F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

[topman]

As aircraft numbers and the numbers available and what can be sustained is flavour of the month, when was the last time a single fleet deployed 36 aircraft?

[SDL]

my advice.... get this on the biggest screen you can lol.

After following your advice and projecting it to my 44inch tv all I can say is WOW!!!!!!!!!!

i picked up a Sony Bravia 55" last week. the daylight shots in the video were jaw dropping.

[benny14]

As aircraft numbers and the numbers available and what can be sustained is flavour of the month, when was the last time a single fleet deployed 36 aircraft?

28 Sea Harriers in the Falklands, across three squadrons, split across two carriers. And 10 GR3s in one squadron.

Gulf war - 45 Tornado GR1

Iraq war - 30 Tornado GR4, 14 Tornado F3 and Harrier 10 GR7.

[topman]

Once in GW1, and that was from a fleet size of?

[Lord Jim]

It is like so many UK defence programmes, we come up with a requirement, set up a programme to deliver it and then along the way we balls sit up. WE went for the type and size of carrier to develop a certain level of carrier strike. Because of the way things were manages, we now have endless PR spin about how adaptable the carriers are and so on. If we wanted an adaptable platform we didn't need one the size and configuration of the QE class. It is the same as with the Army's Ajax, design to replace the CVR(T) in the Army's Recce Regiments, but is now fulfilling the role of light tank in the planned Strike Brigades. We have changes the narrative on the role of the carriers because we cannot use them how they were intended, and so now the party line is they were to be adaptable platform form the beginning. The average person on the street might take this at face value because they just see pictures of big new ships and new fighters arriving from the USA on one edition of the news and then hear nothing else. We will just about be able to achieve the potential of a single carrier in an emergency if we deploy every serviceable F-35 we have form all the squadrons and OCU, but we would only do that in the rarest of cases. As for flag waving, unfortunately the QE and PoW will be doing too much of that as until the latter half of the 2020s that is all they will really be able to do, they certainly will not able to operate as carriers in the way most people accept carriers do. Having twelve or so F-35s on deck plus a number of helicopter will give the MoD's PR department plenty of nice photos, and I am sure the RM will be glad to be able to operate their Merlins from a ship in a reasonable number at the same time, but as for strike, well that will remain in a glass case labled break in time or dire emergency.

[Aethulwulf]

The whole of 617 Squadron will be on QE for her deployment in 2021, so 12 aircraft. Possibly more from the OCU depending on what she is doing. Topped up by the USMC contribution.

This is highly unlikely.

At the beginning of 2021 the UK will have 21 F35bs; at the end of 2021 that will have increased to 27.

The number of aircraft on QE for her first deployment will depend to some extent on when in 2021 the deployment starts.

If we assume if starts at the beginning of the year,with a total fleet of 21 aircraft, then:
•3 will be in the US as instrumented test aircraft
•5 or 6 will be with OCU
•12 or 13 will cover everything else

The priority will likely be given to the OCU, as if they don't have the aircraft they need then 809 Sqn will miss its 2023 deadline for stand up. There is almost no way that OCU aircraft will be included on QE's first deployment.

So that leaves 12 (or maybe 13) aircraft. Again, it is highly unlikely that all of these will deploy on QE. If they did, that would leave zero maintenance reserve.

More likely that for the first deployment QE will have 8 or 9 aircraft from 617 Sqn and the same number from the USMC. During this inital 6 month(?) deployment, it is possible the number on board could be boosted by 2 or 3 as the UK takes delivery of new aircraft.

[abc123]

A single small squadron may appear to be adequate for "Wave the flag", deployments but can you imagine the French or US navies deploying a carrier overseas with say a single squadron on board. It doesn't matter how you try to spin it we have built two magnificent carriers but cannot afford to operate them as such.
The QEs we designed to operate a certain number of F-35s to generate a set number of sorties. AS the programme has not been properly funded and badly managed we are where we are and you can bet that most other nations whilst praising the design in public ae shaking their heads and trying not to laugh behind our backs.

OK, you need to stop fantasizing and look at the reality of the situation, all this stamping feet and crying because we don't have a magic money tree achieves absolutely nothing. Carrier strike is going to take a few years to mature, our allies certainly wont be un-happy about us re-gaining the capability. The only people that think it is pathetic are internet keyboard warriors. Stop comparing us to the US, we are in a completely different situation. As for the French, please actually do some research and look at the size of their initial carrier deployments, or the fact that we have not operated a large carrier since the 80s, we are building the capability from scratch.

Given the understandable F-35 buy rate, a squadron onboard for the first deployment is what is possible, which is why the USMC are helping us out to pump up the numbers. Later deployments will be more substantial.

I am not concerned about the initial deployment, a single squadron to conduct trial etc if total correct. What I am annoyed about is that the original plan was for 36 F-35 to be deployed on the QEs to achieve the desired sortie rate. Now through the total balls up of the programme we have ended up with tow magnificent ship that were delivered late and an air wing that is not going to be fully operation until the latter half of the next decade nearly ten years from when the first carrier was launched. As for not operating a large carrier sine the 1980, well Ark Royal was not full operational even in the 1970s, and we are not operating the QE class like large carriers we are operating them like enlarged Invincibles. I am not fantasising here either, if things had been done right and funded properly and on time when the money was there things would be certainly different now. Cutting the CVLs in the 1020 SDSR was criminal and although the various Seed Corn" programmes maintained a certain degree of carrier operations skills it was a far from ideal solution. Comparing the RN to the USN is valid. We have built the second largest carriers, designed to deliver a measured level of capability through a certain number of sorties. This is how the size of a USN carrier air wing is measured and are current plans fall way short of what was intended. With the aviation assets we are deploying we would have done better to build three improved Invincible class and maintained a greater number of escorts. We are going to end up with a carrier strike capability that is like most of the UKs capabilities mainly show with little substance. It is better than nothing but is far from the pinnacle some would have us believe.

Yeeeep. Fully agreed. Better say 3 small carriers like Cavour-class with one serving as strike carrier and second as amphibious carrier. That should be just about the cost of one QE-carrier. And use the money from other for say additional SSN or pair of Type 26...

I mean, if you will use about 12 F-35 from them (on average) and no Hawkeye (no CATOBAR), then small carriers will be good enough...

[Luke jones]

Given the fact that these ships will be on the seas for the bext 50 years whats the big deal about a relatively slow build up? Id rather they take their time and get it right.
Who knows how many aircraft will be procured in due course?
Theres so many doom mongers on here but its unreal.
We would all like more of everything of course but defence is a slow moving thing.
Full capability could be a good way away yet.

[bobp]

Whilst it would be nice to see HMS Queen Elizabeth at sea with a full complement of 36+ Jets, we must remember that the defence budget is stretched considerably to the limits. The F35B as a platform is not yet fully developed and reached maturity due to various bugs and defects. So it is wise to build up slowly in the hope that later production batches have less in the way of defects as well as having the modifications to help them perform better.

[abc123]

It's a bit Like buying a new shiney Bentley, but with just 2 tires and broken engine. OFC, you will fix it by 2025 or 2030 or after that (it's Bentley, it will last for 50 years), but for now, you can park it in front of your house and let neighbours die out of jelousy.

Who can have anything against that? It's a Bentley, after all.

[benny14]

Yeeeep. Fully agreed. Better say 3 small carriers like Cavour-class with one serving as strike carrier and second as amphibious carrier. That should be just about the cost of one QE-carrier. And use the money from other for say additional SSN or pair of Type 26...

That would be absolutely useless in the Strike carrier role. One QE is as good as three Invincibles, requiring the escort and support of one.

I mean, if you will use about 12 F-35 from them (on average) and no Hawkeye (no CATOBAR), then small carriers will be good enough...

It's a bit Like buying a new shiney Bentley, but with just 2 tires and broken engine. OFC, you will fix it by 2025 or 2030 or after that (it's Bentley, it will last for 50 years), but for now, you can park it in front of your house and let neighbours die out of jelousy.

Another all or nothing. Scalability is the key word here. It may routinely have an airwing of ~20 aircraft, but should the situation require it, it can easily scale up to meet the threat.

It is like so many UK defence programmes, we come up with a requirement, set up a programme to deliver it and then along the way we balls sit up.

Requirements and budgets change, thats reality. So how about we stop moaning about the unchangeable past, and look at what the platform can do for us in the future.

[abc123]

Yeeeep. Fully agreed. Better say 3 small carriers like Cavour-class with one serving as strike carrier and second as amphibious carrier. That should be just about the cost of one QE-carrier. And use the money from other for say additional SSN or pair of Type 26...

That would be absolutely useless in the Strike carrier role. One QE is as good as three Invincibles, requiring the escort and support of one.

And having a 70 000 t carrier with 12 F-35 as strike package isn't?

[mr.fred]

And having a 70 000 t carrier with 12 F-35 as strike package isn't?

The key difference being that a 30,000t carrier will always be useless for strike, while a 70,000t carrier can have more aircraft assigned to it if need and finances allow?

Cutting the CVLs in the 1020 SDSR was criminal

First, Would I be correct in assuming 2010 SDSR?
Second, What CVLs? The Invincible class?
Third, you seem very fond of accusing past decisions that you disagree with as "criminal". It stands out quite a bit, especially when the decisions you dislike are about as far away from criminal as you're likely to get in terms of armed forces procurement.

If your complaining about running a new carrier with a small air wing, wouldn't it be worse to retain an old carrier with no air wing?

[abc123]

And having a 70 000 t carrier with 12 F-35 as strike package isn't?

The key difference being that a 30,000t carrier will always be useless for strike, while a 70,000t carrier can have more aircraft assigned to it if need and finances allow?

IF, IF

If we're goeing to use that argument, than IF need and finances allow, you can have 5-6 small carriers instead of 2 big. That will give you 3 small active at the same time, while just 1 big will be active at the same time. So, 3 x 12 ( and small carriers can probably have more than 12 F-35 ) is the same thing like one big carrier. but 3 small carriers can be on 3 places at the same time, while one big can't. You can have one used as amphibious carrier and two as strike, or vice-versa, or all as strike or all as amphibious, while one big carrier is just one big carrier.

Mind you, nobody is against big carriers per se, but big carriers also need big air wing, because that's their entire reason of existence, not photo-ops and flag waving around. Or you think that other countries can't read this forum and don't know how really dangerous that carrier will be for next 10+ years?

[mr.fred]

IF, IF

If we're goeing to use that argument, than IF need and finances allow, you can have 5-6 small carriers instead of 2 big.

Can you? How do you scale the costs between big and small?

So, 3 x 12 ( and small carriers can probably have more than 12 F-35 ) is the same thing like one big carrier. but 3 small carriers can be on 3 places at the same time, while one big can't.

Except you need three times more escorts for the small carriers and a greater proportion of the air wing dedicated to self defence. Say you need 6 aircraft to maintain 2 on CAP (probably more, but lets stick with 6) so the big carrier can put 30 aircraft into strike, while the smaller ones can only manage 18 between them.

Mind you, nobody is against big carriers per se, but big carriers also need big air wing, because that's their entire reason of existence, not photo-ops and flag waving around. Or you think that other countries can't read this forum and don't know how really dangerous that carrier will be for next 10+ years?

We have 9 F35Bs at the moment, Is it going to take 10+ years to build up another 25 or so? Just because 12 is the initial "pootling around making sure everyone stays current on Ops" air wing doesn't mean that you can't surge more aircraft to the operational carrier if needed.

[dmereifield]

My questions were mostly geared towards how we can get the best out of the relatively small number of airframes we will have between now and the mid 2020's. More squadrons with fewer airframes per squadron vs fewer squadrons with greater numbers of airframe per squadrons.

I fully appreciate the slow(er) build-up rate is sensible in terms of waiting until the costs decrease.

I still stand by my "fanboy" top trumps style view that her maiden and early deployments, if containing only 8-12 UK F35s, will be somewhat underwhelming. That's just my point of view as Joe public. These ships are meant to be power projection tools, but instaed they seem to rather demonstrate a lack of resources if we can only afford a handful of airframes to deploy with. That's not to say that I have an "all or nothing" perspective, I'm not suggesting that it's a waste if they don't sail with a full complement of 36 F35s all the time. I'd be quite content (again, no knowledge operational capacity, just top trumps style comparisons with similar nations) if QE regularly deployed with 16-20 (UK) F35s and PoW with 4-6.

Out of interest, what is the typical (or planned) size of the fixed wing complement on the Indian and Chinese carriers? It would be an interesting comparison since they are similarly bringing carriers into their fleets in similar timeframes to us.

[whitelancer]

Its been obvious for a long time that the RN was never going to be able to provide a proper Carrier Air Group for even one of the Carriers let alone two. Why do you think they came up with the concept of the Tailored Air Group? For the RN it was a matter of trying to make the best of a bad job, and for the Government it gives them an excuse when the Carriers only deploy with a few or even no F35s. Which is gong to be the norm for the foreseeable future. In other words whatever aircraft or helicopters they can scrape together for a deployment can be labelled a TAG and all is well!

[whitelancer]

I noted that the arriving F35s at Marham again used SRVL, which tends to confirm my belief that this will become the standard method of landing on the carriers. Unless of course when the trials start aboard QE they discover any major problems with the technique.

Do the US Marines use SRVL at all or is it just a British thing?

[Lord Jim]

And having a 70 000 t carrier with 12 F-35 as strike package isn't?

The key difference being that a 30,000t carrier will always be useless for strike, while a 70,000t carrier can have more aircraft assigned to it if need and finances allow?

Cutting the CVLs in the 1020 SDSR was criminal

First, Would I be correct in assuming 2010 SDSR?
Second, What CVLs? The Invincible class?
Third, you seem very fond of accusing past decisions that you disagree with as "criminal". It stands out quite a bit, especially when the decisions you dislike are about as far away from criminal as you're likely to get in terms of armed forces procurement.

If your complaining about running a new carrier with a small air wing, wouldn't it be worse to retain an old carrier with no air wing?

Firstly good spot with the date, secondly yes I was referring to the Invincible when mentioning CVLs. Thirdly I do stand by my use of the word criminal when I talk about decision regarding defence procurement, mainly due to the fact I have first hand experience in the process and how messed up it is. Personally I cannot even see the point of conducting detailed reviews as for the past decades every time they have been ripped up by the Treasury and never properly funded. Even the 2015 SDSR with its attached ten year procurement plan was an exercise in smoke and mirrors where the programme was totally unaffordable without the MoD being able to make unrealistic savings through enacting a multitude of cuts across the board. The consequence of not having an armed forces the correct size and properly equipped for the missions and roles the Politicians aspire to is that service men and women die in circumstances that should have been preventable. Yet this has little erect on said politicians as the results of GW2 and Afghanistan have shown. Sure they are will to apply a number of UOR band aids to solve problems the media may have picked up on, but these were really fixing holes in out capability that should not have existed in the first place. In my eyes that is criminal. The response is often the MoD has to live within its budget, well I am fine with that just do not then commit our armed forces to operations they are not prepared or equipped for and lower your aspirations. IF you want to play in the big leagues you need to have a big budget and ours isn't big enough for what the Politicians want to do. Yes we spend more than most countries but we aspire to capabilities many others do not like CASD and a fleet of SSNs Our procurement processes still do not deliver value for money for the Taxpayer even after numerous attempts to revise the whole system. Most of these however were not to for the benefit of the end user but to make the in year accounts balance to make the Treasury happy. Finally going back to the 2010 SDSR, we should have retained both the CVLs and the Joint Harrier Force and reduced the Tornado force, which we ended up doing any how. But because this SDSR was purely about making cuts regardless of longer term consequences we are where we are, two large carriers and in the future barely enough aircraft to provide even one with its full compliment.

[RetroSicotte]

As a quick note, the "this is reality, get used to it" is only a valid arguement if the same is true of everyone else.

This patently is not the case. Nations with smaller budgets (France) have full, supported, equipped, and dedicated airwings that can ensure their carrier is permenantly stocking between 70-100% of its total capacity on deployment, and they don't even have the advantage of sharing the planes with land either. They need a specific variant budgeted too.

The idea of QE only having 12 F-35s is not "normal", it is not "thats reality". It is a culmination of underfunding and lack of care from the political end to the defence of the realm. To pretend otherwise, to try and justify it, is only to continue sticking ones head in the sand to the problems that are happening in essentially every single facet of the military right now.

As abc says, the real cost is not in the appearance, but in the lives of those operating it who will be lost. I've repeated this multiple times this year on here, but a HUGE quantity of losses in every single major British war since the Second World War were completely preventable, and not via hindsight, but due to warnings constantly being ignored.

There are now more warnings being said, and history only seems to be repeating itself. It is unwise and naive to play with servicemen and women's lives just to try and make something "sound" a little less embarrassing.

[abc123]

Fred,

if you have 12 F-35 on board, it's the same thing has the carrier 25000 t or 70000 t, they will all be used for air defence, and even that not really efficient. And yes, that's useless, but they are both useless as strike carrier.

On the other hand, Italian Cavour costed about 2,1 bln. USD IIRC ( Gabriele? ), but has Aster 15 missiles for self defence, and that's one destroyers less needed for escort. Also, relative importance of smaller carrier is not so big, because not of all eggs in the same basket. There are two others (or even more if we don't use money from second for additional escort ships or Astutes).

[R686]

As a quick note, the "this is reality, get used to it" is only a valid arguement if the same is true of everyone else.

This patently is not the case. Nations with smaller budgets (France) have full, supported, equipped, and dedicated airwings that can ensure their carrier is permenantly stocking between 70-100% of its total capacity on deployment, and they don't even have the advantage of sharing the planes with land either. They need a specific variant budgeted too.

The idea of QE only having 12 F-35s is not "normal", it is not "thats reality". It is a culmination of underfunding and lack of care from the political end to the defence of the realm. To pretend otherwise, to try and justify it, is only to continue sticking ones head in the sand to the problems that are happening in essentially every single facet of the military right now.

As abc says, the real cost is not in the appearance, but in the lives of those operating it who will be lost. I've repeated this multiple times this year on here, but a HUGE quantity of losses in every single major British war since the Second World War were completely preventable, and not via hindsight, but due to warnings constantly being ignored.

There are now more warnings being said, and history only seems to be repeating itself. It is unwise and naive to play with servicemen and women's lives just to try and make something "sound" a little less embarrassing.

Things must be starting to get noticed in the media surely that defence is being underfunded for strategic requirement, has there been any groundswell from the population at all or just not caring overall?

[abc123]

I noted that the arriving F35s at Marham again used SRVL, which tends to confirm my belief that this will become the standard method of landing on the carriers. Unless of course when the trials start aboard QE they discover any major problems with the technique.

Do the US Marines use SRVL at all or is it just a British thing?

I THINK, just British thing.

[Timmymagic]

Do the US Marines use SRVL at all or is it just a British thing?

Just a British thing at present. The UK has trialled it with software in the sims and with real flights. The USMC is watching for sure, but are they likely to get Bedford Arrays on their LHD's? Also does a LHD have enough length on its deck (with a margin of error) to safely use SRVL without a ski jump.

[Gabriele]

The USMC uses the short rolling landing ashore with the F-35B; but is not planning to pursue full SRVL for shipboard use at this time. I think the two things are not quite as similar as they appear.