Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Aethulwulf wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:
Aethulwulf wrote:Posts like this should be banished down into the fantasy thread hell hole.

QE is designed to operate up to 36 F35b and 4 Merlin. Studies have shown that 36 F35b flying cyclic ops would not also allow deck space for 9 Merlin flying ASW ops at the same time. There might be the space to store 9 Merlin ASW and 36 F35b, but not to operate them at the same time.

Of course there is a difference between theoretical studies and the real world, which is the point of the flight trials.

However, the idea that QE could operate 70 aircraft is a ludicrous fantasy.
It wasn't designed to operate 36 F35Bs and 4 halos :lolno: the request for the design was for a carrier that can operated "at least " 36 F35Bs plus helo complement the design we got was larger.

The standard peace time load out is over 40 aircraft that has been put out by the RN
The capatain of QE said during an interview that the she could operate 70 aircraft at her max.

As for the Ford load out of 70 for them that is a standard peace time load out, the ford like the Nimitz before it is design to operate up to 100 aircraft at full war load out
I think I remember trying to educate you a few years ago about how to correctly interpret what the QE Captain said on this subject. However, you threw your toys out if the pram and wouldn't listen.

So moving on to something you might understand...

...what about the people? Each aircraft needs 20+ crew and maintainers. With 70 aircraft, that comes to 1400 people, plus the 700 crew, requiring at least 2100 berths. But QE has just 1600 berths.

QE might well have the space to ferry 70 aircraft, but cannot operate 70 aircraft.

I do wonder why you cling to this fantasy. A 'standard loadout" of 24 F35b and 14 Merlin Mk2 plus some Mk4 is an impressive capability.
How very patronising of you, you didn't try to educate me on anything you just stubernly stuck to your opion and pretty much said anyone who disagreed was wrong.
If you watch back you interview it is clear that the inerviewer doesn't understand the different terminology the RN for operate and carry, her question was clearly intend as to what the QEs can "fight" with not ferry. Cpt Kyd at the time was merely answering back in the same way the question was asked, he is a very smart man and would clearly understand what was being asked.
But that is all by the by as since then other RN staff have reaffirmed that the QEs st surge could operate up to 70 aircraft and even wiki now states it.

The whole idea that we would build a 70,000tn carrier to operate the same amount of aircraft that France's 40,000tn CdG operates is ludicrous.
If you really believe that when operating 36 F35s she'll only have 4 helos to preform ASW AEW and GP duties then I surgest you give your head a good wobble.

I do belive that the designers and RN took into account personal when designing them. Even on the 36 F35 load out you'd still be over 100 bunks short on your figures and if you take in to account they were designed to carry 250 RM aswell then you'd be very short.
But they are now having mods to take that up to 900 so they'll be plenty of extra bunks.

I am not denying that the load of 24 F35s and 14 helos is a large pick up on what we had, I am merely stating that the surge load out is meant to be up to 70.

But as I can tell from you manners and that now I remember you this descustion is pointless and you very much seem like the type of person of your always right and anyone that disagrees is always wrong, so I'll leave it here

Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Aethulwulf »

Jake1992 wrote:
Aethulwulf wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:
Aethulwulf wrote:Posts like this should be banished down into the fantasy thread hell hole.

QE is designed to operate up to 36 F35b and 4 Merlin. Studies have shown that 36 F35b flying cyclic ops would not also allow deck space for 9 Merlin flying ASW ops at the same time. There might be the space to store 9 Merlin ASW and 36 F35b, but not to operate them at the same time.

Of course there is a difference between theoretical studies and the real world, which is the point of the flight trials.

However, the idea that QE could operate 70 aircraft is a ludicrous fantasy.
It wasn't designed to operate 36 F35Bs and 4 halos :lolno: the request for the design was for a carrier that can operated "at least " 36 F35Bs plus helo complement the design we got was larger.

The standard peace time load out is over 40 aircraft that has been put out by the RN
The capatain of QE said during an interview that the she could operate 70 aircraft at her max.

As for the Ford load out of 70 for them that is a standard peace time load out, the ford like the Nimitz before it is design to operate up to 100 aircraft at full war load out
I think I remember trying to educate you a few years ago about how to correctly interpret what the QE Captain said on this subject. However, you threw your toys out if the pram and wouldn't listen.

So moving on to something you might understand...

...what about the people? Each aircraft needs 20+ crew and maintainers. With 70 aircraft, that comes to 1400 people, plus the 700 crew, requiring at least 2100 berths. But QE has just 1600 berths.

QE might well have the space to ferry 70 aircraft, but cannot operate 70 aircraft.

I do wonder why you cling to this fantasy. A 'standard loadout" of 24 F35b and 14 Merlin Mk2 plus some Mk4 is an impressive capability.
How very patronising of you, you didn't try to educate me on anything you just stubernly stuck to your opion and pretty much said anyone who disagreed was wrong.
If you watch back you interview it is clear that the inerviewer doesn't understand the different terminology the RN for operate and carry, her question was clearly intend as to what the QEs can "fight" with not ferry. Cpt Kyd at the time was merely answering back in the same way the question was asked, he is a very smart man and would clearly understand what was being asked.
But that is all by the by as since then other RN staff have reaffirmed that the QEs st surge could operate up to 70 aircraft and even wiki now states it.

The whole idea that we would build a 70,000tn carrier to operate the same amount of aircraft that France's 40,000tn CdG operates is ludicrous.
If you really believe that when operating 36 F35s she'll only have 4 helos to preform ASW AEW and GP duties then I surgest you give your head a good wobble.

I do belive that the designers and RN took into account personal when designing them. Even on the 36 F35 load out you'd still be over 100 bunks short on your figures and if you take in to account they were designed to carry 250 RM aswell then you'd be very short.
But they are now having mods to take that up to 900 so they'll be plenty of extra bunks.

I am not denying that the load of 24 F35s and 14 helos is a large pick up on what we had, I am merely stating that the surge load out is meant to be up to 70.

But as I can tell from you manners and that now I remember you this descustion is pointless and you very much seem like the type of person of your always right and anyone that disagrees is always wrong, so I'll leave it here
Toys...pram...wheeeeeeee.

[Sigh] Silly boy.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Aethulwulf wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:
Aethulwulf wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:
Aethulwulf wrote:Posts like this should be banished down into the fantasy thread hell hole.

QE is designed to operate up to 36 F35b and 4 Merlin. Studies have shown that 36 F35b flying cyclic ops would not also allow deck space for 9 Merlin flying ASW ops at the same time. There might be the space to store 9 Merlin ASW and 36 F35b, but not to operate them at the same time.

Of course there is a difference between theoretical studies and the real world, which is the point of the flight trials.

However, the idea that QE could operate 70 aircraft is a ludicrous fantasy.
It wasn't designed to operate 36 F35Bs and 4 halos :lolno: the request for the design was for a carrier that can operated "at least " 36 F35Bs plus helo complement the design we got was larger.

The standard peace time load out is over 40 aircraft that has been put out by the RN
The capatain of QE said during an interview that the she could operate 70 aircraft at her max.

As for the Ford load out of 70 for them that is a standard peace time load out, the ford like the Nimitz before it is design to operate up to 100 aircraft at full war load out
I think I remember trying to educate you a few years ago about how to correctly interpret what the QE Captain said on this subject. However, you threw your toys out if the pram and wouldn't listen.

So moving on to something you might understand...

...what about the people? Each aircraft needs 20+ crew and maintainers. With 70 aircraft, that comes to 1400 people, plus the 700 crew, requiring at least 2100 berths. But QE has just 1600 berths.

QE might well have the space to ferry 70 aircraft, but cannot operate 70 aircraft.

I do wonder why you cling to this fantasy. A 'standard loadout" of 24 F35b and 14 Merlin Mk2 plus some Mk4 is an impressive capability.
How very patronising of you, you didn't try to educate me on anything you just stubernly stuck to your opion and pretty much said anyone who disagreed was wrong.
If you watch back you interview it is clear that the inerviewer doesn't understand the different terminology the RN for operate and carry, her question was clearly intend as to what the QEs can "fight" with not ferry. Cpt Kyd at the time was merely answering back in the same way the question was asked, he is a very smart man and would clearly understand what was being asked.
But that is all by the by as since then other RN staff have reaffirmed that the QEs st surge could operate up to 70 aircraft and even wiki now states it.

The whole idea that we would build a 70,000tn carrier to operate the same amount of aircraft that France's 40,000tn CdG operates is ludicrous.
If you really believe that when operating 36 F35s she'll only have 4 helos to preform ASW AEW and GP duties then I surgest you give your head a good wobble.

I do belive that the designers and RN took into account personal when designing them. Even on the 36 F35 load out you'd still be over 100 bunks short on your figures and if you take in to account they were designed to carry 250 RM aswell then you'd be very short.
But they are now having mods to take that up to 900 so they'll be plenty of extra bunks.

I am not denying that the load of 24 F35s and 14 helos is a large pick up on what we had, I am merely stating that the surge load out is meant to be up to 70.

But as I can tell from you manners and that now I remember you this descustion is pointless and you very much seem like the type of person of your always right and anyone that disagrees is always wrong, so I'll leave it here
Toys...pram...wheeeeeeee.

[Sigh] Silly boy.
I put a points based arguement accross and merely point out your patronising tone and your reply is toys pram and I'm the silly boy :problem: :clap: don't my me laugh
When a person resorts to insults it shows their arguement has no ground and truth be told shows your have no manners at all but hey I'm clearly the little boy for having a points based debt in this form with having to insult people :crazy:

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5556
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Aethulwulf wrote: Each aircraft needs 20+ crew and maintainers.
Partly true as in war time the extra aircraft and pilots would embarked and then as many as maintenance staff as could be found room for. Now if that is 70 aircraft we would have to wait and see. But the maintenance teams can work on more than one aircraft

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by inch »

Yes think that french design carrier is a big girl def looks larger than qe class to my eyes but only detail's would reveal that i quess

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by R686 »

I was under the impression 70 was ferry mode, I imagine it would be very crowded with 70 pus rotary support

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by R686 »

inch wrote:Yes think that french design carrier is a big girl def looks larger than qe class to my eyes but only detail's would reveal that i quess
From memory it was an extra sponson or two plus running the deck marking differently,

It’s a pity that the UK did not put the extra sponsons on as it may have made the deck operations a tad easier with the extra space to concurrently run both landing and recovery

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by seaspear »

The Journal Naval technology refers to the carrier ferrying 50 aircraft , that it was designed to provide 420 sorties over five days maximum 110 sorties in first 24 hours capable of launching 24 aircraft in 15 minutes recovering 24 in 24 minutes the standard flight group a mixture of the f35 and rotary aircraft , when configured for carrier strike the carriers can carry 2 squadrons each of the f35b and in extremis another 12 according to the mod

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by seaspear »

Also in the U.K.D.J Nov 28 2017 George Allison " The term now used for the carriers embarked squadrons is carrier air wing (cvw) .
The vessels are capable of deploying a variety of aircraft in large numbers up to a maximum in the upper fifties in surge conditions"

User avatar
imperialman
Donator
Posts: 128
Joined: 01 May 2015, 17:16
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by imperialman »

Last time I was on board I and a few others got to speak to the captain and senior officers, this is an exact quote Jake1992 (although it never made it into an article), "In all practicality, mid-50's is our upper maximum in what you could call surge conditions but I can't foresee that as we would already be seeing significantly diminishing returns in our ability to turn aircraft around at those numbers, it's a futile effort."

The carrier is designed around the ability to generate sorties with around 40 aircraft, not raw aircraft numbers.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

seaspear wrote:Also in the U.K.D.J Nov 28 2017 George Allison " The term now used for the carriers embarked squadrons is carrier air wing (cvw) .
The vessels are capable of deploying a variety of aircraft in large numbers up to a maximum in the upper fifties in surge conditions"
So we are see a right mix of numbers around then.
When you go on wiki for the PoW it states that standard load is 40, full load is 50 and that can be expanded to 70.

Looking around today Iv also found a few sites stating 60, I am starting to wonder what is to be believed.

If I am wrong about the 70 I'll hold my hands up and eat some humble pie, but I wouldn't be too shock if around 70 is the max figure. The QEs are similar in size to the US kitty hawk which was able to operate up to 90 aircraft at max Iv read, now with the growth in aircraft size 70 seems do able.

I would look to see an honest comparison to what a Nimitz can put out at max sortie wise to a maxed out QE, is there any unbiased peices out the doing this ?

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Jake1992 wrote:I do belive that the designers and RN took into account personal when designing them. Even on the 36 F35 load out you'd still be over 100 bunks short on your figures and if you take in to account they were designed to carry 250 RM aswell then you'd be very short.
But they are now having mods to take that up to 900 so they'll be plenty of extra bunks.
Is there any information available as to the extent of these alterations?

Adding accommodation for an extra 650 Marines will require a lot of space. Is that extra space available without deleting an existing capability?

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:I do belive that the designers and RN took into account personal when designing them. Even on the 36 F35 load out you'd still be over 100 bunks short on your figures and if you take in to account they were designed to carry 250 RM aswell then you'd be very short.
But they are now having mods to take that up to 900 so they'll be plenty of extra bunks.
Is there any information available as to the extent of these alterations?

Adding accommodation for an extra 650 Marines will require a lot of space. Is that extra space available without deleting an existing capability?
From what Iv seen is that they have been doing assessments on a lot of supposed empty spaces to convert to extra bunks.
What affect this will have later in life is Unknown, I would of thought they we left empty for a reason but who knows.

User avatar
imperialman
Donator
Posts: 128
Joined: 01 May 2015, 17:16
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by imperialman »

Jake1992 wrote:If I am wrong about the 70 I'll hold my hands up and eat some humble pie, but I wouldn't be too shock if around 70 is the max figure. The QEs are similar in size to the US kitty hawk which was able to operate up to 90 aircraft at max Iv read, now with the growth in aircraft size 70 seems do able.
They would not fit in any practical way.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

imperialman wrote:IIRC, the design of the class was based around operating around 40 aircraft at a peak sortie rate of 70 per day? Perhaps that's where the confusion lies.
Easily.
Jake1992 wrote:take in to account they were designed to carry 250 RM aswell then you'd be very short.
It was extra bunks,compare that with the number taken up on Albions (in addition to Marines) when it serves as a Command vessel
Tempest414 wrote: But the maintenance teams can work on more than one aircraft
Economies of scale
we would already be seeing significantly diminishing returns in our ability to turn aircraft around at those numbers, it's a futile effort."
This is why the same Captain said that having Ospreys in a tanker role would be a huge force multiplier in the use of the carriers (in strike role). More so in easing the friction between different ops cycles -that turning around within time constraints - than adding range to strike packets, by topping up those who were the first to take off
... different interview, though. And he knew he was not going to get them any time soon
Poiuytrewq wrote:Adding accommodation for an extra 650 Marines will require a lot of space.
Leaving the F-35 component behind, exc. for a few for flying CAP around the task force (self protection) and flying above the area of Ops as sensors par excellence
... so, you will either need another (not necessarily the sister ship) carrier. Or, you will be going against someone who is nowhere near to "a peer"
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5556
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

I did not say it would be easy but it can be done and has been in the past in RAF Germany i.e the Lightning Sqns could be beefed up by 50% extra aircraft with no extra ground staff. and before someone comes back and points out they had a hoofing great airfield I know It is more the aircraft to man power with the EE Lightning be a Maintenance heavy type with short turn around times

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by seaspear »

One of the reasons for not equipping the ship with the Aster 15 is that that addition would reduce capability elsewhere it would be interesting to know if this has been the case
It would be desirable if there was a definitive ministry of defence source on the operational capabilities of this classes we seem to have conflicting sources except when it comes to how many buses fit on the deck

benny14
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by benny14 »

Jake1992 wrote: The standard peace time load out is over 40 aircraft that has been put out by the RN
The capatain of QE said during an interview that the she could operate 70 aircraft at her max.
He said carry, not operate. 40 is the wartime load.
Jake1992 wrote:When you go on wiki for the PoW it states that standard load is 40, full load is 50 and that can be expanded to 70.

The 70 stated on wikipedia is taken from the interview where they say it can "carry" 70 aircraft.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

benny14 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote: The standard peace time load out is over 40 aircraft that has been put out by the RN
The capatain of QE said during an interview that the she could operate 70 aircraft at her max.
He said carry, not operate. 40 is the wartime load...
He said carry in reply to the interviewer asking carry not understanding the RN have different terminology. She was clearly try to ask operate as she was asking about the QEs capability.

Is that 40 F35s or 40 aircraft over all ?
If it's 40 over all I call bull as the RN would never design a carrier to operate 36 F35s but only plan on 4 helos to cover ASW AEW and GP let alone adding AAR and COD
Also if only 40 over all why build a 70,000 carrier when CdG show that can be done by a 40,000tn carrier

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

I think that you will find that the "Wartime" load is actually designed as 50. However, in practice it may be greater than this, as an allowance for aircraft losses is likely to be added even at the cost of a reduction in sortie rate. Even with that contingency, unlikely to be much above 60! Guess what, that is about 2/3rds of a Nimitz class full load-out.

benny14
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by benny14 »

Jake1992 wrote:Is that 40 F35s or 40 aircraft over all ?
If it's 40 over all I call bull as the RN would never design a carrier to operate 36 F35s but only plan on 4 helos to cover ASW AEW and GP let alone adding AAR and COD carrier
Because the normal plan is for 24 F-35s and helicopters. 36 F-35s is in the extreme. In such an instance it would likely be operating with a significant amount of escort/support ships and the other carrier, which would all be packing helicopters.

40 is the optimal air group, but it could likely go up to 50 aircraft with decreased efficiency. 50 at the absolute maximum, any more and you would not be able to operate.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

benny14 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:Is that 40 F35s or 40 aircraft over all ?
If it's 40 over all I call bull as the RN would never design a carrier to operate 36 F35s but only plan on 4 helos to cover ASW AEW and GP let alone adding AAR and COD carrier
Because the normal plan is for 24 F-35s and helicopters. 36 F-35s is in the absolute extreme. In such an instance it would likely be operating with a significant amount of escort/support ships and the other carrier, which would all be packing helicopters.

40 is the optimal air group, but it could likely go up to 50 aircraft with decreased efficiency. 50 at the absolutely maximum, any more and you would not be able to operate.
Why on earth would the RN ask for a carrier that can operate at least 36 F35s but say it's ok if we can't really fit the helos on that we need ? It would make no sence at all and the RN are not that stupid.

To operate 36 F35s the QE would need to be able to operate at least 50 aircraft and that's not including any AAR or COD

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by SW1 »

People are in for real shock with what is considered “normal” fast jet deployments if we’re looking for numbers of fastjets in double figures deploying anywhere. Normal uk fastjet squadron deployments is 8 a/c only rising to 10 if high intensity sortie generation is required.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Jake1992 »

SW1 wrote:People are in for real shock with what is considered “normal” fast jet deployments if we’re looking for numbers of fastjets in double figures deploying anywhere. Normal uk fastjet squadron deployments is 8 a/c only rising to 10 if high intensity sortie generation is required.
Really I thought the initial plan was for 12 and then that changed to 24 due to bad media coverage ?
I haven't heard anything that has changed that or did miss something ?

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Jake1992 wrote:
SW1 wrote:People are in for real shock with what is considered “normal” fast jet deployments if we’re looking for numbers of fastjets in double figures deploying anywhere. Normal uk fastjet squadron deployments is 8 a/c only rising to 10 if high intensity sortie generation is required.
Really I thought the initial plan was for 12 and then that changed to 24 due to bad media coverage ?
I haven't heard anything that has changed that or did miss something ?
There is lots of plans, I’m merely pointing out what has been standard uk Sqn deployment numbers for decades. The initial QE carrier deployment will have a significant number of us marince Corp fast jets onboard. We are a very significant time away from getting 24 uk f35s deployed anywhere, only the RAF tornado gr force has deployed that many jets anywhere and that was to the two gulf wars and they were a operational force nearly 4 times the size of f35.

Post Reply