UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
topman
Member
Posts: 295
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Location: Tokelau

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby topman » 14 Apr 2019, 12:31

Tempest414 wrote:
topman wrote:Its the numbers you're talking of being deployed to the aircraft carrier or anywhere else, that is unrealistic.


Why ?


If I'm reading your post right, you think 3 FAA badged sqns from JFL will deploy 30 aircraft out 30 to two different locations at the same time?

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1262
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 14 Apr 2019, 12:34

Really looking at it that you have 60% odd of any aircraft as front line then to allow the carriers and RAF to operate properly then the full 138 need to be in service at once. This would allow the FAA to have 3 squadrons of 12 ( 24 and 12 between the carriers ) and 4 squadrons of 12 for the RAF that can surge the carriers as required.

Much less than the above then either the carriers will be toothless or the RAF would have only a token F35 fleet.

If during peace time the QEs are operated with less than the 24/12 mix then they will look like the massive white elephants HMG have wanted to avoid and they might aswell of gone for 2 x 45,000t carriers.

topman
Member
Posts: 295
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Location: Tokelau

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby topman » 14 Apr 2019, 12:43

There's not really any 'RAF' or 'FAA' sqns, they are all part of one force. They may be nominally named as one or the other but they'll have a mix of people from both services in them.

topman
Member
Posts: 295
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Location: Tokelau

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby topman » 14 Apr 2019, 12:46

Jake1992 wrote:Really looking at it that you have 60% odd of any aircraft as front line then to allow the carriers and RAF to operate properly then the full 138 need to be in service at once. This would allow the FAA to have 3 squadrons of 12 ( 24 and 12 between the carriers ) and 4 squadrons of 12 for the RAF that can surge the carriers as required.

Much less than the above then either the carriers will be toothless or the RAF would have only a token F35 fleet.

If during peace time the QEs are operated with less than the 24/12 mix then they will look like the massive white elephants HMG have wanted to avoid and they might aswell of gone for 2 x 45,000t carriers.



Who's going to man this 138 jet fleet and how do we pay for it?

Online
Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1518
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Caribbean » 14 Apr 2019, 13:07

topman wrote:deploy 30 aircraft out 30 to two different locations at the same time

Is it me, or does that comment highlight the difference between RAF and FAA thinking? As in, the RAF is largely a "static" organisation, with occasional expeditionary forays (at great difficulty and expense - hence the understandable dismay at the prospect of deploying to two different locations at the same time), whereas the FAA (when properly constituted) is primarily an expeditionary organisation (with two purpose-built mobile bases) and some static facilities. The focus and expectations are completely different - and not a particularly good fit IMHO.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1262
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 14 Apr 2019, 13:13

topman wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:Really looking at it that you have 60% odd of any aircraft as front line then to allow the carriers and RAF to operate properly then the full 138 need to be in service at once. This would allow the FAA to have 3 squadrons of 12 ( 24 and 12 between the carriers ) and 4 squadrons of 12 for the RAF that can surge the carriers as required.

Much less than the above then either the carriers will be toothless or the RAF would have only a token F35 fleet.

If during peace time the QEs are operated with less than the 24/12 mix then they will look like the massive white elephants HMG have wanted to avoid and they might aswell of gone for 2 x 45,000t carriers.



Who's going to man this 138 jet fleet and how do we pay for it?


I never said it’ll happen I said it’s what is really needed to do what HMG want else like I said either the carriers or RAF fleets will be just token forces or even worse both half arsed.

We all know the true fact of the matter is that more money is needed no if or buts that is the simple truth, as for personal well with more money and time this would come but with out the former no amount of time will rectify the shortage.

The original numbers of the 180 odd would of been just want is needed this would of allowed a split of As and Bs 90 odd of each but then 2010 happened and it’s been repair and hope since then

topman
Member
Posts: 295
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Location: Tokelau

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby topman » 14 Apr 2019, 13:24

Caribbean wrote:
topman wrote:deploy 30 aircraft out 30 to two different locations at the same time

Is it me, or does that comment highlight the difference between RAF and FAA thinking? As in, the RAF is largely a "static" organisation, with occasional expeditionary forays (at great difficulty and expense - hence the understandable dismay at the prospect of deploying to two different locations at the same time), whereas the FAA (when properly constituted) is primarily an expeditionary organisation (with two purpose-built mobile bases) and some static facilities. The focus and expectations are completely different - and not a particularly good fit IMHO.



Nothing to do with mindset, simply practical reality. Yes you can deploy to two places at the same time and I'm not dismayed by it but doing it with 30 out of 30?


I get people want lots of aircraft floating about and the carriers are a mini-me version of the US. But it's not really realistic to deploy those sorts of numbers. I've seen it first hand what goes into it and the manpower needed.

We are really struggling to man what we've got now and that's before we get into things like SQEP or the manning challenges in the next 3-5 years. Or budget issues.

I think the issue is many underestimate the issues to get the numbers they think are realistic when those numbers people throw about are just pulled out of thin air.



Not sure where you get occasional foray from?

topman
Member
Posts: 295
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Location: Tokelau

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby topman » 14 Apr 2019, 13:28

Jake1992 wrote:
topman wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:Really looking at it that you have 60% odd of any aircraft as front line then to allow the carriers and RAF to operate properly then the full 138 need to be in service at once. This would allow the FAA to have 3 squadrons of 12 ( 24 and 12 between the carriers ) and 4 squadrons of 12 for the RAF that can surge the carriers as required.

Much less than the above then either the carriers will be toothless or the RAF would have only a token F35 fleet.

If during peace time the QEs are operated with less than the 24/12 mix then they will look like the massive white elephants HMG have wanted to avoid and they might aswell of gone for 2 x 45,000t carriers.



Who's going to man this 138 jet fleet and how do we pay for it?


I never said it’ll happen I said it’s what is really needed to do what HMG want else like I said either the carriers or RAF fleets will be just token forces or even worse both half arsed.


I don't think they'll be token forces even 8 F35s on something like shader would be more capacity than many other countries could deploy.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1262
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 14 Apr 2019, 13:34

topman wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:
topman wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:Really looking at it that you have 60% odd of any aircraft as front line then to allow the carriers and RAF to operate properly then the full 138 need to be in service at once. This would allow the FAA to have 3 squadrons of 12 ( 24 and 12 between the carriers ) and 4 squadrons of 12 for the RAF that can surge the carriers as required.

Much less than the above then either the carriers will be toothless or the RAF would have only a token F35 fleet.

If during peace time the QEs are operated with less than the 24/12 mix then they will look like the massive white elephants HMG have wanted to avoid and they might aswell of gone for 2 x 45,000t carriers.



Who's going to man this 138 jet fleet and how do we pay for it?


I never said it’ll happen I said it’s what is really needed to do what HMG want else like I said either the carriers or RAF fleets will be just token forces or even worse both half arsed.


I don't think they'll be token forces even 8 F35s on something like shader would be more capacity than many other countries could deploy.


When your looking at most likely they’d be 4 front line squadron between carriers and RAF to replace 70 odd torandos and properly equip the QEs so they don’t look like a joke and can preform for than CASits not great by any look

topman
Member
Posts: 295
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Location: Tokelau

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby topman » 14 Apr 2019, 14:00

I think it's always going to cause people to get disappointed if you compare to the past numbers wise. People in the 60s probably thought the military was too small and compared it to ww2 sized military.

If we look forward the numbers aren't too bad really. Exclude the Americans and we are comparable not perfect by any stretch but better than others.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1262
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 14 Apr 2019, 14:20

topman wrote:I think it's always going to cause people to get disappointed if you compare to the past numbers wise. People in the 60s probably thought the military was too small and compared it to ww2 sized military.

If we look forward the numbers aren't too bad really. Exclude the Americans and we are comparable not perfect by any stretch but better than others.


It’s not so much comparing numbers to the past but more in that you can’t add extra capabilities ( the carriers ) with out adding extra aircraft.

It’s also the point of when numbers are cut in each successive generation it’ll get to a point where you reach critical mass and that is what we have reached before the tornados went

SW1
Member
Posts: 762
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby SW1 » 14 Apr 2019, 14:28

Jake1992 wrote:I never said it’ll happen I said it’s what is really needed to do what HMG want else like I said either the carriers or RAF fleets will be just token forces or even worse both half arsed.


I don’t see people saying it’s tokenism when the US rocks up with 4 f22 in Estonia or 8 in Korea or when 8 f35s fly off an LHA in Afghanistan.


People see the carrier and suddenly think that means a uss nimitz and that perception has been ingrained by expressing maximum effort numbers as norms for pr purposes. We just don’t have the mass for that an no one outside the US does.

Online
Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1518
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Caribbean » 14 Apr 2019, 15:06

topman wrote:Not sure where you get occasional foray from?

I said "occasional expeditionary forays". I don't consider operating from an established overseas RAF airbase (Cyprus, Falklands, etc) as "expeditionary".
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

topman
Member
Posts: 295
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Location: Tokelau

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby topman » 14 Apr 2019, 15:12

Caribbean wrote:
topman wrote:Not sure where you get occasional foray from?

I said "occasional expeditionary forays". I don't consider operating from an established overseas RAF airbase (Cyprus, Falklands, etc) as "expeditionary".


What do you consider expeditionary?

serge750
Member
Posts: 345
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby serge750 » 14 Apr 2019, 15:30

Since we have not really had large carriers since the 70's it will take a different mindset to make the said aircraft available for deployment, I do believe that after a few deployments and more F35 delivered the going will get easier in the mid to late 2020's, maybe by late 2025 we will have a short deployment for SHOW of 20 x F35b ( out of 48 ish that should have been delivered by then ) 9 ASW Merlins and 4 Crowsnest just to see what could be done on our own.

Before then I think 10 x UK F35 + hellicopters with an additional flight of usmc F35 will be the norm

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1262
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 14 Apr 2019, 15:40

SW1 wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:I never said it’ll happen I said it’s what is really needed to do what HMG want else like I said either the carriers or RAF fleets will be just token forces or even worse both half arsed.


I don’t see people saying it’s tokenism when the US rocks up with 4 f22 in Estonia or 8 in Korea or when 8 f35s fly off an LHA in Afghanistan.


People see the carrier and suddenly think that means a uss nimitz and that perception has been ingrained by expressing maximum effort numbers as norms for pr purposes. We just don’t have the mass for that an no one outside the US does.


No but when it’s meant to be one of your main bulk of the Air Force aswell as carrier strike the numbers start to become very thin. If it turns out as a lot on here think that we’ll have no more than 70-80 in service at any time that give us what 42-48 front line aircraft for both the carriers and RAF that is very thin indeed.

I don’t expect them to be like Nimitz class cramed with aircraft all the time but I also don’t expect to see our 70,000t strike carries going round with only 12 F35s on board 90% of the time.
I’d be very happy if during peace time we had one with 20-24 plus it’s ASW and AEW and the other with 12 plus ASW AEW and commando helos, but to have this would leave the RAF with pretty much 12 F35s which is very little.

Like I said you end up leaving the RAF with very little or the carriers looking like giant white elephants and a massive ego trip rather than practical flat tops.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1230
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 14 Apr 2019, 15:49

topman wrote:If I'm reading your post right, you think 3 FAA badged sqns from JFL will deploy 30 aircraft out 30 to two different locations at the same time?


No what I am saying is 20 jets = 2 sqn's would deploy with HMS QE on a 7 to 9 month deployment in year one when they return home the 2 sqn's would adapt a low hours reduced airframe flying program to allow there jets to go into maintenance. Sqn 3 with 10 jets would then deploy the next year with HMS POW and could if needed be joined by a RAF or USMC unit . However if the shit really hits the fan then yes all 3 sqn's would take jets as needed from the pool and deploy aboard the carriers

topman
Member
Posts: 295
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Location: Tokelau

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby topman » 14 Apr 2019, 15:53

Jake1992 wrote:
topman wrote:I think it's always going to cause people to get disappointed if you compare to the past numbers wise. People in the 60s probably thought the military was too small and compared it to ww2 sized military.

If we look forward the numbers aren't too bad really. Exclude the Americans and we are comparable not perfect by any stretch but better than others.


It’s not so much comparing numbers to the past but more in that you can’t add extra capabilities ( the carriers ) with out adding extra aircraft.

It’s also the point of when numbers are cut in each successive generation it’ll get to a point where you reach critical mass and that is what we have reached before the tornados went


I think we have to adjust what is considered enough, know what is realistic, practical and affordable and keep it separate that from a wish list.

topman
Member
Posts: 295
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Location: Tokelau

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby topman » 14 Apr 2019, 16:01

Tempest414 wrote:
topman wrote:If I'm reading your post right, you think 3 FAA badged sqns from JFL will deploy 30 aircraft out 30 to two different locations at the same time?


No what I am saying is 20 jets = 2 sqn's would deploy with HMS QE on a 7 to 9 month deployment in year one when they return home the 2 sqn's would adapt a low hours reduced airframe flying program to allow there jets to go into maintenance. Sqn 3 with 10 jets would then deploy the next year with HMS POW and could if needed be joined by a RAF or USMC unit . However if the shit really hits the fan then yes all 3 sqn's would take jets as needed from the pool and deploy aboard the carriers


and that cycle would continue each year?

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1262
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Jake1992 » 14 Apr 2019, 16:02

topman wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:
topman wrote:I think it's always going to cause people to get disappointed if you compare to the past numbers wise. People in the 60s probably thought the military was too small and compared it to ww2 sized military.

If we look forward the numbers aren't too bad really. Exclude the Americans and we are comparable not perfect by any stretch but better than others.


It’s not so much comparing numbers to the past but more in that you can’t add extra capabilities ( the carriers ) with out adding extra aircraft.

It’s also the point of when numbers are cut in each successive generation it’ll get to a point where you reach critical mass and that is what we have reached before the tornados went


I think we have to adjust what is considered enough, know what is realistic, practical and affordable and keep it separate that from a wish list.


I agree with that but we are now replacing 70 odd tornados and the requirement for 60-70 harriers with what 70 odd F35Bs.
If we were just replacing just the tornados or bringing in all 138 F35s in to service then we’d be good but we are adding requirements with out the additional aircraft.

What we’ve done is HMG set up a plan that was well worked out and would bring us back but then successive Governments have cut the funding with out cutting the requirements and are wondering why it appears to not be working.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1230
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 14 Apr 2019, 17:18

topman wrote:and that cycle would continue each year?


As long as the jets are available and what the carrier is being sent to do

topman
Member
Posts: 295
Joined: 07 May 2015, 20:56
Location: Tokelau

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby topman » 14 Apr 2019, 17:34

Tempest414 wrote:
topman wrote:and that cycle would continue each year?


As long as the jets are available and what the carrier is being sent to do


Well that's one way to run things.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1802
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Repulse » 14 Apr 2019, 17:55

topman wrote:I don't think they'll be token forces even 8 F35s on something like shader would be more capacity than many other countries could deploy.


Agreed, but the French seem to be able to regularly operate a fleet of 24 Rafales from a fleet of 42. Whilst the CdG is not a 100% capability, the UK should be able to muster 12 regularly full time (in rotation on each CVF) from a fleet of 48. Longer term would look for 18 (the same number of a/c operating from the illustrious class) from a fleet of 70.

Personally, I’d stop there and maximise the Typhoon (even ordering a few more) and buy more UAVs to replace the capability provided by the Tornado.

topman wrote:There's not really any 'RAF' or 'FAA' sqns, they are all part of one force. They may be nominally named as one or the other but they'll have a mix of people from both services in them.


Understand, but the value of the F35b is to fly from the CVFs.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3155
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 14 Apr 2019, 18:01

The danger ahead is that the F-35 force could end up in a similar situation to that which the Joint Harrier Force suffered. Will it be pulled in multiple direction at the same time, so that we each a point that land based commitments mean that there are no F-35s available for carrier deployments except for the occasional month long detachment to try to maintain skills. Unless it becomes law that at least one squadron must be available for carrier deployment at all times the above could eventually happen, especially as the F-35 becomes the RAF's go to platform for expeditionary deployments and so on.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10178
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 14 Apr 2019, 18:21

topman wrote:What do you consider expeditionary?


Looks like currently we need 4 air wings to have one of them operate in a combat role over a wider geographic area, as in
"83 Expeditionary Air Group (EAG) is commanded by an RAF Air Commodore who acts as the Air Component Commander and Air Officer Commanding 83 EAG. He is responsible to the UK’s Permanent Joint Headquarters for the control and direction of 4 Expeditionary Air Wings (EAWs) supporting Operations Kipion and Shader as well as the delivery of UK national and Defence objectives across the Middle East. 83 EAG’s area of responsibility extends from the Southern end of the Arabian Gulf to the Eastern Mediterranean, and encompasses numerous relationships and alliances across the region."

In the (near) future we can rock up with a tighter package, operating over a more focussed area though, by sailing a carrier - or two - to the area where any such might help to deliver of UK national and Defence objectives
- be it through sheer (but timely :!: ) deterrence... without a single shot ;)


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bri and 69 guests