UK Defence Forum

Exactly because of this conundrum I the reason why I have always believed that we (and NATO) need three x CSGs. Yes we agreed major co-operation with the French, but they then cancelled their second Carrier. If they (the French) also had 2 x CSGs, then between us we might have enough. Can we be certain that they will even replace CDG?. We know how long it has taken us to get this far and we also have an indication of how long it will take to get eveything else in place.
If we do not take the broader view (Operations outside of the NATO) area then our American cousins may be less able to contribute a CSG to the Atlantic. Then we will be likely to need "our" 2 x CSGs there instead. To maintain 2 x "operational" CSGs, we will need at least 3 of them.

Scimitar54 wrote:Can we be certain that they will even replace CDG?.

Yes, it is now only down to choice of propulsion (as it will need to be bigger, and that would take three of their 'one-size-for-all-purposes' reactors... but then EMALS would be no problem)

Scimitar54 wrote:If we do not take the broader view (Operations outside of the NATO) area then our American cousins may be less able to contribute a CSG to the Atlantic. Then we will be likely to need "our" 2 x CSGs there instead.

- that is the conundrum as their carriers can be a swing resource between the Pacific and Indian Ocean... does not apply to the Atlantic

(@HMSQNLZ) 22 Feb 2019

The work on our new invisibility shield is progressing well!

(@HMSQNLZ) 23 Feb 2019

What’s the weather like where you are?

What’s the weather like where you are?

Much the same... View isn't quite as good though

Had over two inches of snow in Arizona yesterday. Absolutely amazing.

Look like QNLZ CIP is coming to an end soon. Anyone know what she has planned next. I'm assuming she is going to sea before Westlant 19 in the summer. Maybe some FOST training?

On the subject of Westlant 19, any thoughts on the composition of the Task group? As it has a more operational bias to it I'm going for QNLZ, T45, Fort Victoria (as an interim FSSS) and a Tide AOR, along of course with 7 of 617 Squadron F-35 and associated Merlins. I'm guessing Crowsnest wont be ready..

hovematlot wrote:Look like QNLZ CIP is coming to an end soon. Anyone know what she has planned next. I'm assuming she is going to sea before Westlant 19 in the summer. Maybe some FOST training?

On the subject of Westlant 19, any thoughts on the composition of the Task group? As it has a more operational bias to it I'm going for QNLZ, T45, Fort Victoria (as an interim FSSS) and a Tide AOR, along of course with 7 of 617 Squadron F-35 and associated Merlins. I'm guessing Crowsnest wont be ready..

No T23?

Why 7 x F35B?

Scimitar54 wrote:Why 7 x F35B?

IOC with 12 is still ahead of us

Where do we stand in CROWSNEST, things are vary quiet considering the fanfare about the RN regaining its carrier capability?

Lord Jim wrote:in CROWSNEST

May be a cuckoo laid an egg in there and these eggs (for now, i.e. the budget) have fallen over the edge?

ArmChairCivvy Wrote

IOC with 12 is still ahead of us

We do actually have 9 at RAF Marham. Are you suggesting that 2 of them are nothing more than Gate Guards already?

Scimitar54 wrote:ArmChairCivvy Wrote

IOC with 12 is still ahead of us

We do actually have 9 at RAF Marham. Are you suggesting that 2 of them are nothing more than Gate Guards already?

7 deployed is the official figure for Westland 19.

Scimitar54 wrote:We do actually have 9 at RAF Marham

What I am suggesting that 60% is a "good number"
- makes for 5.4 a/c

And USAFE is "top of the class" even within the fairly well funded USAF with appr. 80% availability
- out of 9 that would be 7.2 a/c

I average those two = 6.3 a/c
- and I give Top Marks for 7 (should OCU be stopped dead in its tracks, just because something else has been scheduled?)
- how would you rate it?

ArmChairCivvy wrote:

Scimitar54 wrote:We do actually have 9 at RAF Marham

What I am suggesting that 60% is a "good number"
- makes for 5.4 a/c

And USAFE is "top of the class" even within the fairly well funded USAF with appr. 80% availability
- out of 9 that would be 7.2 a/c

I average those two = 6.3 a/c
- and I give Top Marks for 7 (should OCU be stopped dead in its tracks, just because something else has been scheduled?)
- how would you rate it?

I was under the impression that the talk last year was for the final 3 for the full squadron strength were due at Marham by the end of 2018, was that just chatter or was it changed?

You are not ever deploying every aircraft you have at a base certainly not this one and certainly not at this point in its service life. Getting 7 deployed will be challenging enough

Scimitar54 wrote:Why 7 x F35B?

Think it might have been Gerry Kyd that said they would be bringing 7 F-35 with them for Westland 19. Maybe beefed up at times with some USMC jets for familiarisation training.

A Eureka Moment! The USMC beefing it up will mean that there will be more than 7 x F35B involved during trials with QE for Westlant '19. My earlier statement was that we had 9 at Marham. The unspoken part was that it may well be even more than that; at least at times. If a squadron is going to be deployed on a QEC, then it would be usual (and it is likely to be required) for all of it's serviceable aircraft to be deployed as well. The OCU comments are in reality not applicable, as the OCU's aircraft (already in use) are likely to cross the Atlantic to Norfolk UK, when training moves from the USA to Marham.

IT could be one third UK and two thirds US with regards to airframes on the deployment but possibly fifty: fifty when it comes to air crew, with RAF and FAA personnel flying USMC F-35s at times.

Given the common aircraft spec would the USMC aircraft deployed to QE use ASRAAM and PW-IV or would they have US weapons loaded into QE's magazines?

SW1 Wrote

You are not ever deploying every aircraft you have at a base certainly not this one and certainly not at this point in its service life. Getting 7 deployed will be challenging enough

That is the point. If the squadron is deployed to the Carrier, the Carrier becomes their base.

Old RN wrote:Given the common aircraft spec would the USMC aircraft deployed to QE use ASRAAM and PW-IV or would they have US weapons loaded into QE's magazines?

Is it a det where live weapon use has been confirmed ?

It's a great point, moving forward to Operations, would USMC maintainers/armourous be part of the embarked personnel? If different weapons are employed by USMC jets, I can't see an alternative,

Interesting to note that the USN is removing the carrier ATTDS. The U.S. Navy has ordered the Anti-Torpedo Torpedo Defense System (ATTDS) removed from the five CVN (nuclear-powered aircraft carriers) it had been installed on for testing and development. The problem was that ATTDS did not perform reliably and...

I dont know about ASRAAM, but the USMC jets have indeed open compatibility with Paveway IV with QE deployments in mind.