Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

[Timmymagic]

If it takes 7 years, how about buying JSM now? JSM is in production and can be carried underwing of F35, as I understand?

SPEAR3 and JSM is in different class, so they can go along with after SPEAR3 introduction.

JSM MIGHT have some overlap with FCASW, but it all depends on FCASW specification. As I think RN shall adopt NSM as interim ship-to-ship missile, the "overlap" issue will be common. So, if FCASW become a missile very different from JSM/NSM, the issues are solved (anyway FC-ASW integration to F35B is decades away, not surprised if it was not integrated to F35b even in 2040).

JSM still isn't cleared for F-35. The testing campaign has yet to get going, no flight trials of dummys or live releases to date. Just fit tests some time ago on wing carriage and internal carry.

It will be able to be carried by F-35B on the inner and mid wing pylons.. I suspect not initially though as trials will focus on internal carriage and inner wing pylon first. Basically you're not going to see JSM cleared and on F-35B before 2024 at the earliest.

No real overlap between JSM and FCASW. JSM is 900lb's, and you can expect FCASW to be in the 3,000lb weapon class (like Storm Shadow)

[PhillyJ]

Well that's my lad all packed up and relocated to MOD Caledonia (Rosyth) for the foreseeable future courtesy of National Rail. How he managed to traverse the underground from Waterloo to Kings Cross with all his kit is a miracle! Cannot wait to see him arrive at HMNB Pompey onboard POW sometime this year.

Wow, this was 2 years ago...time flies! He has at least been to Liverpool on her I suppose, though got thoroughly soaked stood at his GPMG position whilst sailing up the Mersey. He also had to do a real time run to action stations one night when a Russki ship got too close apparently.

[NickC]

If it takes 7 years, how about buying JSM now? JSM is in production and can be carried underwing of F35, as I understand?

SPEAR3 and JSM is in different class, so they can go along with after SPEAR3 introduction.

JSM MIGHT have some overlap with FCASW, but it all depends on FCASW specification. As I think RN shall adopt NSM as interim ship-to-ship missile, the "overlap" issue will be common. So, if FCASW become a missile very different from JSM/NSM, the issues are solved (anyway FC-ASW integration to F35B is decades away, not surprised if it was not integrated to F35b even in 2040).

JSM still isn't cleared for F-35. The testing campaign has yet to get going, no flight trials of dummys or live releases to date. Just fit tests some time ago on wing carriage and internal carry.

It will be able to be carried by F-35B on the inner and mid wing pylons.. I suspect not initially though as trials will focus on internal carriage and inner wing pylon first. Basically you're not going to see JSM cleared and on F-35B before 2024 at the earliest.

No real overlap between JSM and FCASW. JSM is 900lb's, and you can expect FCASW to be in the 3,000lb weapon class (like Storm Shadow)

Just to clarify my understanding the JSM is too long to fit into the shorter F-35B weapons bay and will require external carriage degrading its stealth capabilities plus to be effective assume it will need Block 4 a/c with the upgraded AN/APG-81 radar capable of wide area surface search by 'big SAR' enabled by additional computing power, GPU's and upgraded software.

[Ron5]

Basically you're not going to see JSM cleared and on F-35B before 2024 at the earliest

I'm curious as to who is the customer that would pay for this integration?

[Ron5]

Well that's my lad all packed up and relocated to MOD Caledonia (Rosyth) for the foreseeable future courtesy of National Rail. How he managed to traverse the underground from Waterloo to Kings Cross with all his kit is a miracle! Cannot wait to see him arrive at HMNB Pompey onboard POW sometime this year.

Wow, this was 2 years ago...time flies! He has at least been to Liverpool on her I suppose, though got thoroughly soaked stood at his GPMG position whilst sailing up the Mersey. He also had to do a real time run to action stations one night when a Russki ship got too close apparently.

Let's hope he gets a shed load more sea time this year!!

[Timmymagic]

Just to clarify my understanding the JSM is too long to fit into the shorter F-35B weapons bay and will require external carriage degrading its stealth capabilities plus to be effective assume it will need Block 4 a/c with the upgraded AN/APG-81 radar capable of wide area surface search by 'big SAR' enabled by additional computing power, GPU's and upgraded software

Yes JSM will not fit internally on F-35B. External only. I wouldn't worry about the Stealth aspect though. JSM has a range of 300 miles in a Hi-Hi-Lo profile, so can be launched well outside of any defences and realistically a stealthy missile hanging off a stealthy aircraft on a moderately stealthy pylon will not be picked up by a target radar at 100 miles even (thats the range for a Lo-Lo-Lo flight profile). The external carriage of JSM on F-35B being an issue is massively overstated in my opinion.

It will only be available on Block IV upgraded aircraft anyway so the radar will have those modes by the time its cleared for service.

I'm curious as to who is the customer that would pay for this integration?

US and Norway. The Norwegians were smart, as part of their negotiations to join the F-35 programme they made the US agree that JSM would be integrated in the main integration effort and that the US would contribute to its integration. Smart move...Norway and Japan confirmed as customers, with (still not certain) the Australian's to come. Would expect the South Koreans to procure it as well. Apart from that I suspect the Danes will purchase some.

[Ron5]

US and Norway

Neither are interested in JSM on F-35B's. I don't know any nation that is.

[jimthelad]

If the software for the weapons system is written then surely it is carriage trials only for a Bravo user?

[Timmymagic]

Neither are interested in JSM on F-35B's. I don't know any nation that is

That's true. But the main integration cost is the weapons system integration. With UAI once this is done for F-35A it is immediately available for B and C users. A flight test campaign for carriage and release of a wing mounted munition (particularly one that isn't required to be launched at extreme parts of the flight envelope like an AAM, or indeed carried in those flight regimes) is not going to be ruinously expensive.
Obviously for an B or C user this is more complex than the A as VL trials, assymetric launch trials etc take a little more time particularly for shipborne launch.

I do wonder if the Japanese, as the biggest customer for JSM, might be the ones who bite the bullet on F-35B/JSM for their Izumo's. That would be a long way away though..

If the software for the weapons system is written then surely it is carriage trials only for a Bravo user?

Yes, but those trials could be extensive. Not insurmountable though.

[Lord Jim]

Japan has already developed a new air launched supersonic AShM, and they always seem to be more interested in this role than land attack, with their Self Defence moniker. For the UK the main issue will probably be whether the FCASW is integrated on the F-35B. If the weapon lives up to its billing the combination would be very powerful and flexible.

[Ron5]

If the software for the weapons system is written then surely it is carriage trials only for a Bravo user?

Carriage and firing trials are rather expensive. The most expensive bit of the whole process. I doubt very much if anyone will want to pay for the B. Certainly not the UK.

[Timmymagic]

Japan has already developed a new air launched supersonic AShM, and they always seem to be more interested in this role than land attack, with their Self Defence moniker. For the UK the main issue will probably be whether the FCASW is integrated on the F-35B. If the weapon lives up to its billing the combination would be very powerful and flexible.

Realistically we're not going to see FCASW on F-35 until 2035. That's a long, long way away.

[NickC]

Just to clarify my understanding the JSM is too long to fit into the shorter F-35B weapons bay and will require external carriage degrading its stealth capabilities plus to be effective assume it will need Block 4 a/c with the upgraded AN/APG-81 radar capable of wide area surface search by 'big SAR' enabled by additional computing power, GPU's and upgraded software

Yes JSM will not fit internally on F-35B. External only. I wouldn't worry about the Stealth aspect though. JSM has a range of 300 miles in a Hi-Hi-Lo profile, so can be launched well outside of any defences and realistically a stealthy missile hanging off a stealthy aircraft on a moderately stealthy pylon will not be picked up by a target radar at 100 miles even (thats the range for a Lo-Lo-Lo flight profile). The external carriage of JSM on F-35B being an issue is massively overstated in my opinion.

One of the stealth features on F-35 was its design which avoided the creation of intersecting right angle surfaces to minimise reflections (thinking of the effect on external addition of pylons and missiles). To maximise its stealth capability Lockheed also went with the added complication and expense of designing in an internal weapons bay with weapons bay doors closed until before weapons release and closed again immediately afterward. One drawback with an internal weapons bay if ever used for ASRAAM would maybe the vital seconds it would take for weapons bay doors to open before launch.

Think external pylons would definitely degrade the stealth considerably, no way to know with external carriage of weapons and EFT how much stealth capability degraded unless Lockheed revealed the data if ever tested with measurements of the numerous combinations of external pylons, missiles etc, also external stores cause significant aerodynamic drag reducing radius of action quoted

[NickC]

Just to clarify my understanding the JSM is too long to fit into the shorter F-35B weapons bay and will require external carriage degrading its stealth capabilities plus to be effective assume it will need Block 4 a/c with the upgraded AN/APG-81 radar capable of wide area surface search by 'big SAR' enabled by additional computing power, GPU's and upgraded software

Yes JSM will not fit internally on F-35B. External only. I wouldn't worry about the Stealth aspect though. JSM has a range of 300 miles in a Hi-Hi-Lo profile, so can be launched well outside of any defences and realistically a stealthy missile hanging off a stealthy aircraft on a moderately stealthy pylon will not be picked up by a target radar at 100 miles even (thats the range for a Lo-Lo-Lo flight profile). The external carriage of JSM on F-35B being an issue is massively overstated in my opinion.

One of the stealth features on F-35 was its design which avoided the creation of intersecting right angle surfaces to minimise reflections (thinking of the effect on external addition of pylons and missiles). To maximise its stealth capability Lockheed also went with the added complication and expense of designing in an internal weapons bay with weapons bay doors closed until before weapons release and closed again immediately afterward. One drawback with an internal weapons bay if ever used for ASRAAM would maybe the vital seconds it would take for weapons bay doors to open before launch.

Think external pylons would definitely degrade the stealth considerably, no way to know with external carriage of weapons and EFT how much stealth capability degraded unless Lockheed revealed the data if ever tested with measurements of the numerous combinations of external pylons, missiles etc, also external stores cause significant aerodynamic drag reducing radius of action quoted

Photo of F-35 in article yesterday below with external bombs and missiles, thinking of how 'dirty' it looks and as said think will seriously degrade its stealth by carrying external stores

(The outgoing USAF acquisition chief Will Roper suggesting a future option of cutting back planned buy of F-35 and opting for NGAD and the Digital Century Series a/c due to F-35s very high life cycle costs/cost per flying hour. Its sending message to Lockheed if they do not bring sustainment costs down there will be alternatives, Congress funding NGAD development with $955 million in FY2021)

https://breakingdefense.com/2021/01/rop ... cle-costs/

[Digger22]

No, changed my mind.

[serge750]

Thanks Naval news for the heads up, Does this bode well for QE maiden deployment to meet up with the french ? would be a good sight to see

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... rettyPhoto

[BlueD954]

Thanks Naval news for the heads up, Does this bode well for QE maiden deployment to meet up with the french ? would be a good sight to see

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... rettyPhoto

Anything can happen. Can meet up with French, USN, Italian, even Indian carriers.

[ArmChairCivvy]

even Indian carriers.

Leaving the Italian ONE, and the French ONE, aside things will change when we will steam onto the scene. From the PLAN perspective the Quad’s [ see end note**] manoeuvreing has been limited (as in the Malabar Exercises) to its Southern Theatre Command, which has made their joint counterforce planning simple, compared to systemic incompatibilities and bureaucratic red-tapism inherent in Indian and American military component commands - the latter is being revamped as we speak/ write.

Exercise Malabar 2020 may have flashed international headlines, but only now the winds of change are starting to blow.

#####
**) The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (also known as the Quad) is an informal strategic forum between the United States, Japan, Australia and India that is maintained by semi-regular summits, information exchanges and military drills between member countries.

[Jdam]

Some more details of the Queen Elizabeth deployment. USS The Sullivans will be with her on the trip.

Edit: know I had heard of the USS The Sullivans, she was with the QE when she deployed in the Atlantic with Marine F-35'

[The Armchair Soldier]

US Navy commits to HMS Queen Elizabeth’s maiden deployment

The United States has committed air and naval power, plus sailors and marines to the UK’s premier military deployment of 2021.

US Marine Corps F-35 Lightning jets – identical to those flown and maintained by the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force – will join HMS Queen Elizabeth on her maiden deployment.

Also joining the carrier when she leaves Portsmouth later this year is the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer USS The Sullivans as both a shield (defence against air and submarine attack) and spear (among other firepower, Tomahawk cruise missiles).

Read More: https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-l ... 20-csg-usa

I thought CSG21 was supposed to be a fully “sovereign” deployment with only UK assets?

[Defiance]

I thought CSG21 was supposed to be a fully “sovereign” deployment with only UK assets?

I didn't think it was ever marketed as that? AFAIK we were always having international escorts and USMC participation.

2023/2024 will be the true sovereign effort. Put together a task group with 24 UK jets on board and then we're there IMO.

[The Armchair Soldier]

I thought CSG21 was supposed to be a fully “sovereign” deployment with only UK assets?

I didn't think it was ever marketed as that? AFAIK we were always having international escorts and USMC participation.

2023/2024 will be the true sovereign effort. Put together a task group with 24 UK jets on board and then we're there IMO.

Could have sworn I’d read it somewhere but a quick Google isn’t bringing up any results. Looks like I’ve dreamt it.

[Defiance]

Could have sworn I’d read it somewhere but a quick Google isn’t bringing up any results. Looks like I’ve dreamt it.

Either way though, this isn't that far off. 2 Type 45's and 2 Type 23's is a decent number, 2 RFA and they've claimed an SSN presence. Really it's only the F-35/Crowsnest angle that needs sorting and they'll come in time

[Cooper]

Having the Americans on board the carrier and escorting it serves two purposes, filling the gaps until 2023-24 and more importantly it will put a restraint on China's belligerent behaviour when we enter the South China Sea.

If this was just a purely British effort, the level of intimidation and threats, that they're obviously planning for our arrival, would be an order of magnitude greater without the American presence.

[Timmymagic]

Having the Americans on board the carrier and escorting it serves two purposes, filling the gaps until 2023-24 and more importantly it will put a restraint on China's belligerent behaviour when we enter the South China Sea.

If this was just a purely British effort, the level of intimidation and threats, that they're obviously planning for our arrival, would be an order of magnitude greater without the American presence.

I agree with this to an extent. The Chinese already harass the USN, but I think they would have reserved some extra harassment for the RN.

I have to say I suspect a transit of the Taiwan Strait is not on the cards, but given the US and UK's near alignment on China's status as a genocidal fascist state I wish we would. A real multinational fleet sailing through there would really help back up the Taiwanese (and indeed the US who have been left alone to do it).