Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

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,
Of course the USMC will bring their own ground support crew and weapons.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Gabriele wrote:I dont know about ASRAAM, but the USMC jets have indeed open compatibility with Paveway IV with QE deployments in mind.
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.

Sunk at Narvik
Member
Posts: 69
Joined: 28 May 2015, 11:28
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Sunk at Narvik »

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.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by shark bait »

@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?)
@LandSharkUK

PhillyJ
Member
Posts: 745
Joined: 01 May 2015, 09:27
England

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by PhillyJ »

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?)
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.

Sunk at Narvik
Member
Posts: 69
Joined: 28 May 2015, 11:28
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Sunk at Narvik »

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.

downsizer
Member
Posts: 893
Joined: 02 May 2015, 08:03

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by downsizer »

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.
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.

They will be bringing their own maintenance personnel.

downsizer
Member
Posts: 893
Joined: 02 May 2015, 08:03

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by downsizer »

PhillyJ wrote:
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?)
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.
Aircraft handlers don’t maintain the aircraft.

Sqn engineering personnel (FAA, RAF, USMC) do that.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

MPs debate Carrier Strike strategy amidst rumours HMS Prince of Wales could be mothballed.

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/mps-de ... othballed/

PhillyJ
Member
Posts: 745
Joined: 01 May 2015, 09:27
England

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by PhillyJ »

downsizer wrote:Aircraft handlers don’t maintain the aircraft.
Sqn engineering personnel (FAA, RAF, USMC) do that.
Cheers Downsizer, I did wonder who did the maintenance but had no clue as you could probably tell from my 'vague/lazy' post.

PhillyJ
Member
Posts: 745
Joined: 01 May 2015, 09:27
England

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by PhillyJ »

Poiuytrewq wrote:MPs debate Carrier Strike strategy amidst rumours HMS Prince of Wales could be mothballed.

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/mps-de ... othballed/
Question aside the actual debate was very good and well worth a watch/read/listen if you can.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by SKB »

"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 ^

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

PhillyJ wrote:Question aside the actual debate was very good and well worth a watch/read/listen if you can.
Agreed, it was an excellent debate.

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.....

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Gabriele »

Ron5 wrote:
Gabriele wrote:I dont know about ASRAAM, but the USMC jets have indeed open compatibility with Paveway IV with QE deployments in mind.
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.
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.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Poiuytrewq wrote: treasury rumours are best aired to expose the strategically non sensical proposals
Quite. A straight-jacket is often non-sensical... and if anyone wonders why I have posted so many times about Brexit
... 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)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

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.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Gabriele wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
Gabriele wrote:I dont know about ASRAAM, but the USMC jets have indeed open compatibility with Paveway IV with QE deployments in mind.
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.
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.
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.

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.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

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.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

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.
Correct. They have had enough trouble with getting the 8 million lines of (overcooked?) spaghetti into one (almost) tested codeline.
- 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)

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

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

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Tempest414 wrote: if Japan and Australia were to buy some F-35bs
Isn't the order from Japan in, already?
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)

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by dmereifield »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Tempest414 wrote: if Japan and Australia were to buy some F-35bs
Isn't the order from Japan in, already?
And now Singapore too (though not clear which varient)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

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)
Oh puleeze.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

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.

SDL
Member
Posts: 763
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

Re: Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

Post by SDL »


Post Reply