UK to stand-up second frontline F-35 squadron

Yes, the number was worked out from deploying 24 aircraft on one carrier, having another 6 aircraft deployed to Cypress and another 6 in Estonia, with another 12 in the UK for training, whilst the remaining would be going through scheduled maintenance. Therefore there would be 48 aircraft active, with 36 in their various stages of the maintenance loop. Giving a total of 84 aircraft. This did not include the 3 development aircraft in the US, as I believe they cannot be deployed on operations.

cheers yep – so not 24 on each carrier …bugger

In a war scenario like the Falklands, 24 on each is very doable given a fleet of nearly 80 but not just for a normal deployment.

And what year would the falklands mk2 happen…
48 F35’s at readiness, 2 carrier groups…submarines, destroyers,RFA…
At least 12/14 ships/subs available at any 1 time in full working order….
Hmmmm…😋

Fantasy thoughts.honestly 👍.
Not sure where the ‘bugger’ comez from tbh.
At no point will the 2 carriers have 24 planes on each.

That’s pretty close to what we have on order.

It was based on the assumption that only one carrier would be deployed at any one time. Which at the time was the assertion that the then 1st Sea Lord intimated. Times have changed and the Government have said both carriers will be available for deployments. Which means the numbers will need to looked at, as the current model won’t work. However, I think it is safe to say, that if more aircraft were wanted/needed for a deployment, then the USMC will jump at the chance for a cruise.

Unless the SCS goes hot. Peace time – yes. War time – USMC will have more to worry about than a RN carrier in the wrong ocean.

As things stand SCS is well on course to go hot. USA Republicans holding up funding for UKR only demonstrates the inability & lack of resolve of the free world in the face of determined aggressive autocrats. Just hope that the current PRC leader dies of old age beforehand somehow & gets replaced by someone far more reasonable.
Giving up on UKR in her hour of need would guarantee emboldened Russia-China- N Korea-Iran. If we show dogged support all the way for UKR it sends a message that aggression will not be permitted.

We planned origionally for 135 F35s at a time where it semed far more peaceful than today. Given the far more dangerous threats today, we can’t afford to navigate these times safely with much reduced forces.

Absolutely right Frank. 135 were planned in a time with no war in Europe, no Cold War Pt2, no Iran becoming a major arms supplier to Russia, no possible hot war in the SCS. If anything, it’s 180 degrees.

👍

👍.

👍

Yes the 3 development aircraft are not combat deployable. Quite normal practice.

The fighter fleet can easily sustain a peacetime “roulement” of 1/4th on active ops and a surge of 1/2th the fleet for war. Thus to operate 24 F-35 annually, regularly, a total of 100 F-35s need to be purchased (24 deployed, 72 elsewhere, 3 test, 1 lost). Currently 48 have been ordered, of which 44 are operational. The current capacity is hence 12 at any time and 24 at surge.

The 48 does include those 3 in the US.

I have always advocated that these should be STOBAR equiped carriers. Any CATOBAR fighter can operate in STOBAR with a ski jump (both US & France have tested this). You do need to have the BAR part of the equation. Yes they will have a reduced payload, but for fleet defence you need lighter AA missiles, not 2,000lb bombs. Leave the F35B strike fighter to do the strike mission they were designed for. To me (I know other on here disagree), SAAB Sea Griffin is the ideal complement to F35B on a STOBAR carrier.

Catapults are expensive, recovery wires are cheap as. Most high altitude Canadian air fields are so equipped (& used as such). The other thing many are missing with this is that the sole French CATOBAR carrier will at times spend a year or more in refit. They have a all those STOBAR capable fighters looking for a carrier in order to keep current. Something like 42 fighters is a capability worth looking at.

It matters a great deal how powerful it is. 12 F35B is a more powerful capability than 36 F18.

The F35B does not need ECM aircraft , it does not need a fighter to escort it and it does not really need AWACS.

24 F35B on a carrier is able to project power right across a region on its own.

Indeed even the USN is using its America class with about 20 F35B and no AWACS/AEW to stand in for its CVN’s.

So with 20 on America class and 12 operational (see MattC above), QE is half an America?

Nope. The two America-class LHAs are amphibious assault ships and don’t have the sortie generation capability of the QEs. The QEs can put more fighters in the air more quickly and for more operational days than the Americas can. Also this discussion is about the F-35 fleet not the carrier capability. The USMC F-35B fleet is something like 115 jets currently and eventually about 350; obviously they will have more available to fly.

Personally I think we should switch to 8 to a squadron with the F35B, 3 squadrons of 24 to me seems better than 2 squadrons of 12. With the usual of 2 squadrons on a carrier strike under normal circumstances so 16 at a time. I don’t think people realise how much of a leap it is from the harrier (as amazing as it was) the F35B is.

Especially if we start supplementing them with loyal wingmen.

Hmm – USAF disagree. Even F35 needs the E/A 18E for deep strike. Yes, it might change for block IV, which seems to be a moving target in itself. But it’s not the now situation.

The America class is a LHA. It can act as a light carrier (as can any LHA/LHD) but that is about it. It doesn’t even have a ski jump, so F35B payloads are limited. If you want to scare somebody, they look good. Want to bomb the daylight’s out of them, not so good. Get the F35B ashore, different story.

agreed DJ -good points re the aircraft numbers

Also F35 is massive compared to Harrier.

If you’ve ever been on an invincible and see the game of Tetris in the hangar you would know what I was talking about!

Good point, invincible class were only carrying 8-10 harriers as well. It was hardly the kind of capability that had anyone quaking in their boots. F35B is several generations ahead of anything joint force harrier could dream of.

The other thing is that QEC has more and two aircraft lifts with a separate munitions lift so aircraft moves and therefore force generation can be faster.

People forget It will still carry up to its max of weapons and fuel so it would be able to fight on station longer. Big advantage over being too small like the Invincibles; especially as we only have Fort Victoria for resupply.

F35B could actually fit on the Invincible class aircraft lifts.

If it physically fitted, which would have been only just, did the lifts gave the weight capacity for it fully fuelled and bombed up?

I’d still not like to play Tetris with them in the hangar?

I’m not sure about weight limits. F35 is closer to Tornado weights than Harrier. I spent many an hour in the hangar moving 4 jets to get 1 out. In 2001 we had 17 Harriers onboard. It was doable. But bloody hard work.

Heh, heh SB. Done that many many times. Even placed a rotarhead on a speaking, at sea mit jcb f/lift.
👍 🌊🙏🕳️

Seaking, doh 🙃

Well said. Many people still don’t understand the quantum leap in capability that the F35 offers, and the massive impact it has on any battle space.

I’m not comparing the capabilities of the F-35 and Harrier. It’s not a question of the Navy now vs in the 90s anymore than it is comparing the navy now to when we fought with wooden boats. Just the decision to seemingly upscale so significantly for what would be a marginal increase on capacity and therefore capability.

The invincibles might have been designed for 5 harriers when they were first conceptualised as ASW platforms in the North Atlantic with some basic air defence capability, but that isn’t how they turned out. In the 90s and 2000s 8-9 aircraft was routine as 12-16 was pretty common when they had two squadrons deployed (FAA + RAF). For one fewer hull it’s not quite doubling the capacity.

To be clear I’m not as pessimistic about this as I might be coming across. A big carrier is very nice functionally when working aboard the ships. It’s much easier to have all that extra space for moving things around and safely landing, etc. It’s really just a question of building up all this capability only to fall through in specific areas. getting two 65,000t carriers in full operation is an incredible feat with a (mostly) solid support system around it with regards to escorts, auxiliaries, etc. – procurement time leaves some things to be desired but the quality is there.

It just seems unfortunate then that after all this effort, falling short by aircraft (F-35s but also the shortage in Merlins and other aircraft) means losing a lot of capability for comparatively little cost. Getting an extra 8 F-35Bs and 5 Merlins (or replacement) on board would cost a lot less relative to the additional capability it provides. Of course this neglects the whole issue of manpower. I think things will still improve somewhat as drones seem to be becoming a more significant part of the air wing moving forward anyway.

Valid concerns, but you’re comparing a highly matured Invincible-Harrier capability with QE-F35 when Carrier Strike hasn’t even entered FOC. Not quite apples and apples. Once the F35 fleet is up it’ll be alright.
All in all given the RN spent some considerable time with only the Invincibles and Harriers providing fixed wing air, and moaned so when that capability went, we ought to be pretty happy now. The gulf between Invincible-Harrier and Nimitz-F18 is a lot more than Ford-F35 and QE-F35.

Right, but how are you going to be prepared to operate 3 squadrons if you’ve never had more than one aboard? There’s a reason for why the Navy trains so much.

Could always ask Elon Musk…

JG, FAA is the term you’re looking for. (Fleet Air Arm) as in 809 sqdn.
👍

It’s not just the number of planes. We need to board about 20 aircrew per plane, and ideally they should have been on board a ship prior to the deployment! We tried it with far fewer in 2021, many of who had never been on board a ship before. It wasn’t ideal.

Totally agree Jon, but if the RN want to declare CS FOC then this is surely one of the pre requisites for them to be able to?
Would also agree with both you and @FormerUSAF that inviting the USMC along in some capacity makes much sense.

24 UK planes plus 12 USMC would be one heck of a step up.

If I ruled the world [I barely rule my breakfast time], I’d ask the USMC to join for the second half of the deployment, perhaps cross decking from a gator in the Pacific. That would give a few months to get used to 24 UK planes before sorting out acommodation and sortie rates with 36.

It’s not really a tough neighbourhood for us. We have no fishing grounds or islands to steal. I’m sure there will be some pro-forma argy bargy during a FONOPS, but that wouldn’t be any better for the presence of US Marines. For example HMS Spey, a lightly armed patrol vessel, has no problem operating in the SCS.

Interesting idea to crossdeck from a Gator (probably a LHA). Original thought was a rendezvous at Pearl. Your concept demonstrably more dynamic. Wonder whether USMC pilots and support personnel from the CSG 21 deployment would still be available 4 years later?

Tend to characterize the PLAN w/in SCS as a variant of ‘Africanized Bees.’ Exhibit a tendency to repeatedly swarm and attack. View USMC as pest exterminators, useful to have available at short notice.

Are you are implying we cant do it without help then?
If so I would agree with you and thats the whole point of this -oft repeated-‘discussion’.
In reality we can either do it as a sovereign entity or we can’t and no bluff and bluster in parliament (or for that matter on here) will be able to detract from that fact.

RN CSG, at current level of development, should be perfectly capable of operating in most areas independently. Believe SCS may be an exception to the general observation. Perhaps best to compare USMC participation to being dealt a winning poker hand.

👍👍

Ahem, cough, splutter… a tad old and feeling it, but, she was very happy to go into school and will now want to play in the park, in the rain when she comes out at 12. I just can’t think what to get her for Christmas in the line of toys – what she really wants is endless pepper pig, but, I want something to develop her STEM skills as well.

Meanwhile, Cumbrian Coast Line is very peaceful today, probably the strike 😉 😉

😀

It used to be minimum of 14 (2 spare) – for some reason, in combat, you tend to mislay the odd aircraft (& associated pilot).

FAA standard fast jet prior to Sea Harrier was 14, RAF 12.

Let’s hope we reach a fleet strength of 75, that will give us three 12 aircraft front line Squadrons.

I thought that ZM167 was one of the three aircraft that were spotted arriving at RAF Marham in June? ZM165 was an unexpected no show on that delivery flight, it now seems that the aircraft has instead gone to 17R at Edwards to supplement or start to replace its three old early lot aircraft – which are now hopelessly out of date for testing and trials. ZM170 and ZM171 still haven’t flown yet, presumably caught up in the TR-3/Block 4 delays. So just ZM168 and 169 are at Fort Worth awaiting delivery to the UK. The MOD is probably balking at making all the costly arrangements of a trans-Atlantic delivery flight for just two aircraft.

Ah I didn’t know ZM165 had gone to Edwards. Still ZM168 & ZM169 could have surly come back on Prince of Wales as she was a year late going to the States so there must have been enough time to have made the necessary arrangements? Still who knows?