Of course the USMC will bring their own ground support crew and weapons.Digger22 wrote:It's a great point, moving forward to Operations, would USMC maintainers/armourous be part of the embarked personnel? If different weapons are employed by USMC jets, I can't see an alternative,
Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
All F-35's can operate all weapons that version supports regardless of their nationality. There are no sub-variants except for the Israeli aircraft.Gabriele wrote:I dont know about ASRAAM, but the USMC jets have indeed open compatibility with Paveway IV with QE deployments in mind.
-
- Member
- Posts: 69
- Joined: 28 May 2015, 11:28
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Why would the marines bring their own support crew? I thought the whole point of "interoperability" is that a US F35 can touch down on an RN carrier, get its windscreen wiped and top up without having to redeploy dozens of blokes from its own carrier.
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
@Sunk at Narvik How is the UK going to operate double the aircraft with the same ground crew?
(are they still called ground crew ion a carrier?)
(are they still called ground crew ion a carrier?)
@LandSharkUK
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Aircraft Handler is the closest to ground crew in the FAA I guess, obviously they have other roles assigned such as Air controllers and Air engineers.shark bait wrote:@Sunk at Narvik How is the UK going to operate double the aircraft with the same ground crew?
(are they still called ground crew ion a carrier?)
-
- Member
- Posts: 69
- Joined: 28 May 2015, 11:28
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Does the RN only have deck crew for twelve F35's and a squadron of Merlins? What happens when they "surge"? To we say no-can-do Minister? £4bn for twelve F35's would be ridiculous.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
There is a load of difference between topping up some fuel on landing and running a Fwd based Sqn for an extended period of time.Sunk at Narvik wrote:Why would the marines bring their own support crew? I thought the whole point of "interoperability" is that a US F35 can touch down on an RN carrier, get its windscreen wiped and top up without having to redeploy dozens of blokes from its own carrier.
They will be bringing their own maintenance personnel.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Aircraft handlers don’t maintain the aircraft.PhillyJ wrote:Aircraft Handler is the closest to ground crew in the FAA I guess, obviously they have other roles assigned such as Air controllers and Air engineers.shark bait wrote:@Sunk at Narvik How is the UK going to operate double the aircraft with the same ground crew?
(are they still called ground crew ion a carrier?)
Sqn engineering personnel (FAA, RAF, USMC) do that.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3955
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
MPs debate Carrier Strike strategy amidst rumours HMS Prince of Wales could be mothballed.
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/mps-de ... othballed/
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/mps-de ... othballed/
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Cheers Downsizer, I did wonder who did the maintenance but had no clue as you could probably tell from my 'vague/lazy' post.downsizer wrote:Aircraft handlers don’t maintain the aircraft.
Sqn engineering personnel (FAA, RAF, USMC) do that.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Question aside the actual debate was very good and well worth a watch/read/listen if you can.Poiuytrewq wrote:MPs debate Carrier Strike strategy amidst rumours HMS Prince of Wales could be mothballed.
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/mps-de ... othballed/
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
"Carrier strike strategy and its contribution to UK defence" (Westminster Hall Debate)
https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/5 ... 97d8055efa
See 13:57:50 in video ^
https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/5 ... 97d8055efa
See 13:57:50 in video ^
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3955
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Agreed, it was an excellent debate.PhillyJ wrote:Question aside the actual debate was very good and well worth a watch/read/listen if you can.
These treasury rumours are best aired to expose the strategically non sensical proposals that pop up from time to time. I'm not taking it too seriously at this point.
Highly likely it will be a different treasury team drawing up the autumn spending review anyway.....
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
In theory. But that would mean that a nation, say Italy, could literally get Meteor integrated at zero expense due to the UK doing all the work. That's not how it works. To get access to the software, you still pay your share, or you don't get it.Ron5 wrote:All F-35's can operate all weapons that version supports regardless of their nationality. There are no sub-variants except for the Israeli aircraft.Gabriele wrote:I dont know about ASRAAM, but the USMC jets have indeed open compatibility with Paveway IV with QE deployments in mind.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.
Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Quite. A straight-jacket is often non-sensical... and if anyone wonders why I have posted so many times about BrexitPoiuytrewq wrote: treasury rumours are best aired to expose the strategically non sensical proposals
... the coffers are not limitless
A crisis response may be deployed
It will be partly covered from more lending... and partly from cutting across all Depts
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
This was the best debate I have seen on any defence related subject. All the speakers were very well informed and though not surprised the lack of firm commitments from the Government speaks volumes for its attitude.
If we are to become once again, a world power and be able to project our power where and when needed, the Treasury has to open its wallet plain and simple. The usual strategy of demanding efficiencies/cuts from the MoD in order to give the appearance of increases in the budget and the purchase of much needed new equipment. The hole, whatever size it actually is needs to be filled by an immediate increase in the budget. Any efficiencies that do deliver should allow the "Transformation Budget" to be expanded to be used for programmes of the type the Secretary of State mentioned during his recent speech.
The idea of a whole Governmental approach to defence is one that must be adopted. All relevant departments must be involved and bear the burden as well as reap the rewards.
If we are to become once again, a world power and be able to project our power where and when needed, the Treasury has to open its wallet plain and simple. The usual strategy of demanding efficiencies/cuts from the MoD in order to give the appearance of increases in the budget and the purchase of much needed new equipment. The hole, whatever size it actually is needs to be filled by an immediate increase in the budget. Any efficiencies that do deliver should allow the "Transformation Budget" to be expanded to be used for programmes of the type the Secretary of State mentioned during his recent speech.
The idea of a whole Governmental approach to defence is one that must be adopted. All relevant departments must be involved and bear the burden as well as reap the rewards.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
I think you are incorrect. If Italy wants meteor on its F-35B's, all it has to do is buy the missiles & missile support. I do not think there is an additional fee for the aircraft.Gabriele wrote:In theory. But that would mean that a nation, say Italy, could literally get Meteor integrated at zero expense due to the UK doing all the work. That's not how it works. To get access to the software, you still pay your share, or you don't get it.Ron5 wrote:All F-35's can operate all weapons that version supports regardless of their nationality. There are no sub-variants except for the Israeli aircraft.Gabriele wrote:I dont know about ASRAAM, but the USMC jets have indeed open compatibility with Paveway IV with QE deployments in mind.
If Italy wants them on its F-35A's, there would of course be a fee for qualifying the configuration.
It's kinda like Windows, comes complete with tons of device support that you don't use until you go out and buy the actual device.
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
The suggestion that the UK could order the C variant and return the favour for the USMC F-35Bs operating off the Queen Elizabeths, with RAF/FAA F-35Cs being deployed on a USN carrier would be intriguing.
Also the idea of the Italian air wing deploying on the RN's carriers when either one or both of their platforms are unavailable is an interesting idea.
Also the idea of the Italian air wing deploying on the RN's carriers when either one or both of their platforms are unavailable is an interesting idea.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Correct. They have had enough trouble with getting the 8 million lines of (overcooked?) spaghetti into one (almost) tested codeline.Ron5 wrote:It's kinda like Windows, comes complete with tons of device support that you don't use until you go out and buy the actual device.
- the fact that all partners are expected to pay into Block4 "surcharge" testifies for the same
- and the more you are willing to pay, the quicker "your specific things" will be delivered (so it is both a protection racket and a justification why all the US things come first)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
OnlineTempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5550
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
I have said many times now that HMS POW should be seen and used as a Allied Carrier for NATO and the Far East in effect the UK would invite NATO and Five powers members to form a carrier air wing for HMS POW. I for one would have no problem with HMS QE deploying with a full British air-wing and POW deploying with say a USMC Squadron and a mixed NATO or Five Powers squadron of F-35bs plus ASW NH-90 and Crowsnest Merlin's
A NATO squadron could be made up of 4 jets from the UK , Italy and Spain to make a squadron of 12 jets. this could be added to if other F-35 NATO members were to buy a limited number of F-35b jets
A Five Powers squadron could be made up the same way if Japan and Australia were to buy some F-35bs
A NATO squadron could be made up of 4 jets from the UK , Italy and Spain to make a squadron of 12 jets. this could be added to if other F-35 NATO members were to buy a limited number of F-35b jets
A Five Powers squadron could be made up the same way if Japan and Australia were to buy some F-35bs
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Isn't the order from Japan in, already?Tempest414 wrote: if Japan and Australia were to buy some F-35bs
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2762
- Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
And now Singapore too (though not clear which varient)ArmChairCivvy wrote:Isn't the order from Japan in, already?Tempest414 wrote: if Japan and Australia were to buy some F-35bs
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Oh puleeze.ArmChairCivvy wrote:and the more you are willing to pay, the quicker "your specific things" will be delivered (so it is both a protection racket and a justification why all the US things come first)
Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion
Wasn't the whole idea of "Workshare" that nations could become partners and gain work by being responsible for certain systems on the platform by investing a set amount in the F-35 programme. Which partner is responsible for the platforms software? However if individual nations want bespoke kit included on the platform they should obviously bear the cost burden.