Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

[Jdam]

PhillyJ your breaking my heart here but thanks for the clarification.

[RichardIC]

PhillyJ your breaking my heart here but thanks for the clarification.

Sorry to say it, but I think the chance of ever seeing the two at sea together are about to vanish.

[imperialman]

So they think, "bloody Hell, that catapult thing, call The Torygraph". And they suggest that they may want to speak to some of the people they've seen talking about it on Twitter as experts who will stand up the story.

Not quite what happened, the Telegraph reporter asked the UKDJ last week if they could run the RFI story this week (their reporter follows the UKDJ account and that's where he noticed the news).

Why they marked it as an exclusive on social media and went with talk of launching F-35B replacements I don't know.

I was perfectly clear that I am not an expert in any way just an interested blogger and in my view the RFI shouldn't be taken as evidence of anything in particular etc.

[RichardIC]

Not quite what happened, the Telegraph reporter asked the UKDJ last week if they could run the RFI story this week (their reporter follows the UKDJ account and that's where he noticed the news).

Why they marked it as an exclusive on social media and went with talk of launching F-35B replacements I don't know.

I was perfectly clear that I am not an expert in any way just an interested blogger and in my view the RFI shouldn't be taken as evidence of anything in particular etc.

Precisely the same output, slightly different mechanism.

Nice distraction piece in the Torygraph.

[Ron5]

Except RFIs are buried deep in the system. It was only noticed by an Italian blogger that specializes in trawling such unlikely material for scraps of info.

I'd suggest putting away the foil hat.

[RichardIC]

Except RFIs are buried deep in the system. It was only noticed by an Italian blogger that specializes in trawling such unlikely material for scraps of info.

And that Italian blogger has 5,500 followers on Twitter including a large portion of the UK defence trade press. It was also tweeted from the official Royal Navy Technology and Innovation account who may only have 1,500 followers but they do get a blue tick as a verified government news source.

If you actually read the actual words you'll see I said I wasn't suggesting the original RFI publication was part of an attempt to plant a story.

[Roders96]

How bizarre.

So then gents - what are the odds of the RN providing the catapults for both Nimitz AND Ford?

[PhillyJ]

Sorry to say it, but I think the chance of ever seeing the two at sea together are about to vanish.

Why's that then?

[Scimitar54]

They have come up with a new STEALTH coating? :

[RichardIC]

Why's that then?

The crude mathematics of a total buy of only 48 F-35Bs combined with the reluctance of the RAF to let them spend any more than the minimum amount of time at sea.

It just doesn't justify having two carriers at sea together. And when one does go to sea 8-12 aircraft is probably the standard fixed wing component (unless we beg the USMC to come out to play which imho is a national embarrassment anyway).

Just speculation, but if you think we'll get two carriers with a fixed wing air component at sea together, I'd love to know how that will look with a total buy of 45 (plus the three test aircraft that will never leave the US).

And it can't be stated enough - it's been said repeatedly by the Royal Navy. The QLZs have been built around the F-35. They don't make sense in any other context.

On the subject of the USMC, if I were the Biden administration I'd be right royally pissed off just now.

The UK bailing at 48 is a really bad look for UK-US relations. It makes us appear a really unreliable ally. I'd be seriously thinking of telling HMG to send HMS Queen Elizabeth to the Pacific without the USMC making the deck look full.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Sorry to say it, but I think the chance of ever seeing the two at sea together are about to vanish.

Why's that then?

CEPP has not gone away. Operational in 2026 might well sail to the right, though.

The rationale driving the carrier design (and having two of them) was that the average availability would be 1.4. Over their service lives that is.
- with their primary weapon system costing way-way more than planned (when the ships were built), the forces - remember Jointness - are struggling with how best make use of the 0.4
... call that CEPP, if you like

[Max Jones]

Why's that then?

The crude mathematics of a total buy of only 48 F-35Bs combined with the reluctance of the RAF to let them spend any more than the minimum amount of time at sea.

It just doesn't justify having two carriers at sea together. And when one does go to sea 8-12 aircraft probably the standard fixed wing component (unless we beg the USMC to come out to play which imho is a national embarrassment anyway).

Just speculation, but if you think we'll get two carriers with a fixed wing air component at sea together, I'd love to know how that will look with a total buy of 45 (plus the three test aircraft that will never leave the US).

And it can't be stated enough - it's been said repeatedly by the Royal Navy. The QLZs have been built around the F-35. They don't make sense in any other context.

On the subject of the USMC, if I were the Biden administration I'd be right royally pissed off just now.

The UK bailing at 48 is a really bad look for UK-US relations. It makes us appear a really unreliable ally. I'd be seriously thinking of telling HMG to send HMS Queen Elizabeth to the Pacific without the USMC making the deck look full.

I agree about your point with having two carriers active. To me having 48 jets is enough for maybe 18-24 F-35Bs deployed on a carrier operation if there is no focus on RAF use. That's manageable but there would be no option for ground-based options and definitely no surge option for wartime use.

I don't, however, see deploying UMSC jest as a 'national embarrassment'. As many people have said before, it is a mutually beneficial arrangement because it is a joint operation. Those aren't US jets being borrowed by the UK for a UK operation - they are NATO jets taking part in a NATO operation (or US-UK if you want to rule out everyone else). I don't think the credibility of the entire US carrier fleet went downhill because they embarked half a dozen Rafales a while ago.

[RichardIC]

I don't, however, see deploying UMSC jest as a 'national embarrassment'. As many people have said before, it is a mutually beneficial arrangement because it is a joint operation. Those aren't US jets being borrowed by the UK for a UK operation - they are NATO jets taking part in a NATO operation (or US-UK if you want to rule out everyone else).

If the UK bales out of the F-35B programme it's a lot less mutually beneficial for the US because the UK is shafting a massive US-led industrial undertaking.

And if it were a routine reciprocal arrangement you might have a point, but it's not. It's an extraordinary arrangement because the UK doesn't have sufficiently worked-up aircraft. I believe the UK now has a grand total of 20 jets - that's including the three US based test aircraft. I may be out by a couple.

Finally HMS Queen Elizabeth's deployment to Asia-Pacific is not a NATO deployment or operation. The USMC involvement is subject to the bilateral UK-US Joint Declaration for the Carrier Strike Group 2021.

[Poiuytrewq]

....the UK is shafting a massive US-led industrial undertaking.

Does the same apply to the US if they end up doing the same?

If the Fleet Air Arm end up with 50 to 60 F35's and the RAF concentrate on Tempest is it really a bad outcome?

I think it's pretty clear that 138 was never going to happen.

[Roders96]

It's not shafting America at all, they don't want to buy the jet themselves.

They'd much rather their ally with a much more limited budget generate as much capability from it as they can, given the worsening world order.

If this means cheaper home grown cats and drones to suit, but a fully capable CSG air wing, they'd be more than happy.

[RichardIC]

Does the same apply to the US if they end up doing the same?

There's a difference between doing it to yourself for your own reasons and having it inflicted by a third party. The fact is, if we jump when the IR is published next week, we jump first.

If the Fleet Air Arm end up with 50 to 60 F35's and the RAF concentrate on Tempest is it really a bad outcome?

There's no indication anywhere that the UK F-35B will become Royal Navy assets. And the RAF is free to concentrate on Tempest if they like but they will be fully aware that Tempest is currently a million miles, many ££ Billions, and well over a decade from anything that's going to be remotely deployable.

The single most dystopian thing about the article in the Sunday Times was when it described the Tempest as being "built in Lancashire". You can search Lancashire with a fine-tooth comb and you won't find Tempest being built.

I think it's pretty clear that 138 was never going to happen.

We've all known that since before 2010.

[RichardIC]

It's not shafting America at all, they don't want to buy the jet themselves.

Got any official sources for that? Anything that vaguely equates to the Integrated Review HMG is going to publish next week?

[SW1]

Is the US marines not proposing cutting a 100 or so f35 from there buy and it’s been hinted at for a long while USAF buy will reduce by a third and the recent democrat in charge of house armed services had this to say

“ The House Armed Services Committee chairman railed at the expensive F-35 Joint Strike Fighter on Friday, saying he wants to “stop throwing money down that particular rathole,”

So I wouldn’t be concerned about what they may think it’s what matters to us.


Having said that the obsession with f35 and completely unrealistic deployed numbers on carriers has been a thing for years egged on by the usual suspects. But if it were me I’d be far far more concerns about the complete lack of merlins and significant issues within the fleet that is barely able to support a single carrier air wing never mind two.

[Poiuytrewq]

There's a difference between doing it to yourself for your own reasons and having it inflicted by a third party. The fact is, if we jump when the IR is published next week, we jump first.

Taking the long term view, I'm not sure who jumps first is really that important in the final analysis.

If the F35 is the export success that it is touted to be, the extra orders from other nations will easily fill the gap.

There's no indication anywhere that the UK F-35B will become Royal Navy assets.

Not yet...

And the RAF is free to concentrate on Tempest if they like but they will be fully aware that Tempest is currently a million miles, many ££ Billions, and over a decade from anything that's going to be remotely deployable.

In which case they will have to get the most out of the Typhoons until then.

A great motivator to focus minds and remove any dither and delay.

I think it's pretty clear that 138 was never going to happen.

We've all known that for over a decade.

And so have the Americans...

[RichardIC]

But if it were me I’d be far far more concerns about the complete lack of merlins and significant issues within the fleet that is barely able to support a single carrier air wing never mind two.

There is that, absolutely.

[RichardIC]

RichardIC wrote:
There's no indication anywhere that the UK F-35B will become Royal Navy assets.
Not yet...

If it happens feel free to let us know.

[downsizer]

At least you can all stop frothing about rumours of an A/B split.

[Caribbean]

At least you can all stop frothing about rumours of an A/B split.

Hadn't you heard? It's going to be 24 B's and 24 A's now

[Scimitar54]

The RAF are going to get the F35Bs, and the RN are going to get the F35As.

[SKB]

I wonder if the "something new" is to be a test firing of its newest third Phalanx?

The "blueish" one with a lightning strike is obviously an F-35B

Heh.