It’s no secret that the F-35 has had severe cost and schedule issues.

The F-35 programme has gone through serious teething problems, problems also experienced by the majority of complex aircraft flying today such as the F-15, Typhoon or any other modern combat jet.

The biggest issue for the project continues to be the fact it is the most expensive military weapons system in history owing to the sheer scope of the programme but that being said, aircraft costs are now coming down and will soon be similar to the cost of many aircraft it’s replacing.

Today the programme is maturing rapidly, right now much of the activity around the jet is dealing with software bugs and testing to validate the software, with most of the physical testing being to do with weapons integration and the gradual scaling up of capabilities that comes with each new software block.

The jet is a quantum leap in capability, able to give the pilot as much information as only theatre commanders have previously had. While the primary value of the jet is in its sensor and networking capabilities, it is also valuable in that it’s able to perform many tasks designed to increase the lethality of not only itself but other assets, such tasks include the ability to co-ordinate small fleets of unmanned combat aircraft, guide weapons launched from other platforms (even warships), launch a wide-range of its own weapons and use it’s own radar to conduct electronic attacks.

A key element of 21st century air power is clearly working and smoothly implemented coalition operations, the F-35 provides a unique integrated air combat capability whereby coalitions of joint or allied F-35s can be supported in common. The F-35 was designed from the outset to bring these capabilities while also being interoperable across a coalition of air power.

Two networks are core to this operability: the Link-16 and the new Multi-Function Advanced Datalink (MADL). These systems allow the F-35 to communicate with nearly all current and future NATO assets.

Link-16 is currently utilised by most existing platforms fielded by NATO members and will allow F-35 to integrate seamlessly into a coalition force structure.

MADL will complement the current networks as NATO’s first high bandwidth, low probability of detect and intercept connection. The fundamental design features of MADL enable all NATO F-35s in a deployed coalition to communicate within an Anti-Access/Area Denial environment.

The potential for cooperation between the United Kingdom and coalition forces all using the F-35 variants is significant, in terms of coalition warfare the F-35 further increases the situational awareness of all parties to a greater extent than anything flying today, resulting in a quantum leap in capability for coalition forces.

Such is the aircrafts sensor and data fusion capabilities, a small number of F-35s could provide the UK and her coalition allies with situational awareness within defended airspace where platforms such as E-3 AWACS and E-8 JSTARS would be unable to operate.

F-35s could find and designate priority targets within defended airspace for a less stealthy fleet to attack from a relatively safe distance, further enhancing coalition capability.

The F-35s value is not only in its stealth or combat capability, it’s also in the flying sensor network it creates in the battle space.

The ability of the F-35 to drastically improve the combat capability of other assets was demonstrated recently when an F-35 and Aegis Weapon System worked together during a live fire exercise, with the F-35 passing sensor data to another platform which then engaged the target.

The exercise was the first live fire missile event that successfully demonstrated the integration of the F-35 to support Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air and represent a very promising exploration into the interoperability of the F-35 with other naval assets.

It is my opinion that the F-35 will drastically increase the situational awareness and combat capabilities of the forces with which it will deploy and for the UK, where numbers may be a concern, it represents a fantastic way to enhance combat capability in any coalition or national effort.

There is no denying that jet is overbudget and behind schedule compared to original estimates but an incredibly capable platform is emerging and one that I believe will shape the future of air combat.

65
Leave a Reply

avatar
20 Comment threads
45 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
21 Comment authors
Nigel CollinsHugh JarceBenChrisSteven Richard Davies Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
Mr Bell
Guest
Mr Bell

Time to confirm a follow on order for at least another 72 of these jets for the Fleet air arm and RAF.

maurice10
Guest
maurice10

Once the carrier consignment, training, plus reserve is established, it’s anyone’s guess how many will be eventually ordered?

Tom
Guest
Tom

There are rumblings the Treasury are only commited to buy 48 F35B and then want to switch to the F35A.
Remember the Treasury has form with doing this with defence programs in promising X and only paying for Y and changing to Z for short term savings .
Look at the type 45 programme, order 12 then 10 then 8 and finally 6 to save money but still ended up spending £6 billion on 6 ships because they lengthen the build times .
But if they have kept the original order plan the cost was £6 billion but over shorter build time.

T.S
Guest

I think we should have: 1x training squadron of 12 – land based 3x squadrons of 12 for QE – 24 of which are permanently stationed on it. 1x squadron of 12 for PoW – permanently stationed This equals 60 F35b which should all belong to RN. The training squadron can then be used to surge PoW if both carriers are needed, but not likely. The RAF should then get 3-4 Squadrons of F35a after, or wait out for Tempest with a few extra typhoons while they wait. That way, we could invest the money saved on strengthening our helicopter… Read more »

Dan01
Guest
Dan01

I think that when it comes to Naval air power the RAF should be excluded from the equation. They have a different Modus Operandi and we do not want the debacle with the invincible class carriers.

Steven Richard-Davies
Guest
Steven Richard-Davies

T.S,
Totally agree with you that the FAF should have the F35A.

Steven Richard Davies
Guest
Steven Richard Davies

That should say RAF.

Daniele Mandelli
Guest
Daniele Mandelli

I do not believe 138 will be ordered. The number is meaningless like the original Typhoon requirement for 250. F35A is fine by me AS LONG as sufficient B have been procured otherwise we are not maximising our investment in the QEC. As long as we have sufficient to surge 1 Carrier and have some on the other if needed in war. 80 – 90 odd of the B. I agree they should belong to the Royal Navy. I would rather we save some of that money and use it to prevent other parts of the armed forces being further… Read more »

Chris
Guest
Chris

(Chris H) I never understand why people proffer the F-35A version as having any value for the UK. It has no more sensor / suppression capabilities than a B, marginally more loiter time, no more weapon capabilities and for this we give up STOVL for the RAF and buy aircraft far less capable as bomb trucks than a Typhoon? And I set aside whatever Tempest may or may not offer. From the way some comments have been phrased it seems more like “We can’t have RAF on carriers so give them something they don’t need”. Which then means of course… Read more »

Rob N
Guest
Rob N

Hi,

Yes you are quite correct we do not need F35A. It has more fuel, an internal gun anf a 9G limit. However these do not make up for missing out on VSTOL and having type uniformity and the ability to put any of our F35s on a carrier. Let the F35s spot for Typhoons and let a propper air defence fighter do its job.

Rob

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

Yep the true Marvel of the Elisabeth’s paired with the 35b is that in theory every RAF f35 pilot can be quickly qualified and deployed from a carrier. This allows us have an option to put more carrier deployed aircraft into a theatre than any other nation on earth baring the US. Even ignoring the potential of generating the second biggest carrier airwing in the world on short notice, the ability of the F35b to deploy on short civilian airfields or even from some temporary position is strategically huge. It’s bizarre to me that people see a very marginal tactical… Read more »

Ben
Guest
Ben

This very strategy – the deployment of RAF pilots and aircraft to the carriers – was absolutely key to UK success in the Falklands, against an Argentine air force with a greater number of theoretically superior aircraft.
Another lesson from the Falklands- VSTOL aircraft are superb in a dogfight, due to the ability to ‘slam on the brakes’ forcing a faster persuer to overtake whence they can be shot down from behind.
Headline performance figures are just that and have little to do with real world combat performance

Daniele Mandelli
Guest
Daniele Mandelli

Hi Chris. Your points raise lots if questions for me. I think for me it’s about costs and maximising numbers for those costs. A bit like the ongoing debate on the worth of the T31. I’m in the let’s expand numbers camp by using cheaper assets alongside the high end. The quantity vs quality gremlins keeps coming back, we have too few assets. I could expand with some questions. I believe the A is cheaper and longer ranged? Would we be using our F35 in a CAS role at all? Would they not be busy protecting the fleet in conjunction… Read more »

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

Hi Daniele, my suspicion with a small buy of F35As would be that any capital saving from slightly cheaper unit cost would be quickly eaten by all the costs associated with having another platform (parts and training pipelines), unfortunately it’s my understanding that the A and B just don’t have the commonality that would eliminate the on costs associated with two platforms. So economically it’s one or other and as we have the Carriers we should focus on the Bs. In regards to the comment from Chris on FAA pilots and planes being stripped to do CAS, I would suggest… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Guest
Daniele Mandelli

Thank you Jonathan. Interesting re costs A and B. If that is true it the case then I’m in agreement maximising the B. As for your explanation of Chris point I would say as long as someone covers it I don’t see the problem and it’s service rivalries again. That is one of the many flexibilities of a carrier. I’d also ask how on many deployments have we not had an available runway in the modern era? Given we have Mount Pleasant, Wide awake, Gibraltar, Akrotiri, Deigo Garcia as PJOB and a host of other Middle Eastern runways at our… Read more »

Chris
Guest
Chris

(Chris h) Daniele – Can I respond answering your very fair questions with questions (bear with me)? Can the A do more than a B once airborne? I suspect not other than marginally more loiter time (assuming the same ferry arrangements for both would be the same). Can the B do more than an A in total? As Jonathan points out so well simply because of the B we have been able to build two very capable carriers at some 60% the cost of one US carrier which combined will deliver more aircraft at faster sortie rates over a wider… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Guest
Daniele Mandelli

Thanks Chris. No doubt the B has the flexibility that’s without question. As for costs I really wouldn’t have a clue will be interesting to see developments! For me the killer question is if indeed the A, for sake if the debate, is markedly cheaper to procure AND operate ( which remains to be seen) is that worth it in a wider context in saving other assets from the chop? Not simply how good A is compared to B, but wider defence and money matters. For me yes. IF indeed there are savings to be made. If not then my… Read more »

BB85
Guest
BB85

The F35b maintenance costs are significantly higher that F35s due to maintenance requirements on the lift fan and the damage inflicted on the tyres when it lands. So even if there is less commonality we would still save using a less complex platform. The plan is also for a global maintenance hubs so the f35a will have more commonality with European partners. F35a is 30% cheaper out the door and has 30% more internal fuel. Once in the air it can manouver at 9g compared to 5.5g of the F35b the F35b is currently limited to Mach 1.2. The smaller… Read more »

Chris
Guest
Chris

(Chris H) BB85 – You make your argument well but I am not convinced. You come from a standpoint that seems to say we don’t need as many F-35B versions. That may well be true but if so then we don’t need as many F-35s of any type surely? if we need the 5th Gen capabilities in the numbers suggested then it makes sense to have the version with the most flexible and adaptable capabilities -= The B. And if as you say we do not need the 5th Gen in numbers suggested then we have Typhoon which is and… Read more »

Basil Barnes
Guest
Basil Barnes

I think we definitely need the numbers I just don’t think the government is willing to spend the money. From the sounds of things only one carrier will ever be deployed at a time with 2 two squadrons in peace time which gives us 48, we would then have 1 squadron in reserve or training, and the remaining 12 air frames in maintenance (although that figure is probably far too low so 72 will be cutting it very tight. In war time which ever ship is deployed will then carry 3 squadrons. In terms of should the RAF consider f35a… Read more »

BB85
Guest
BB85

I just don’t think the government will order the full 138. By the sounds of things they only plan to deploy one carrier at a time with 2 squadrons each in peace time which gives us 48. That leaves 1 squadron for training with the rest in maintenance. I think the absolute minimum the government will order would be 72 which would be cutting it too fine and put additional wear on the air frames shortening their lifespan. I think the max they will order will be 96 in which case I agree they should all be f35b as 24… Read more »

Nigel Collins
Guest
Nigel Collins

Invest in Tempest and Taranis, upgrade our entire Typhoon fleet and forget the F35A. By the time we have sufficient numbers of them it will be mid to late 20’s at best and past their sell by date well before then. America has invested so much money in its development that they cannot allow this project to fail. 15 December first flight and has only now successfully fired its gun. 48 is the required number for the RN B variant as I understand it, some of which would be far better spent on installing cats and traps. The F-35C –… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Guest
Daniele Mandelli

I see the 48 as the initial number. Too few to surge a carrier when the OCU maintenance and reserve fleets are included in the number. Jonathan makes the point above in having ready pilots able to expand a carrier wing at short notice. Very useful.

I think we need more B than that.

I do not see the QEC having cats and traps any time soon. Not after investing in the B. We could go round in circles for ever over carrier configuration. We went with B for carriers so let’s go all out with B for them.

Nigel Collins
Guest
Nigel Collins

At what point in time can we expect to see 48 F35B on board Daniele in your opinion? and how long would it take and at what cost to install cats and traps?
Thank you in advance

Daniele Mandelli
Guest
Daniele Mandelli

No time soon with only 48 Nigel! I believe the Carriers were optimised for 36 B? That’s 3 squadrons of 12. We would need more on top to generate even that. And that in a war scenario so highly unlikely. But possible. But not with 48. I have no knowledge on cats and traps other than my readings here from people with infinately more knowledge than me on that subject, so others should comment. HMG government got cold feet at the costs and U turned on the 2010 decision. Whatever the cost with the money problems we have I would… Read more »

Nigel Collins
Guest
Nigel Collins

Thank you Daniele!

BB85
Guest
BB85

There was no exact cost of the conversion published but it was estimated at over 1bn which is why the UK government back tracked.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

Nigel, biggest flaw is that keeping a conventional carrier qualified airwing with 48 f35Cs would be difficult and a never ending money pit. We would only ever be able to deploy the crews we have qualified at that time so if we had 24 crews that’s it. The F35B has a couple of truly game changing magic abilities: It’s quick and easy to carrier qualify a pilot on an F35B and an Elizabeth class. With a fully buy of F35Bs we can simply wave a wand (well put in a few weeks intensive qualifying training programme) and go from 12… Read more »

Nigel Collins
Guest
Nigel Collins

Installation of Dragonfire, land ceptor, Phalanx, or a combination of these at RAF basis should have been installed to protect our more valuable assets. The point i’m trying to make here is, do we invest heavily in an aircraft that will be outdated by 2030 or invest in a solution mid term until Tempest and Taranis arrives? It’s a mess I know, but a smarter solution to the problem needs to be found. We will install cats and traps at some point onboard the carriers so why not look at doing this sooner rather than later? This opens up the… Read more »

Nigel Collins
Guest
Nigel Collins

RAF bases sorry!

Chris
Guest
Chris

(Chris H) Nigel – the issue with CATOBAR is not the physical building of the launch tracks or even the wire systems as that is just manufacturing engineering. Indeed they are already passively engineered for this if needed at mid life refit. The issue was (in 2010) and remains the EMALS catapults. They are vastly expensive, unproven and are still in early development. And this is 8 years later. Just look at where the USS Gerald R Ford is now and at what cost ($16 Bn). It was right to look at the option of fewer ‘C’ aircraft to reduce… Read more »

Nigel Collins
Guest
Nigel Collins

The A platform is a total waste of money agreed and yes Typhoon is a very potent weapons delivery system as I’ve said many times before.

My money is on Tempest and CATOBAR given the fact that the F35C is not due to deliver it’s full operational performance until 2025 as I recall from a US defence report I read some months back.

But as my post at the bottom suggests, we will never know the full facts in relation to its reliability hence my reason for suggesting possible alternatives (eggs in one basket).
Let’s wait and see!

Chris
Guest
Chris

(Chris H) Nigel – we are singing off the same hymn sheet my friend. Since the Franco / German pipe dream was announced I have suggested that we should plough ahead with a ‘Typhoon II’ given we own or have access to most of the systems on board Typhoon. I even suggested in one post (given BAE and Leonardo are the majority shareholders in Eurofighter and have both been shafted) they would make ideal partners and have full authority to use anything they chose. I should have done the Lottery that week because this is the base partnership for Tempest.… Read more »

Nigel Collins
Guest
Nigel Collins

Very well put Chris.

I hope we see both CATOBR and Tempest available well before then along with Magma/Taranis. There is already talk at the admarility of CATOBR being installed for future UAV’s.

Fingers crossed eh!

T.S
Guest

Good point regarding the raf’s need to support the army in the CAS role when runways may not be available. Question is, how many squadrons of F35b would the RAF need purely for this function without stripping the carriers. I hate the idea of not having enough for both. But at the same time I do wonder if we should reduce the numbers a bit to allow spend on other equally important stuff. Think, 15 F35b’s would equate to another Astute or two T26 or the Poseidon’s etc we need. I would have thought 96 would be a reasonable total,… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Guest
Daniele Mandelli

Most certainly IMO.

Daniele Mandelli
Guest
Daniele Mandelli

And I’m not looking at it in terms of a shopping list. We have a 20 billion black hole by many reports.

We need to save money to offset cuts.

Albert Starburst
Guest
Albert Starburst

I don’t want anybody to publish the exact figure, but does anybody know roughly the actual effective combat radius of the thing, and do peeps think that the combat radius is adequate for the job? I’ve got a nasty feeling it is something very low.

P.S. I’m not a nay-sayer… I like the idea of the carriers, 5th gen aircraft and all that (wish it had been British), but is this the right tool for the much -needed job? Just asking that’s all.

Daniele Mandelli
Guest
Daniele Mandelli

For the carriers it is the ONLY tool regards current fast jets given their configuration.

In a wider context that is being debated with many pros and cons already offered. Will be interesting to see of the A ever materialises and what the reasons given will be.

I’m none the wiser any more other than where’s the carriers are concerned the B is the ONLY game in town and the RN and RAF will make it work in their usual professional manner.

Nigel Collins
Guest
Nigel Collins

Hi Albert,
I found this which may be of help!

“Range
The main criticism levelled against the F35B is its limited range on internal fuel. Most publicly available sources put the F35B’s range on internal fuel at around 900 nautical miles while the F35A has a range of some 1200 nmi and the F35C has a range of 1400 nmi”.

Converting both carriers for Cat & traps would cost around £5 billion, £2.5 Billion per carrier.

Meirion.X
Guest
Meirion.X

I do agree with the consensus that it would be too expensive to convert QE class carrier to cats & traps at this point in time. Also taking into account the issue of launching and landing aircraft on CTOL carrier types in rough seas increases risks and sortie rates. As a STOVL carrier, QE class would have a potential to be a multi-role carrier, examples are: ASW platform, assault carrier, ‘blue water’ patrol carrier, war zone air dominance platform, disaster relief(LPH) platform. But the QE class will not be able to fulfil some of the potential roles above, due to… Read more »

Albert Starburst
Guest
Albert Starburst

…thanks Daniele and Nigel for the replies.

Yep it’s the only game in town for now. I just worry about long-range anti-ship missiles and if our carriers can stand-off far enough if needed.

Given the Tempest development, I just wish the UK could have come up with say a “super-Harrier” (twin-with re-heat and bigger range), or a “Super-Buccaneer” -type something to do the low-level attack thing.

I too though am very proud though of all our armed forces and those of our allies, and that the UK has finally got some proper carriers again.

Albert Starburst
Guest
Albert Starburst

…sorry no disrespect meant to our previous small carriers and crews. I meant to say “proper BIG carriers again.”

Chris
Guest
Chris

(Chris H) Albert – Hawker Siddely did come up with a Mach 2 STOVL aircraft thanks to a brilliant turbofan engine called BS100 (an unfortunate first two letters) – It was called the P1154 in internal numbering while the Kestrel and later Harrier was numbered P1127. In fact the ‘Harrier’ name had been reserved for the P1154. All this a full 30+ years before the F-35B which manages Mach 1.6. It was designed to meet full NATO specifications and did so in all aspects but political stupidity cancelled it in 1965. Along with TSR-2, the CVA-01 65,000 ton carriers and… Read more »

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

The thing I’m really interested in is what comes after typhoon and sit side by side with the F35s going into the second half of the century. I had sort of assumed the F35 was going to be the last manned fighter we purchased being as it has 50 years in it, but evidently that is not the case.

Nigel Collins
Guest
Nigel Collins

Tempest. From the pictures it appears that a navalised version might just be a possibility. A navalised version of Typhoon was developed but that faded away sadly in my opinion so who knows! A replacement for the B1B lancer will be on the cards at some point and I wondered given the US interest in the Tempest programme weather a four engined version of Tempest could do the job, manned or unmanned? Interesting thought! With things hotting up in the south China sea it could be a very wise move to have a longer range strike capability. I’m sure the… Read more »

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

It’s going to be interesting to see what 5+ generation aircraft the west do end up with following the F35, it seems to be a shrinking pool so I suspect we will be down to only 1-2 players, three at most . Maybe a UK/Swedish/Turkish offering which I would imagine will cover the lighter end of the market in whatever comes from tempest, something from France and Germany ( who knows what that will be or if it comes to anything) and a US/Japanese offering that will probably hit the heavy (f15) replacement end of the market. Not sure if… Read more »

Chris
Guest
Chris

(Chris H) on a purely personal note can I thank everyone for a really informed and interesting Thread which has been fun to join …

Meirion.X
Guest
Meirion.X

I do agree with the consensus that it would be too expensive to convert QE class carrier to cats & traps at this point in time. Also taking into account the issue of launching and landing aircraft on CTOL carrier types in rough seas increases risks and lower sortie rates. As a STOVL carrier, QE class would have a potential to be a multi-role carrier, examples are: ASW platform, assault carrier, ‘Freedom of the Sea’ patrol carrier, war zone air dominance platform, disaster relief(LPH) platform. But the QE class will not be able to fulfil some of the potential roles… Read more »

Johnf
Guest
Johnf

For another view of the F35 try
http://ausairpower.net/

Nigel Collins
Guest
Nigel Collins
Roders96
Guest
Roders96

F35C has a 33% larger combat radius, 20% larger payload and is $1.2m cheaper per unit @ LRIP 10 than F35B. CATOBAR allows tankers, makes it easier to integrate carrier capability into tempest, future taranis, the increase in versatility and flexibility is paramount, CATOBAR has serious external economies of scale for the RN. It drastically increases the Sea Control ability of the QE. The opportunity cost of STOVL is huge. We should: – give the 48 F35b’s to FAA, 90 F35C’s to RAF ‘til replacements for Albion / Bulwark are built and a similarly timed deep refit of QE. –… Read more »

Roders96
Guest
Roders96

.

Nigel Collins
Guest
Nigel Collins
Steve
Guest
Steve

What every article I have found is short on is what we are going to arm these with. It seems US ASRAAM will come as standard, but no sign of any UK land attack options, effectively making them pretty pointless I’m anything other than situations where a typhoon is also available.

Hopefully I am missing the schedule for integration with pathway/brimstone.

SoleSurvivor
Guest
SoleSurvivor

Spear 3 (Brimstone) is coming in block 4

Think it can carry the Paveway already.

ASRAAM & Meteor (BVRAAM) for air to air.

Nigel Collins
Guest
Nigel Collins

If you follow the link provided Steve it tells you and much more!

SoleSurvivor
Guest
SoleSurvivor

No it doesn’t.

Nigel Collins
Guest
Nigel Collins

Click on the next button SoleSurvivor at the bottom of each page!

SoleSurvivor
Guest
SoleSurvivor

I did do, and not for the first time as that is a great source for discussing the F-35 problems I have used it before, but it tells you nothing about British land attack missile integration Nigel, which is what Steve asked.

Nigel Collins
Guest
Nigel Collins

My apologies SoleSurvivor and Steve.

Paul T
Guest
Paul T

Steve – the US wont be supplying ASRAAM,its an MBDA product although it has a US designation (AIM-132).

Ben
Guest
Ben

This very strategy – the deployment of RAF pilots and aircraft to the carriers – was absolutely key to UK success in the Falklands, against an Argentine air force with a greater number of theoretically superior aircraft.
Another lesson from the Falklands- VSTOL aircraft are superb in a dogfight, due to the ability to ‘slam on the brakes’ forcing a faster persuer to overtake whence they can be shot down from behind.
Headline performance figures are just that and have little to do with real world combat performance

Hugh Jarce
Guest
Hugh Jarce

I have a few issues with the F-35B and the QE-class carriers. – With cats & traps we could have the F-35C, Rafale M, Sea Gripen or Super Hornet. Or a mix of any of these aircraft. We could also have Growlers for EW and Hawkeyes for AEW, which would have greater range and altitude than Merlin Crowsnest. (In future we could even develop our own carrier jet (e.g. a navalised Tempest or other plane) and other carrier aircraft like refuelling aircraft, AEW aircraft and EW aircraft). Whether cats & traps ever get fitted I don’t know, although I wish… Read more »

Hugh Jarce
Guest
Hugh Jarce

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/the-f-35-a-guide-to-the-jet-that-will-soon-land-on-hms-queen-elizabeth/#comment-429312 I have a few issues with the F-35B and the QE-class carriers. – With cats & traps we could have the F-35C, Rafale M, Sea Gripen or Super Hornet. Or a mix of any of these aircraft. (Why a navalised Typhoon was never developed I’ll never understand). We could also have Growlers for EW and Hawkeyes for AEW, which would have greater range and altitude than Merlin Crowsnest. (In future we could even develop our own carrier jet (e.g. a navalised Tempest or other plane) and other carrier aircraft like refuelling aircraft, AEW aircraft and EW aircraft). Whether cats… Read more »