As for grenades, where else but the fruit bowl? Ideal snack for when the mother in law pops over 😇
I think my sense of humour and tolerance for trolls has been greatly reduced since George was driven to take a break from SM by the constant repetition of stupid comments (mostly the big three “Aircraft Carrier No Aircraft”, “13 Frigates on the Clyde” and most of all “Sink the Migrants in the channel”).
Personally would hate to see him loose interest in the site as well…
Those are some of the key words which flag up on a trolls lap and gets them all excited! Does get boring mate doesn’t it, sad and lonely or Russkie pets earning a few bucket of spuds and 2 litre seed of petrol!
Typo on the last word? Amusing though.
XD Yeah, didn’t even notice that, might start spelling bowl like that in future.
Have you also decided to spell lose with an extra o? 😉
To be fair, the quality and content of your posts are enough to give the trolls loose bowel movements…
XD as long as I don’t lose my bowls.
Thanks Lusty, that’s a high compliment coming from yourself.
Hah!
You’re welcome. Thanks!
So let me get this straight. If you are negative you are a troll and you don’t understand the military. Even though you have spent many years in the military and even come from a military family. I find it truly amazing that people like you know so much about people because they have posted something you don’t agree with. You must have spent many years in the Royal navy to be such an expert on it. However with the name airborne, I might assume that you may have been in another one of the services. Just for your information… Read more »
Mate take that chip off your shoulder and re-read my post. I’m talking about the number of one story posters on here and the previous trolls we known and have come across. So stop being aggressive, make an effort to understand what is being said and do stop giving the history lessons please. And, if I’m being straight, why haven’t you made an informed debate defending your initial comments? That’s what comments are for, interacting and interesting debate!
Mate, I haven’t got a chip on my shoulder. I put a post on this site, and was immediately attacked. That does not bode well serious debate. That’s why I haven’t entered into any. For the record, I am pro defence. We need a serious increase in defence spending. I don’t think many on here knew that before attacking me. People start spouting drivel and they don’t even know you. As previously stated, father ex parachute regiment, me Royal navy, son out in the gulf on the Montrose. But eh, what do I know. Re positive spin. We have a… Read more »
The perception people get is that you have posted the usual “negative waves man” and that’s fine but when knowledgeable and experienced posters in that subject matter respond with facts and informative replies you go quiet, don’t address what they said and continue the negativity. That’s fine I couldn’t care less, but on ANY comments site that sort of behaviour is usually trolls. Anyway as for warfare, all militaries are the smallest they have ever been, you show me a military which has increased its manpower and assets. (And before you say China, no China hasn’t, its increased its tech)… Read more »
Perception and assumption on here is rife. People attack others because of it. Because other contributers are in your words knowledgeable and experienced posters does not mean that they are right. Or is they just have the same opinion as you so they must be right. I have never mentioned where I live or what I do for a living but assumptions have been made I am out of touch. I spoke with my son who is in the gulf on the Montrose this morning. There is a place not very far from me who are doing a lot of… Read more »
Mate you need to calm your pants, don’t take things personal. This could go on for ages. I’m not going to chase this boring subject much longer but you have already stated you served pre 80s and during. Now even if you did 30 plus years plus, your personal experience is now outdated, and things have changed. You seem to latch onto certain comments and argue. I’m saying your knowledge and experience while maybe be considerable is now not current. Simple as that. Even if you are the head shed of a certain modern project, you could be heading up… Read more »
Hi airborne, I aren’t taking it personally. I take it from your name and where you live you are not an ex naval man. Believe it or not technology does not go that fast in the RN. Trident submarines in commission today where designed in the 80’s. Anybody who served in the RN in the 80’s would be very familiar with what’s on board today, I know because I have been on board one. Also the type 23 frigates in the RN were designed in the 80’s. The vickers 4.5 inch gun is 70’s technology, so are the harpoon ssm,… Read more »
Thanks for the reply. I’m an interested observer on regard to the RN, I have to say. My knowledge is I would hope a little more than most but not as in depth as many. But for me the Army was where my knowledge stems from, and while the Army can seem a cumbersome dinosaur on occasion some of the innovations, equipment, tactics and thought process are indeed quite advanced. Even down to the weapons and communication kit can change the way you think and fight, even from section level and upwards to larger formations. My main point was that… Read more »
Look. We all know defence funding isn’t where it should be. Yes, we would all love to have 3-4 carriers and 40-50 escort ships, 20 subs and 200+ F35s, but it’s simply not going to happen. Defence had a spending increase last year, equivalent to £4 billion a year. More than any of us thought it would get. Yes, it’s still not enough, pretty much just takes care of the black hole in procurement, but it’s better than not having it. Rather than just bemoaning it all, we focus on the positives. Defence seems to slowly be going in the… Read more »
Well said, totally agree.
If we just moan for the sake of moaning might as well not bother following defence and take up knitting.
Thanks Daniele , come come, now if us Brits aren’t queuing, then we’re Moaning .it’s in our National psycic and we’re bloody good at it . Just look at every garage Forcourt naff said too much enjoyment for me and I’ll moan about this little post later
Good lad.
I’ll moan about that reply as well Daniele Could do better
More F35’S yes, 4 more t45, 4 more T26 plus the t31&32 for patrol work plus biggest plus for me would be an Ocean replacement ideally something like the HMAS Canberra that could in emergency act as lilypad for F35
Well said pal. 🇬🇧👍
The Royal Australian Navy has a bone to pick with that second last paragraph
Correct. You aren’t allowed to be critical or question the PR bollox of press releases. If you do you are instantly branded a troll. Or a Russian bot.
Not at all, but most people on here can relate the various stories to their own personal experience and able to argue a point quite well. Anyone can moan about stuff being crap but grown ups say why its crap and in their experience what can be done about it. Always amusing to see excellent technical answers to posts and then see no constructive response.
Completely off-topic I know, but this might be of interest to some?
“Rheinmetall MAN Military Vehicles HX3 seen fitted with a full-scale mock-up of its new remote controlled turret armed with a 155 mm/60 calibre ordnance in travelling configuration. (Rheinmetall)”
Looks great, the Army should order 200 now…we lack firepower in all areas..
It definitely looks the part that’s for sure!
Would make sense, considering we have and are buying 7,000 of those trucks…
I bet that beast wouldn’t queue at Tescos Garage far too threatening
No, they’d go to Sainsbury’s, they have fuel!🤣🤣
Didn’t see that one coming Nectar points as well unlucky Clubcard holders
THEY DO!!! I got a tip off from the wife yesterday. The queue moved quickly, was minimal, and there was even a member of staff directing cars to pumps.
Happy bunny here, was starting to wonder if I’d get to work later in the week.
Good news but…we have two carriers at sea but they are a long way from being operational We currently have 21 F35’s. Another 27 are on order for delivery ending in the mid twenties. Of the 21 three are in the U.S., two are trials aircraft and five are reserved for training so we have an operational strength of eleven to embark on two super carriers.
Not being picky, but….Both are operational. Both are capable of taking air assets! Both are capable of operating and deploying UK and NATO air assets on operations. Both are fully trained Ed and crewed. So please with respect explain your definition of none operational? Just because we, at the moment have only one air wing capable of deploying on one carrier why is the other not capable of being used by our NATO allies if required? Cheers.
People tend to forget We have choppers that can do countless number of missions.. What was ocean all about if not…
I accept what you’re saying in the sense that the ships are crewed but, and there always is a but…they are not able to act as strike carriers which is what they were built for. I repeat. We have eleven F35b’s and the rest will arrive four or five at a time over the next few years. America is the only ally with F35b’s and they already make up the bulk of the air wing on Q.E. so where are the other aircraft coming from? The assumption being made here also is that the R.A.F. will not need to use… Read more »
Totally agree, we need more of most things, but my point was the POW is classed as operational and able to deploy either with or without our Allies on board, dependent on the mission/task. But it was never the plan to operate both with air wings I believe. But I do understand the slow rate of F35 delivery ( but within the correct timescales) does help with the cost of not having to upgrade the ones already delivered to block IV.
We can embark commando choppers, army choppers navy choppers… chinook, wildcat, merlin, Apache,
…..and without fighter protection they are waiting to be shot out of the sky. In any case we don’t have anything like enough choppers as it is. We have about two dozen each of Merlin commando and Merlin ASW and something around twenty Wildcat available for deployment and that is across all R.N. ships. Chinook is a troop carrier with no defence of it’s own. Apache is very capable but has a ROA of only 160 ‘ish miles including loiter time. Choppers only is just not feasible.
I’m just going to put this here as a catch all comment for most of the standard comments you would expect from an article like this (e.g. “No aircraft” or “Need 3” etc. Britain has never intended to operate both carriers simultaneously (at least not permanently) there is a saying in the naval communities about carriers (although it can be extended to most ships). 1 is none 2 is 1 3 is 2 4 is 2 5 is 3 etc. With two vessels the RN can maintain one Continuously available Carrier with each rotating each year (2021 = QE, 2022… Read more »
The Strike Carrier masquerading as a Commando carrier idea has been shelved,. Apparently it was felt that it wasn’t a good idea after all…….
Why can’t you idiots realise our Carriers are built around Stealth Aircraft!
No wonder they are invisible on the upper deck…
At Last thanks Reaper that’s why FD crew form a line across the FD and walk Aft not for Fod plods ,but too locate the Stealth fighters their that Stealthy you can’t see them till you bump into them
Good to know. Great progress with a 2nd carrier fully operational. Missed seeing her at Pompey on the webcam. (https://www.nmrn.org.uk/warrior-webcam)
Oh FFS… For those one posting, one account wonders, being “operational” in the RN actually means squat. You can be tied up alongside with your engines on the jetty and be “Operational.” The RN measures and works with Ships that have “Operational Capability”. You look at what the ship can do and allocate the ship tasking accordingly. You consider what it can do, what it cannot do, what defects it is carrying, what level of crew training it is at, what its equipment fit is, what its FTR state is, examine the Risk associated with its tasking and decide if… Read more »
A very informative post 👍
But we all really know why we can’t flatten Murmansk don’t we?
We have no aircraft😂
CASD? 😀
Trust you to be able to put things so succinctly while retaining your cool GB.
I’m as negative as anyone about the state of the countries defences but even I can see the positive of the POW being declared operational. Can’t believe this is being spun as a negative story by some!
The navy is the only service that seems to have any long term plan that it shows signs of actually succeeding with! A long way to go but at least they seem to be on the right track!
The army though, oh man, a classic British farce in the good old Carry On style… 🤦
“Can’t believe this is being spun as a negative story by some!”
Some, not all, have an “agenda”
Agree on all points.
As an ex-Army man and one who spent a few years at Abbey Wood your last line was painful to read but it was not just army officers responsible for AFV procurement debacles – certain civil servants, politicians, DGDQA, HM Treasury and DE&S as a whole all played their parts.
There have been RAF projects go wrong too – Nimrod AEW, Nimrod MRA4, those SF helicopters… Somehow the Naval projects go well; I wonder what the magic ingredient is?
Its the sea air…it defuddles your brain!
To state clearly I have never been in the military but respect all aspects of our armed forces personnel. Reading this report i find it to be a postive news story and fail to understand the negativity by some. Refarding the finances. In the 1980’s when we supposedly had a defence budget of over 5% our economy was in the doldrums. Looking back i think 5% defence budget was around £28 billion. Our economy is now around £2.8 Trillion and so defence budget is around £56 billion. At 2%. We would all love 5% of £2.8 trillion spent on defence… Read more »
So QE will go into an extended dry docking when CSG 21 is over, no doubt
Whats happened to #22 to #27 ?
They were supposed to be here by now..
Slightly of topic but Australia has a new AAW system that is focused on countering the drone threat.
This video clip show a successful trial of the system.
Cheers CR
I saw that lol, no doubt the Chinese will have a copy of it soon enough 😅
Great to see the senior service going in the right direction. Entirely sensible to wait for the next F35 order too, block 4 upgrades too expensive, and per unit costs of the aircraft are coming down.
It has been openly stated that we will have 70+ F35Bs (hopefully nearer 90) so we will have 2 very capable carriers that can be operated at once should the need arise. Fantastic I say.
Add to that T26, T31, T45 upgrades, T32, SSNR, dreadnought, FSS, MRSS, plus missile development. The 2020s and 30s really are the RNs best in a long long time.
Hello Rob, It is good to see the RN getting new and up to date kit for a change, but after 50 years of being slammed by the political elite from both sides of the house it is going to take some time to make good the short falls that now beset the RN. As far as the order book for the F35s though I’m afraid the orders still stack up to only 48 front line airframes for RAF Marham for the RN/RAF. The QE and PoW were designed to carry 70+ airframes/ vessel so there is going to be… Read more »
450 million for type 31? Where are you getting these numbers? I see 268 including GFE.
Hello Chris, Babcock are just building the basic vessel then the MoD will put on the “extras”, bringing the actual price /vessel £400m to £450M
You need to cite a source for this to claim it.
The current contract is 1.25bn for the vessels plus 18m per ship of GFE, which is 1.33bn total cost.
It’s a fixed price contract.
Hello Chris, The only part that is fixed is the build costs but even that has gone from £250m/vessel to £280m/vessel with the current CEO of Babcock stating that is now fixed and will raze no more, but the demob and referb of the equipment from the T23s to go into the T31’s is getting bigger by the day.
For the 3rd time, you need to cite a source or you are just spreading fake news.
Hello Chris, The National Audit Office (NAO) is a good place to start. The only fake new being spread is the belief that the RN/UK’s armed forces is fit for propose, after being slammed by our political elite for the last 40 years it is a shell of its former self having to rely of foriegn powers for manpower and logistical support. We are tied into big companies to carry out the jobs that were ones completed inhouse, but they look at the forces as a cash cow and double/triple the price of the most basic of services so what… Read more »
“We are tied into big companies to carry out the jobs that were ones completed inhouse, but they look at the forces as a cash cow and double/triple the price of the most basic of services so what little money is being spent on our armed forces ends up in the hands of private companies.”
This is spot on in my view. Look at Tempest announcement recently. Yes GB building its own fighter jet is desirable, but the cuts happen right away, and the carrot, will it ever appear.
Meanwhile, the cash has gone.
Hello Daniele, It has happed right across all sectors of the Armed Forces, from using private contractors to ferry VIP officers in Iraq and Afghanistan, to having companies following the fleet around the world to service vessels on deployment. Yes we have always had a need for specialists from the private sector but we seemed to have gone down this path were the private sector is one of the main beneficiary’s of the Armed forces budget, that and the leaders of our armed forces getting rather large pay rises, we look at the NHS and see the guys on the… Read more »
Most of the extra cost is to factor in cost of a maintenance contract for each T31 over the life of the vessel. Not a up-front cost.
What would you cut in the Navy’s budget to find the extra (lets pretend the 450m figure for T-31 is correct, even though it isn’t) 3.7billion for those extra T-26s?
Because if you have only 1 carrier you have to hope that you’ll never need it when it’s in maintenance.
With 2 carriers, even if you don’t have the airwings for both of them (the UK will have enough F-35’s to operate both with larger airwings than the Invincibles btw), you still have the ability to deploy a CSG anywhere in the world at short notice when a crisis happens.
Meanwhile the French don’t have a carrier for about half the year because of routine maintenance, and even longer when it’s in drydock.
Don’t know why you bother mate! It’s been pointed out over and over on here it’s not all about airframes.
Still if people can’t be bothered to read the whole thread I suppose they will still keep spouting about it.
Honestly I’m amazed I’m as patient as I am.
You’re needed, so keep at it.
Cheers, I don’t like it when I snap though.
Building on your point, if both vessels deploy together, do they mirror each other with a reduced air wing?
Or would one act as a conventional carrier and the other as an amphibious “commando carrier” , with a mixed helo force?
I imagine circumstance would likely determine the mix.
It would be tasked org’d around the available assets and the mission requirements.
Cheers- thx Dern
Hello Dern. As I stated above we need to get the length of the build times down to a more competitive rate, We are currently building frigates/destroyer’s at about 10 years/vessel the Europeans and the Americans are building just as complex vessels in 5 years which halves the costs so we could build our T26 , all 13 of them with the current budget for the T26/T31 build and have all 13 vessels out doing what they are supposed to do in half the time.
In fairness, the build rate for the City class is deliberately slow to avoid boom/bust, and to deal with in year budgets. Glasgow will take 7-8 years to build which could probably be sped up to around 5 years build, but then you have the problem in the 2030’s that we had in the 2010’s of “how to keep the workforce on the Clyde.” Now this would of course be somewhat off set by having 5 extra hulls to build, but only creates problems on the other side of Scotland where suddenly the Inspiration’s workforce is unemployed. While speeding up… Read more »
Hello Dern. We are singing from the same sheet, It is too late to stop the T31’s but what we should be doing that was not done in the 2010s is push ahead with the National Ship Building Program and if we are seen as competitive then that will bring in foreign orders as well. So to be seen as cost affective and value for money we have to keep our build times down to approximatly 5 years/Vessel (frigate/destroyer size) and by keeping the orders books full with confirmed orders we can even look a reopening yards such as Belfast… Read more »
But building the Type 31’s is in line with the National Ship Building Program, in fact it’s almost a poster child for it. They are cost effective ships that can be build quickly and by the looks of it will be followed by a evolutionary design made by Babcock straight after they finish. In fairness Belfast is looking to re-open, with a bid for the FSS, so that’s hopefully achieved. Again, the problem is balancing budget, industrial strategy and RN needs. It would be great to have builds take 5 years and spit out ships on the regular and us… Read more »
The NSBP is about having a joined up approach to ship building so that all of the Yards are not wholly dependent on the Civil market or the Military market but hold a mixed portfolio, so the quicker you can build the more likely you are to get more orders. The only exception to that is Barrow as it is the sole builder of Sub’s in the UK and it has its books full at the moment with the present build program but again we could do more by getting other yards building SSK’s for the UK and overseas.
No mention of that in the fact sheet,
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/642419/04092017a_NSBS_Factsheet.pdf
Nor can I see any mention of having yards with mixed military and civilian portfolios in the actual document:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/643873/NationalShipbuildingStrategy_lowres.pdf
Hello Dern. On the contrary the MoD Fact sheet hints quit a bit at filling the spear capacity in the yard with civilian orders but it is a fact sheet for the military so covers military matters. It also mentioned multiple yards to be able to sustain the projected build for the RN and the shipbuilding industry but the fact is at the moment all of our surface ships are built in Scotland with the NW of England responcible for the construction of our Submarines, so for the BSBP to come to reality we need to open more yards like… Read more »
Steven, the link is there, everyone can see it, you might be reading “civilian contracts” into it, but it doesn’t say a thing about it.
Yes, it does mention multiple yards, but geographic location doesn’t matter. Currently the UK has surface shipbuilding projects in three yards under way (Rosyth, Govan, Scotstoun) and CL and H&W Belfast are bidding. That is “multiple shipyards.” Doesn’t matter that they are in the same region, that’s not part of the NSS.
Opening more yards? Lets focus on keeping our current yards in business first shall we, before going off and playing fantasy admiral.
The fantasy element comes into the equation thinking that by building the surface fleet in Scotland will keep the SNP from pushing for independence,
The fantasy element also come in thinking that a ship building yard is going to reopen on the promise of building 4 RFA’s.
The UK need sustainability and with the the vessel number being so low in the RN/RFA we need the civilian and foreign orders to keep the yards open.
It is better to collect the taxes off of working shipwrights than to pay them to site at home on the dole.
Sorry that the fact that we are in a Union doesn’t work for you.
Also sorry that you are not keeping track of the RN’s build programs.
However just because you don’t like that fact, and you aren’t keeping track of them, it doesn’t make them fantasies.
I see that you are arguing that we stop building ships in Scotland and stop acting like it’s part of the union. Which is a non-starter. Even if it was, you seem to want to have your cake and eat it too: More ships, bigger ships, move the shipyards. Hence why I said you are playing fantasy ships, because you are imagining a limitless budget and just things you want with no consideration to the reality of the situation. Your troll response is much like what you get when you argue with a flat earther “Just because you have facts… Read more »
At no point have a said we should stop building ships in Scotland, what I have eluded to however is for the UK to have a more measured ship building programme involving yards around the hole of the UK.
I think you need to stop riding around on that high horse of yours and start looking at the world from ground level.
With that its time to bid farewell as I might fall off the edge of the world soon.
One carrier is always in maintenance, the airplanes are not. First 6mo they are tied to QE, second 6mo tied to Pow.
If the ship is in dry dock, there is no point at all of having airplanes dedicated to it, it can’t go anywhere.
The US Navy only has enough airplanes for 9 carrier air wings. They have 11 CATOBAR carriers and 9 flat top STOVL carriers. More than half the ships are in maintenance at any time.
“We are now a fully-fledged strike carrier”
He’s stretching the point. She’s a helicopter carrier able to operate a few F-35B’s for training duties. Embarking a squadron of F-35B’s for operations would require a lot of important kit to be transferred from Big Lizzie – some American owned and even operated. But presumably that is likely to happen after Lizzie returns from CSG21 and has a quieter life pending her first refit.
The reality is that the UK and RN currently doesn’t have the personnel, escorts and aircraft for two simultaneously operational strike carriers to be worthwhile.
Curious. What kit is American owned and operated that we would need on Pow? Assuming you don’t mean the air group!
with both vessels declared operational, how will they complement each other?
Will one act as a conventions carries with the other vessel acting as a “super “commando carrier “. That is to say in the amphibious assault role with a mixed halo air group? Or is it feasible to undertake both tasks across the 2 ships?
I recall Hermes dong both during the 82 Falklands campaign.
Hello Klonkie, despite there being helicopters on POW, the ‘commando carrier’ concept has been dropped. The £70 million assigned to the project has now been spent elsewhere within the Navy!
Obviously the ships are still able to carry commandos, but fitted out for this role it is not. Seems someone thought it is actually a bad idea……
thanks for the reply D