UK Defence Forum

Confirmation the USMC will deploy an F35 squadron for QE's first deployment is great news. The generous support of the USMC to bring the carrier and its aircraft to operational readiness is very welcome.
However even with 2 x F35 squadrons on board does this represent full operational readiness? Surely to be fully trained and operational we need to see QE train and deploy with 3 squadrons on board and a full complement of 1,600 crew?
Is it necessary and when will it happen?

QE's AIS is back on, she arrived off the Nab Tower just after 15:00. Tugs have gone out from Portsmouth Harbour to meet her.
https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/ho ... 08/zoom:10

HMS Warrior's live webcam is now locked on QE. Best watched fullscreen!
http://www.hmswarrior.org/webcam

Only 2 phalanx ? Or have I missed something , thought there was supposed 2 be 3 ? Maybe I not been concentrating

3rd Phalanx remains to be fitted later. Not enough time to do it before heading off to Rosyth for Dry-Docking, IIRC.

Cheers scimitar 54

From Hansard, 18th February 2019:

Minister of the Armed Forces: "Three Phalanx close-in weapon systems will be fitted to each new aircraft carrier. Two are being fitted to HMS Queen Elizabeth during her current capability insertion period, with the third to be fitted towards the end of 2020. Three will be fitted to HMS Prince Of Wales in 2020."

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2 ... anxWeapons

Well found!

I've been thinking about the possible fitting of CAMM on the QEC and it's possible location(s). It would seem that the only sensible location for a silo to be sited would be on the Stern (to Starboard, at the angle) where a fourth Phalanx, as suggested by some would most likely be fitted. In this location and with considered design, there is absolutely minimum interference with the 3 x planned Phalanx "arcs". This location should also at least minimise (and even potentially avoid) the possibility of FOD from fired missiles ending up on the Flight Deck or on parked Aircraft, due to the normal forward motion of the vessel. A single silo of 12 x tubes with quad-packed CAMM ought to do it, especially as replenishment of empty tubes may even be possible at sea by utilising the Mobile Deck Crane and if spare "rounds" were to be carried in the ships magazines.

Do you mean a 3cell ExLS launcher with quad packed CAMM giving 12 rounds? as you say this would seem ideal as it hopefully? would be relatively inexpensive to fit at a later refit, hopefully the escorts would get 99.9 % of the incoming missiles and these 12 on the carrier would be (bar the CIWS) a last ditch defence

I originally had in mind 12 x cells, but I'm less concerned about the actual number. Possibly 6, but more likely 9 or 12 would be seen as making the installation more worthwhile. Although re-loads might be possible, you would not want to be carrying out that evolution whilst operating aircraft, or in rough seas.

Scimitar54 wrote:I've been thinking about the possible fitting of CAMM on the QEC and it's possible location(s). It would seem that the only sensible location for a silo to be sited would be on the Stern (to Starboard, at the angle) where a fourth Phalanx, as suggested by some would most likely be fitted. In this location and with considered design, there is absolutely minimum interference with the 3 x planned Phalanx "arcs". This location should also at least minimise (and even potentially avoid) the possibility of FOD from fired missiles ending up on the Flight Deck or on parked Aircraft, due to the normal forward motion of the vessel. A single silo of 12 x tubes with quad-packed CAMM ought to do it, especially as replenishment of empty tubes may even be possible at sea by utilising the Mobile Deck Crane and if spare "rounds" were to be carried in the ships magazines.

I think a midship location to minimize ships motion would be better.

There will be more motion with a CAMM silo up forward on a smaller ship (Type23 for example), but I accept that vertical movement of the silo may need to be taken into account against the height at which the "cold launch" ends and the missile propellant ignites. Forward movement of the ship should help. Perhaps a variant of "Fire on the up Roll" may still have an application today.

Scimitar54 wrote:There will be more motion with a CAMM silo up forward on a smaller ship (Type23 for example), but I accept that vertical movement of the silo may need to be taken into account against the height at which the "cold launch" ends and the missile propellant ignites. Forward movement of the ship should help. Perhaps a variant of "Fire on the up Roll" may still have an application today.

Not sure what you mean, the motion at the bow & stern of the QE will be far greater in amplitude than on the smaller frigate.

sea_eagle wrote:However even with 2 x F35 squadrons on board does this represent full operational readiness? Surely to be fully trained and operational we need to see QE train and deploy with 3 squadrons on board and a full complement of 1,600 crew?
Is it necessary and when will it happen?

2 squadrons acheive full operating capacity. 36 is for surge, I imagine it will be tried sometime after 2023 in the form of briefly embarking the OCU or a USMC squadron for training purposes.

(Warship TV) 27th May 2019

HMS Queen Elizabeth R08 is seen returning from refit at Rosyth in Scotland and entering Portsmouth at the Square Tower on the 25th May 2019.

benny14 wrote:2 squadrons acheive full operating capacity. 36 is for surge, I imagine it will be tried sometime after 2023 in the form of briefly embarking the OCU or a USMC squadron for training purposes.

It will be a while after that. We've got 35 F-35B on order or delivered to the end of 2022. That will give us 3 non-operational test aircraft in the US in 17(R) sqn and 32 split between 6 in 207 Sqn OCU, 12 in 617 Sqn and the depth fleet of 14 a/c (presumably we'll be standing up a UK Reserve Squadron as the holding area for those). For 809 NAS to stand up we need to order 13-16 more in 2020 if we want them operational by the end of 2024 (the difference in numbers is if we want to count the 3 test aircraft in the 48 number bandied about). And even then to run a 2 x 12 operational, 6 x OCU +3 test we would need more than 15-18 in the depth fleet.

Brasil wrote: I believe Sea Gripen is the first option of the Brazilian Navy.

What happened to the 200-strong design subsidiary that Saab and Brasil were to jointly set up (in London!)?

sea_eagle wrote:The generous support of the USMC to bring the carrier and its aircraft to operational readiness is very welcome.

Don't forget the USN who have trained so many sent over in carrier ops, on deck and below - sure the USMC is part of the Dept of Navy, but he two are normally deemed separate entities. Like NG is not part of the Army...

Scimitar54 wrote:vertical movement of the silo may need to be taken into account against the height at which the "cold launch" ends and the missile propellant ignites.

Good heavens we designed two towers onto our carriers... can afford to lose one (look up the launch vids)

I was referring to the Flight Deck and F35Bs, not two (or even one) of the Islands.

Timmymagic wrote:

benny14 wrote:2 squadrons acheive full operating capacity. 36 is for surge, I imagine it will be tried sometime after 2023 in the form of briefly embarking the OCU or a USMC squadron for training purposes.

It will be a while after that. We've got 35 F-35B on order or delivered to the end of 2022. That will give us 3 non-operational test aircraft in the US in 17(R) sqn and 32 split between 6 in 207 Sqn OCU, 12 in 617 Sqn and the depth fleet of 14 a/c (presumably we'll be standing up a UK Reserve Squadron as the holding area for those). For 809 NAS to stand up we need to order 13-16 more in 2020 if we want them operational by the end of 2024 (the difference in numbers is if we want to count the 3 test aircraft in the 48 number bandied about). And even then to run a 2 x 12 operational, 6 x OCU +3 test we would need more than 15-18 in the depth fleet.

Isn't that a bit high number?

Its fair to say that the 3 test aircraft will never see active/operational service and will remain in the US for the foreseeable future. So we shouldn't be counting them in any fleet assignments.

Does the "depth fleet" mean these airframes are the ones in constant maintenance on a rotation basis? i.e. 2 x 12 squadrons, 1 x 6 OCU then the remainder in the "depth fleet" in constant maintanace? except 3 x in 17 squadron. so 30 operational ?

serge750 wrote:Does the "depth fleet" mean these airframes are the ones in constant maintenance on a rotation basis? i.e. 2 x 12 squadrons, 1 x 6 OCU then the remainder in the "depth fleet" in constant maintanace? except 3 x in 17 squadron. so 30 operational ?

Depth fleet would be a/c undoing major overhaul or upgrade at one of the major service centres could also apply to a/c held as attrition reserves. A/c at Sqn level or in a fwd fleet will also undergo minor maintenance or be unserviceable due to lack of spares or engineers. You could also have a 3rd smaller group of a/c within that which are at theatre entry standard that have specific modifications.