F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

[benny14]

his 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.

The UK has not had 17-18 years of operating a large carrier. We are building up a carrier capability from scratch. If we look at the UK plans, initial operating capacity is achieved in 2020 (1 squadron). Full capacity is achieved in 2023 (2 squadrons). With full Carrier Enabled Power Projection in 2026.

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.

A carrier operating 12 F-35s is useless for air defence on its own. HMS QE is specifically designed to operate 36 F-35s in the Strike carrier role...

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).

It absolutely does require a destroyer escort(s) still, the escort does not change because it has its own missile system. Smaller carriers carry less, are less effective, require the same escort and resupply as a large one. They also can't scale up to meet a threat like a large carrier can. Logic points towards operating two large carriers, over three smaller and far less useful ones. As is what the RN are doing.

[RetroSicotte]

The UK has not had 17-18 years of operating a large carrier. Give us 5 years to build up the capacity.

This is nothing to do with experience, and everything to do with not buying enough aircraft.

It absolutely does require a destroyer escort still.

That's not what he said.

[benny14]

This is nothing to do with experience, and everything to do with not buying enough aircraft.

Clearly, but stop pretending France had a full carrier capability from day one, it took them years to build it up to where it is now. They may have done it better than us, but it still takes years to build up the capability, and within a tight budget. Current plans have full CEPP by 2026, we are nowhere near that date yet.

[abc123]

HMS QE is specifically designed to operate 36 F-35s in the Strike carrier role...

THIS.
So, when carryng 8-12 F-35, not because there's no need for them ( action against Sierra Leone frex ), but because HMG didn't buy more than that needed or not, wouldn't you call that useless?

[benny14]

THIS.
So, when carryng 8-12 F-35, not because they are not needed ( action against Sierra Leone frex ), but because HMG didn't buy more than that needed or not, wouldn't you call that useless?

12 is merely an initial operating capability, the capability is still building up. At a slower rate than we would like, but still building up all the same.

It is not useless because it will operate more in the future. The important point is also scalability, it can easily scale up should it be needed.

[abc123]

It absolutely does require a destroyer escort(s) still, the escort does not change because it has its own missile system. Smaller carriers carry less, are less effective, require the same escort and resupply as a large one. They also can't scale up to meet a threat like a large carrier can. Logic points towards operating two large carriers, over three smaller and far less useful ones. As is what the RN are doing.

It obviously does because having 48 Aster missiles and 80 Aster missiles isn't the same thing. With CAAM or ESSM on carrier ( and larger number of missiles ) the whole thing is even better. Neither is the same thing when you have just 3 Phalanx and when you have 3 Phalanx and say 32 Aster missiles or 48 CAAM etc.

Yes, size matters and nobody is denying that smaller carriers are less effective. IN IDEAL CONDITIONS. If you will use big carrier the same way like small one ( 12 F-35 ), and it seems that HMG is hell bent to do that- then IMHO it's better to spend less money on single carrier and have smaller carrier, but 2-3 of them instead of one big one.

And you can't scale up if you don't have aircrafts, and with current plans for buying F-35 and their division between RAF and FAA ( where FAA will, as usual, get shafted ), the same story will be in 2024 or 2030 or 2050. Probably even worse, because every new government brings just new cuts and gaps.

[benny14]

It obviously does because having 48 Aster missiles and 80 Aster missiles isn't the same thing. With CAAM or ESSM on carrier ( and larger number of missiles ) the whole thing is even better. Neither is the same thing when you have just 3 Phalanx and when you have 3 Phalanx and say 32 Aster missiles or 48 CAAM etc.

The defences of the carrier itself are an added bonus, not an alternative to escorts. US, French and Italian carrier groups still operate with multiple escorts, normally including at least 2 destroyers.

If you will use big carrier the same way like small one ( 12 F-35 ), and it seems that HMG is hell bent to do that- then IMHO it's better to spend less money on single carrier and have smaller carrier, but 2-3 of them instead of one big one.

12 is an initial operating capability, it will operate more in the future. 2-3 smaller carriers still require 2x/3x the escorts and support ships for a fraction of the capability and capacity. The RN needs strike capable carriers, different focus to cold war era small ASW carriers.

And you can't scale up if you don't have aircrafts, and with current plans for buying F-35 and their division between RAF and FAA ( where FAA will, as usual, get shafted )

The FAA and RAF share and jointly operate the F-35 fleet, and all are capable of operating on the carriers should there be a need. So you can scale up.

[RetroSicotte]

Clearly, but stop pretending France had a full carrier capability from day one, it took them years to build it up to where it is now. They may have done it better than us, but it still takes years to build up the capability, and within a tight budget. Current plans have full CEPP by 2026, we are nowhere near that date yet.

Which is my point, it's about them not giving the defence budget what it requires to get enough planes fast enough.

It's nothing about "experience" or "working up". It's ALL about just trying to cut costs and slow it down, while getting the very least they need to spend on while still being able to say they "have" a carrier with an airwing.

It sure as hell didn't take the French over a decade to get a half decent sized airwing on their carriers. That's for sure.

[benny14]

It sure as hell didn't take the French over a decade to get a half decent sized airwing on their carriers. That's for sure.

HMS QE is operational by 2020. Two squadrons available (24) by 2023, with the ability to reinforce from the OCU, in addition to its helicopters.

As for France, they had three operational squadrons of Super Étendard before Charles de Gaulle even started construction. Which they transitioned directly from their previous two large flatops.

The F-35 is only achieving carrier based initial operating capacity by 2020. France had two Rafales on its first deployment in addition to its Super Étendard's in 2001, it took them until 2016 to be able to deploy two Rafale squadrons onboard.

Which is my point, it's about them not giving the defence budget what it requires to get enough planes fast enough.

I agree, but its not all doom and gloom as some people are making it out to be.

[abc123]

The defences of the carrier itself are an added bonus, not an alternative to escorts. US, French and Italian carrier groups still operate with multiple escorts, normally including at least 2 destroyers.

US groups yes, but considering that France and Italy have each 2 modern destroyers ( Horizon class ) I seriously doubt that. Old destroyers like Cassard class aren't some serious protection. And they have 2 carriers ( Italy ) or 1 carrier and 3 LHD ( France ) to protect. So, that's 6 capital ships with really 4 destroyers. UK has 6 modern Type 45 destroyers.

[abc123]

As for France, they had three operational squadrons of Super Étendard before Charles de Gaulle even started construction. Which they transitioned directly from their previous two large flatops.

Yeah, I wonder how French Government/MoD didn't have the bright idea of scrapping them in say 1992. British Government/MoD would have done that ( and they know the best, the Freanch are stooopid ), because who needs that damn Harriers and carriers? RAF surely doesn't.

[Timmymagic]

would have done that ( and they know the best, the Freanch are stooopid ), because who needs that damn Harriers and carriers? RAF surely doesn't.

I'm not sure we should be taking any lessons from the French on carrier aviation....look at the situation over the last 40-50 years, or hell even over 100...Until CdG arrived and actually got Rafale in numbers aboard it would have had its clock cleaned by a CVS with Sea Harrier onboard, same with the Foch and Clemenceau. The arrival of Rafale is the first time ever that the French Navy have managed to deploy a carrier with modern capability. Unfortunately for them the arrival of F-35 puts them miles behind the state of the art within 10 years of delivering that capability, same with their purchase of E-2C...and that's not that smart, neither is the purchase of 1 x CdG, cancellation of PA.2, ASW ability from CV's or escorts etc.

Besides at present the decision to kill Harrier and the CVL is looking like a risk that we actually got away with...gaps are never a good thing unless you get away with them.

[NickC]

Not quite so sanguine about UK v French carriers capabilities with the F-35B and Rafale.

Last year US Marines (most vocal proponents of the F-35 programme) Lt. Gen. Gary Thomas, testified before the Congress that the F-35B, which reached initial operational capability in 2015, won’t hit full operational capability until 2031. No explanation given as to why the very long delay to reach FOC.

[R686]

My View is that there are currently 48 F35B on order, with a slow uptake, putting 12-18 aircraft on it over the next 10 years still gives the same operational capacity of HMS Invincible at the time of the Falklands, once all F35b are in service you will have the same capacity as the Carrier/Battle group task force.

Would it have been better to leave a CVS with harrier in service yes, the government monetary reasons gaped the capability you still have corporate knowledge yes its slow to get to FOC but having only one carrier up to speed still exceeds the Falkland's task group

[abc123]

would have done that ( and they know the best, the Freanch are stooopid ), because who needs that damn Harriers and carriers? RAF surely doesn't.

I'm not sure we should be taking any lessons from the French on carrier aviation....look at the situation over the last 40-50 years, or hell even over 100...Until CdG arrived and actually got Rafale in numbers aboard it would have had its clock cleaned by a CVS with Sea Harrier onboard, same with the Foch and Clemenceau. The arrival of Rafale is the first time ever that the French Navy have managed to deploy a carrier with modern capability. Unfortunately for them the arrival of F-35 puts them miles behind the state of the art within 10 years of delivering that capability, same with their purchase of E-2C...and that's not that smart, neither is the purchase of 1 x CdG, cancellation of PA.2, ASW ability from CV's or escorts etc.

Besides at present the decision to kill Harrier and the CVL is looking like a risk that we actually got away with...gaps are never a good thing unless you get away with them.

Oh yes, definitly the French had their fair share of mistakes and stupid decisions. And yes, I agree that it would be better if they had built another CDG/PA2 and some other things you mentioned.

But, the important thing is: I can't recall that they had ever gapped/cut entire capability, except maybe heavy helicopters after Frelon was retired.
I agree that sometimes their capabilities aren't top notch, but they are GOOD ENOUGH for their intended purpose. French Navy never had any serious intent to fight the Soviet Navy, so Clem and Foch ( with Crusaders and Etandards ) were good enough for: a) giving illusion of French grandeur and b) hitting colonials that can't fight back. Same thing with other stuff.

And meanwhile, with the exception of Crusader and Hawkeye, they were built in France, giving work to French workers, spending money mostly in France and having pretty sovereign capabilites. And that means a lot, at least to me.

[Phil Sayers]

I agree that sometimes their capabilities aren't top notch, but they are GOOD ENOUGH for their intended purpose. French Navy never had any serious intent to fight the Soviet Navy, so Clem and Foch ( with Crusaders and Etandards ) were good enough for: a) giving illusion of French grandeur and b) hitting colonials that can't fight back. Same thing with other stuff.

In reality those tasks are likely to be the main operational deployments of our carriers. The initial 12 will be perfectly fine for operations like those undertaken by the Invincibles off the former Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone etc and also perfectly fine for 'wrap on the knuckles' style missions like the recent airstrikes on Syria. It is only in a situation where the adversary would both have the capability to target the carrier group and decide that the fallout of doing so isn't going to massively compound their problems that a large proportion of the 12 would need to be dedicated to air defence - those situations are thankfully only a very small proportion of likely taskings.

To state the obvious 12 F-35s are a long way short of the full potential of the carriers but are already a long, long way more capable than the max harrier air wing on an Invincible class and infinitely more capable than the present complete lack of carrier deployed fixed wing aircraft. IMO it is certainly better to have a small air wing but the potential, should future requirements and budget allow, to significantly expand that than have a small air wing without the potential to expand it. Obviously there is an opportunity cost in that building cheaper carriers would have allowed money to be spent elsewhere but small carriers can never overcome their limitations whereas a QE class can if the resource is allocated to do so. Even on current plans we will be able to deploy 24 from the deck in due course (even before considering USMC back-up) and how many countries are there that can realistically counter 24 F35s sat off their coast?

[sea_eagle]

My View is that there are currently 48 F35B on order, with a slow uptake, putting 12-18 aircraft on it over the next 10 years still gives the same operational capacity of HMS Invincible at the time of the Falklands, once all F35b are in service you will have the same capacity as the Carrier/Battle group task force.

Just catching up on the recent good posts by everyone here.
Can't resist adding

you're gonna need a bigger boat....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I91DJZKRxs

It is clear replacing the 3 smaller Invincible ships with 2 much larger carriers was the right decision.

For the F35 there was an assessment of it against all modern US aircraft, against the Harrier AV8B it was rated as x9 more effective.
Even allowing for an over optimistic review and using x5 instead then the QE with 'just' 12 F35 would be equivalent to 60 Harrier AV8B which is more than all 3 Invincible's (3x18 Harrier) combined - which never ever happened!

[Dave]

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.

No, it’s not. That’s a terrible analogy.

It would be like buying a Bentley with a smaller engine and cloth seats because you can’t afford the top of the range model.

The carriers are heading towards being operational and there will be some jets on board soon. It’s a working system, just not at the level it could be if there was shedloads of extra cash in the defence budget.

[mr.fred]

A better analogy might be a builder buying a large van that he can’t afford to fill with tools yet.

[Frenchie]

would have done that ( and they know the best, the Freanch are stooopid ), because who needs that damn Harriers and carriers? RAF surely doesn't.

I'm not sure we should be taking any lessons from the French on carrier aviation....look at the situation over the last 40-50 years, or hell even over 100...Until CdG arrived and actually got Rafale in numbers aboard it would have had its clock cleaned by a CVS with Sea Harrier onboard, same with the Foch and Clemenceau. The arrival of Rafale is the first time ever that the French Navy have managed to deploy a carrier with modern capability. Unfortunately for them the arrival of F-35 puts them miles behind the state of the art within 10 years of delivering that capability, same with their purchase of E-2C...and that's not that smart, neither is the purchase of 1 x CdG, cancellation of PA.2, ASW ability from CV's or escorts etc.

Besides at present the decision to kill Harrier and the CVL is looking like a risk that we actually got away with...gaps are never a good thing unless you get away with them.

Oh yes, definitly the French had their fair share of mistakes and stupid decisions. And yes, I agree that it would be better if they had built another CDG/PA2 and some other things you mentioned.

But, the important thing is: I can't recall that they had ever gapped/cut entire capability, except maybe heavy helicopters after Frelon was retired.
I agree that sometimes their capabilities aren't top notch, but they are GOOD ENOUGH for their intended purpose. French Navy never had any serious intent to fight the Soviet Navy, so Clem and Foch ( with Crusaders and Etandards ) were good enough for: a) giving illusion of French grandeur and b) hitting colonials that can't fight back. Same thing with other stuff.

And meanwhile, with the exception of Crusader and Hawkeye, they were built in France, giving work to French workers, spending money mostly in France and having pretty sovereign capabilites. And that means a lot, at least to me.

First of all, thank you for defending the French Navy
I am not an expert like you, but we can not compare the two situations between France and the United Kingdom.
In first the main role of Sea Harrier is to provide air defense, although the air-to-air capabilities of the Super Etendard are quite limited, it has very high air-sea capabilities, and the Super Etendards are adapted to carry nuclear missiles, so to say that they were not capable of action against the USSR is a little exaggerated.
The Foch and the Clem were able to carry 15 Super-Etendard, 8 Crusader F-8P, 8 Breguet Alizé, 2 Super Frelon helicopters, they were old but between 1959 and 1997, they underwent many redesigns, ways to keep them performing.
Clem and Foch sailed all the oceans and totaled at the end of their career the sum of more than a million nautical miles each. They will have done 3000 days of sea, 80 000 hours of operation and will have made more than 70 000 catapultings each.
We only sell or destroy our ships as a last resort, when we have an alternative, and we upgrade our equipment as much as possible, that's our way of doing things.

[R686]

A better analogy might be a builder buying a large van that he can’t afford to fill with tools yet.

He can always hire out the van to someone who has the tools (USMC)

[indeid]

But, the important thing is: I can't recall that they had ever gapped/cut entire capability, except maybe heavy helicopters after Frelon was retired.

And relying on us for fixed wing heavy lift to the Sahel, Caribbean etc. Any UK C17 into Western Africa is still lugging French kit about.

[benny14]

A better analogy might be a builder buying a large van that he can’t afford to fill with tools yet.

A good investment. He has room to expand the amount of tools he can carry, which he wouldn't be able to do if he had purchased a small van.

[indeid]

Last year US Marines (most vocal proponents of the F-35 programme) Lt. Gen. Gary Thomas, testified before the Congress that the F-35B, which reached initial operational capability in 2015, won’t hit full operational capability until 2031. No explanation given as to why the very long delay to reach FOC.

But unless you know what FOC actually means your statement doesn't mean anything. I've operated kit which lived its entire service life at IOC, as changes during procurement meant it was near impossible, and pointless, to meet the original stated FOC. It can take so long to change milestones like that it was just left.

Although a joint procurement it doesn't mean that you need to have the same operational milestones as everyone else.

[S M H]

When the original purchase plan for the F35 was disclosed. The number of F35b aircraft embarked was about the same as now minus one or two airframe. Originally the carriers were to sail with 12+ F35s. But the Monk of Dunfermline (I cannot afford repeat what Mr Clarkson said) With his underfunding of active operations. Causing the reduction of the active Harrier fleet. Along with the sideways procurement of the carrier costing us the tax payer more. Compounded by the rushed Bollinger boys criminal SSDR 10. left the MOD in its present predicament. The carriers would have had about the same operational F35 on early deployments as now planned. But because the decks would have had 24 + fixed wing aircraft made up with Harriers. There would be none of the present comments about F35 numbers embarked on a big deck. The original procurement plan was to procure most F35 airframes in full production over time when the price per aircraft would be cheaper.