Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
downsizer
Member
Posts: 893
Joined: 02 May 2015, 08:03

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by downsizer »

What's the Italian mix?

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 »

Little J wrote:
SW1 wrote: No nation that is considering being a f35 only fleet is solely buying the b model they have all split there buys with the A. Each variant has there advantages and disadvantages the B being it’s flexibility in basing. The A maybe better at qra, more persistence and better performance with 4 amraam, 4 asraam and a gun,the A will also allow operations further from a tanker aircraft which may be advantageous in some contested environments.

When deciding the fastjet fleet mix there is many things to consider not just what happens on 2 ships.
Other than the Italians (who seem to be able to pull money out of their arses) and recently Japan (probably (like Israel) with American financial help) who else has split bought?

With such a small fleet (unless 138 is really on the table), it would be a bad way for us to go.
Little J

That’s my point all the countries you mentioned the ones who have or intend to buy the B version have split there buy. Everyone else has just bought the A. Ultimately the uk will buy 48 b version aircraft to fulfill the carrier strike requirement. The primary tasking of the fast jet fleet is the national and nato air defence tasking. Beyond that there will be a political decision about the size of force it would wish to deploy or the number there off and at what scale for an offensive operation they will size the fleets accordingly or not...

If we take 9 sqns as the maximum the current or any likely budget will attempt to stretch to then either we will stay at 7 v 2 or move to a 6 v 3 Sqn type split, but all of this is likely in 2030s+ time frame. For the foreseeable it’s the typhoon/f35 split we see today.


Italian split is 60 f35 A 30 f35 B

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by serge750 »

Well in a ideal world the RN would get all the F35b, but maybe it would not be that bad if the RAF had some f35A aswell for deeper strike missions, say 48 x F35b for JFL main prority for the carriers, in time of war max out one carrier (36) then if needed the other carrier as helicopter assault with the rest or whatever can be manged.. in normal times 48 should provide 20 odd for carrier duties anyway.

Then the RAF have their RAF only F35a, maybe 90 ( if the 138 figure is believed but 50 is more believable) + F35A models for their prioritys

Lets face it I don't think the RAF could scrap the only aircraft that can land on these big carriers ?!

Wasn't one of the reasons for scrapping the harriers was that the carriers where getting scraped anyway? & the RN got rid of their seaharriers years before.

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 »

No, the reason was to reduce the number of different aircraft fleets (to reduce costs). The carriers were scrapped because their only offensive weapons system (the Harriers) no longer existed and were therefore an unnecessary (and saveable cost).

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by serge750 »

Also the tornado was a better bomb truck with stormshadow etc, intergrated on the tiffies now aswell, anyplans for the F35? so if we did get a split buy both the F35A & B have around the same offensive capability/performance/sensor fusion, the bigger bay+greater range on the A against the B capability to operate of the QEC

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 »

But recreating the problem that led to the demise of the Harrier and Carriers. Too many Aircraft Types = Higher Costs.
The choice was made to make our national "strike capability" Carrier Deployable. The RN has paid an extremely high price for this. It is high time that the RAF did the same. If they cannot do so, then we should reduce to the only Two Armed Services that are necessary. An Army for defence of the land (and the airspace over it) and a Navy for defence of the sea (and everything over and under it).

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 »

Scimitar54

You weren’t a member of the Phoenix think tank were you.

The choice was made to retain an ability to deploy fastjet a/c at sea that is all. Our “national strike” capability is delivered by the entire fastjet force and there supporting assets.

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by serge750 »

I agree if the higher up RAF played ball, I'm just playing devils advocate, maybe it's just a couple of senior pro RAF people stirring the pot ! I don't know the commonality with the A & B models are, 60% ? different engine/lift fan,smaller bomb bays etc, im pretty sure the C model is much less because of its bigger wings strengthened fuselage ?


Unfortunatly I think there is too much heritage ( being the Royal air force) to have only 2 services but It's fine by me !

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 »

When the Tonka's are gone, there are only the Tiffies. They are primarily Fighters, but with some offensive capabilities. Our National Conventional Deterrant is to be via Carrier Strike unless friendly airbases are available. Stop trying to turn fiction into fact.
The Secretary of State for Defence needs to make this clear without delay. Any Senior transgressors, whether in the RAF or the MOD should be politely, or if necessary not politely, told to "Go and join the Foreign Office".

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 »

When the RAF have twice in the last eight years put their fingers up to the Defence of our country, let alone all the other wrecking attempts during their "100 years of History" are taken into account, then any reliance on past glories becomes irrelevant. People won those glories (to name "The Few" as but one example) and not the RAF itself.
The RN and RAF have had their "One Hundred Years War". It is now time to dispense with the unecessary service.
Unless anyone is suggesting that the RAF should take over the entire RN.

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by serge750 »

I see the rationale of only 1 X F35 type with lower maintenance/supply costs etc, but does that outway the benefits of the A's greater range, maybe future weapons ( a radar homing missile would be high up on the list) for it's larger bay, cheaper initial cost etc, what do the Italians (Japanese?) know that we don't...

if we could get more airframes in the short term to ease the demand on the B version for the carriers would that outway the downside of a smaller potential surge fleet for the carriers?

if we needed to max out both carriers with 36 x F35 (total 72) the craps really hit the fan!!!

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

The UK's Carrier Group is going to be it main contribution to NATOs naval planning going forward. The USN cannot allocate the number of CVBGs it used to for the Atlantic let alone the Med, so it will be up to the UK and France to take up some of the slack supported by the smaller assets from Italy and Spain. The UK's plans need to take that into account and the RAF accept that until follow on purchases are met, they are really going to have to make do with the Typhoon as its primary platform. In NATO or coalition operations the RAF not having a "Stealth" day one platform is not a major issue as other nations will bring these to he party. At sea a Queen Elizabeth class with 24 to 36 F-35Bs is an asset only we can provide.

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

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by inch »

Don't think in Italy case their assets are going to be that much smaller in reality ,well platform capability wise anyway ,think UK will have 20-24 odd jets in the end up in most cases and Italian platform prob 16 ish but they I suspect have both f35 platforms available aswell not that much difference in reality but I see what you pointing out I'm not arguing too much

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by SKB »


Image

Image

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Gabriele »

downsizer wrote:What's the Italian mix?
60 A and 30 B. Note that Italy has a nuclear sharing role which makes the F-35A indispensable; as well as a far smaller aircraft carrier.
Lets face it I don't think the RAF could scrap the only aircraft that can land on these big carriers ?!
Scrap it? No, not for a good few years at least. First they'd have to make it the poor cousin. "F-35A is cheapter you know", "it can carry this larger weapon we do not possess but might get one day".

They can, however, ensure that the carrier will never see a full, or even just "sizeable" airwing unless it is made up of USMC aircraft.

You will have built two excellent ships, without then putting aircraft on them. That's how it is.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

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 f35b is not acquired solely for the use on the carriers but on land as well ,in support of other aircraft and land based operations .
Carriers have been shown to be vulnerable to stealthy submarines and perhaps having extra Merlins is better protection for the carrier than the F35

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 »

Little J wrote:who else has split bought?
Turkey would like some, but will, I bet, get none... of either

The Pentagon has submitted a for & against paper to the Congress, for decision.
SW1 wrote:Italian split is 60 f35 A 30 f35 B
Magical mathematics, A+B
2 x 48 + 48 = 144, and as the last ones will come in abt 20 yrs from now, with an attrition reserve that is ... 138 :)
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
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 »

Scimitar54 wrote: only Two Armed Services that are necessary. An Army for defence of the land (and the airspace over it) and a Navy for defence of the sea (and everything over and under it).
Tongue in cheek: who's gonna do Space?

Folks eagerly splitting Combat Air forget that we already have the 4th command, because of the many 'indivisibilities"... tongue in cheek c'ed

Further, the oxymoron JH force 'label' is for for rotorcraft that have, for all intents and purposes, pretty much been divided between land and sea (and will get close to £ 10 bn in the Eq. Plan).
Submarines aside, taking their £44.6 billion lion's share, combat air programs are set to receive £17.8 billion
- so there would be plenty of other "stuff" in the Air Command planned spend of around £34 bn over the next decade that would be looking for a 'new home'
- on the surface of it, a whole half of the total
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: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Lots of talk about what type of F-35 and what for. If we look at the figures for both types it looks like B comes in circa $115 million and A post 2020 circa $80 million with this in mind if we went for 138 Bs it would cost circa 15.9 billion however if we went for 100 B's and 50 A's it would cost 15.5 billion this could be split something like this

FAA 50 jets split into squadrons of 10 jets

800 NAS HMS QE
801 NAS HMS QE
809 NAS HMS POW
892 NAS HMS POW
899 NAS F-35B OCU

RAF 50 F-35B jets split into 3 squadrons of 12 jets

9 Sqn front line
15 Sqn front line
617 Sqn front line

RAF 50 F-35A jets split into 3 Squadrons of 12 jets

19 Sqn front line
20 Sqn F-35 OCU
74 Sqn front line

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by serge750 »

That amount would be great !!! They would last well as the rotation of airframes would be good,

I would suggest a 50/50 split though to save a bit more money to put towards the extra supply costs of 2 types of F35, I would be happy with just 120 ( 60 x B 60 x A) and so save even more dosh that could be invested in the team Tempest project....

Even both QEC with 24 x F35B & rotary would be a powerful airgroup.

Bring Deeps
Donator
Posts: 217
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:06
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Bring Deeps »

I wonder to what extent this is a RAF vanity project that doesn't reflect the current geo-political realities.

When would the RAF use their F35As? Deep strike against the Red Army as it advances across Poland, liberating Northern Ireland from the EU or flying with the BBMF at an airshow? One of these options is far more likely than the other two.

Most people would like a Ferrari but have to settle for a Ford for good reason, when cash is in short supply you need to make the most of the funds available. At the end of the day both cars will get you from A to B. The same is true of the F35A and F35B when you consider the likely opposition.

The F35B gives the UK options and flexibility that any number of F35As can't give us. Yes, an aircraft carrier is vulnerable but mostly to the people we won't be going to war against this side of Armageddon.

It is not quite the right analogy but all the same it is worth pointing out that history might have been very different if Hitler had built more Uboats instead of being seduced by the idea of having a grand surface fleet.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

Tempest414 wrote:Lots of talk about what type of F-35 and what for. If we look at the figures for both types it looks like B comes in circa $115 million and A post 2020 circa $80 million with this in mind if we went for 138 Bs it would cost circa 15.9 billion however if we went for 100 B's and 50 A's it would cost 15.5 billion this could be split something like this

FAA 50 jets split into squadrons of 10 jets

800 NAS HMS QE
801 NAS HMS QE
809 NAS HMS POW
892 NAS HMS POW
899 NAS F-35B OCU

RAF 50 F-35B jets split into 3 squadrons of 12 jets

9 Sqn front line
15 Sqn front line
617 Sqn front line

RAF 50 F-35A jets split into 3 Squadrons of 12 jets

19 Sqn front line
20 Sqn F-35 OCU
74 Sqn front line
Don't forget there are going to be a number of airframes in storage for fleet management purposes and if the F-35 fleet is split so that only 50 are bought you are in all probability going to end up with only two front line squadrons and an OCU at that is it.

Whilst there are members of the "Junior" service who see the "A" as a way of ensuring they receive the full amount of F-35s we have committed to and if the conspiracy theories are believed, ensure they are toys solely for them to play with, the CV programme it too political for them to do it under the radar as they sort of did with the Joint Harrier Force. What annoys me about all this is that the RAF has another platform that is still growing in capability and is world class by any standard, namely the Typhoon. They should concentrate their energies on ensuring this platform reaches its true full potential.

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 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Little J wrote:who else has split bought?
Turkey would like some, but will, I bet, get none... of either

The Pentagon has submitted a for & against paper to the Congress, for decision.
SW1 wrote:Italian split is 60 f35 A 30 f35 B
Magical mathematics, A+B
2 x 48 + 48 = 144, and as the last ones will come in abt 20 yrs from now, with an attrition reserve that is ... 138 :)
Yes those numbers would be about right if your looking a at a sole f35 fastjet fleet. If the combat air strategy is to be believed and it’s funding as has been directed in the July announcement it isn’t the strategic direction of government however. What comes after the 48 f35 on order will define not just the shape of the fastjet fleet but the very future of uk miltary Aerospace design, do we produce a new design or do we shut it down there is not a budget to do both.

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 »

Anything less than 90 F35B's will be totally inadequate. Tempest will not be taken out of the remaining 48 "F35s"
For one thing, it would not be ready within an adequate timeframe and may not ever get to production. Also, do not forget about the Typhoons.

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 »

Scimitar54 wrote:Also, do not forget about the Typhoons.
+ the "fork in the road":
SW1 wrote: do we produce a new design or do we shut it down there is not a budget to do both.
... or do something in between. Let me elaborate (and please bear with the "eine kleine Einleitung" about how the Gvmnt strategy used the terms being bandied around):

The Combat Air Strategy uses the term ‘Team Tempest’ – and the companies involved have given some indications of the technologies and techniques they are looking at.

The other term in the Strategy is ‘Pyramid’: the project to develop open mission systems architecture, ie. act, if there is a go-ahead after the initial two-year funding, in the same way as Apple has done in building and upgrading iPhone.

About the team:

BAE Systems: at BAE's exhibiting stand Replica had been hauled out, with a Tiffie landing gear (front only?) bolted on... as it is normally hung at various angles, for its original purpose

Rolls-Royce: the full potential of the Typhoon's engine is still to be developed

MBDA : this is where it gets interesting. The Franco-German fighter project contracts, building on the 'must have' rqrments phase will be let in early 2019... and while Dassault will do the airframe (don't be surprised if it will come out as a cross between Rafale and Replica) part, Germany will do the ' systems' part. Can we see an overlap between the two programmes forming already now?

Leonardo: will work on sensors, electronics, and avionics.
- Coming back to Typhoons, a well-written RUSI paper on it is titles "The Best is Yet to Come". Leonardo says it will “mature the critical technologies to deliver next generation sensing and communications alongside the advanced open-system architectures that will deliver a step-change in how the sensors are employed within an operational system.”

- Typhoon Tr3B (for Germany?) might see baby steps of this Step Change, as they are (timing wise) on the most critical path. And also want to gear up, to avoid playing only a bit part when the actual action will be scaled up in the 30's.

- who says that there won't be a Typhoon Tr4 for the RAF?
... call it Tempest, for a propaganda coup?

In this scenario the F-35 buy would 'stall' somewhere between 48 and low 70s... which quantity would not allow for two versions (to be efficiently supported and squadrons rotated in tasking).
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)

Post Reply