F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)

[benny14]

Why 24? Have a look at how many FJ are on ops now and how many in the recent past. Then look at the size of the fleet they come from.

Because that is what they are designed to use during combat ops.

12 of ours, plus more from the USMC. Not sure how many you think we'd need for the usual lob half a dozen missiles at a nasty man sort of mission...

Cant depend on the USMC to fill it up every deployment. Need to be able to do it our self.

[topman]

Why 24? Have a look at how many FJ are on ops now and how many in the recent past. Then look at the size of the fleet they come from.

Because that is what they are designed to use during combat ops.

that doesn't make much sense. Like I said look at historic norms. That'll tell you trends on what numbers are realistic.
If it's not full capacity then so be it, most airbases aren't.

Have a look at how many FJ are on ops now and how many in the recent past. Then look at the size of the fleet they come from.
That'll give you a clue to more realistic numbers.

Is that because of fleet availability numbers, or because of the practical and logistical difficulties of expeditionary air? Surely, with the carriers, a great deal of investment has gone into making sure that you have that issue covered - effectively you take the airbase with you and have a dedicated supply train.

It's to do with money, little else. To deploy those sort of numbers as frequently as people expect on here, it's very expensive.
Lots and lots of spares equipment and manpower needed. I've seen it first hand many times, it takes a lot of time. It's also about keeping that many near ready if you need to go quickly. It chews money up and the F35 is hugely complex and massively expensive.

A practical example, if you want to deploy 24 jet then you spares for that many. The spares PEP alone will be unaffordable.

[Lord Jim]

So basically we are going to be the laughing stock of the carrier world, with even the Russian Navy deploying more FJs routinely on board the single carrier (when it works) than we do. The whole basis for the size of the QEs was to generate a given number of sorties, which led to what size air wing would be needed and then how big a ship you needed to carry such an air wing. The investment in the QEs is basically wasted if they are not fully utilised. Instead we seem to be doing paper exercised on what aviation assets we can actually put on them to make them look like carriers when we have neither the intent of means to actually do so. I cannot think of any other country that deploys its carrier(s) without the maximum air wing embarked. AS I mentioned earlier can you see the French deploying the CdG with only a dozen jets on board. Imagine the anger that would be generated if the USN sent the Ford out on peacetime patrol with only a single Super Hornet squadron and a few helicopters with a press release saying that it was not intending to conduct any combat operations during the deployment. Yes it boils down to money and also the half arsed way they whole carrier programme has be managed and run sing the announcement in the SDR in 1998. Spin and PR have cost the lives of many servicemen since then. Time for the UK to hangs its head in shame and sell both to a country than can actually use them in the way they were supposed to be.

[topman]

I don't see why it's an issue outside some sort of top trumps comparison. Pretty sure the US have trimmed back on these amount of aircraft.

Even so the decisions on the carrier were made many moons ago. It was perhaps over optimistic but they could only go on what LM told them in the early days with regards to costs, which fed into sortie rates and numbers of aircraft that are practically affordable.

I don't think it'd save a huge amount of money making a ship a bit smaller. Plus it's a lot easier when you've plenty of space to play with.

[seaspear]

I stand corrected on the lifespan of the carriers , for much of this time the f35b will be deployed on the ship , the f35b has of course a finite life like any aircraft so if twenty thousand plus flying hours how many aircraft may be built to serve on the carrier over the lifetime of the carrier?

[benny14]

that doesn't make much sense. Like I said look at historic norms. That'll tell you trends on what numbers are realistic.
If it's not full capacity then so be it, most airbases aren't.

When was the last time the RN operated a large carrier huh? 12 will be on minimum, if doing something like anti-isis ops then it will be closer to 24.

the f35b has of course a finite life like any aircraft so if twenty thousand plus flying hours how many aircraft may be built to serve on the carrier over the lifetime of the carrier?

That is where ordering only 48 kicks you in the teeth. Which is why it is a stupid idea if true.

[ArmChairCivvy]

even the Russian Navy deploying more FJs routinely on board the single carrier (when it works) than we do.

How many did they lose on the latest deployment?
- no wonder it has been turned into a training platform (to keep the skills alive... for their next carrier )

That is where ordering only 48 kicks you in the teeth

- I don't think anyone has ruled out the drip feed of buying in the future
- actually get the a/c off the line ready for use, not for upgrading: so cheaper to begin with and much cheaper all-in

[ArmChairCivvy]

also a number of other Typhoon proposals under consideration which may generate additional sales

- might even get a new version, if the Germans go for it (as a Tornado replacement)?

4 - Don't touch the program ever again until delivery.

Failing to follow number 4 costs far more in the long run over several projects than any non adjustments ever would.

I agree with the train of thought, but requirements do evolve over such a long time that a combat jet prgrm seems to take
- so deliver the base version, don't tinker with it
- but start a parallel prgrm, and if it proves itself (time line; added capability...) do the cut off in order numbers early enough to arrive at the right mix

It's also about keeping that many near ready if you need to go quickly. It chews money up and the F35 is hugely complex and massively expensive.

- as we know by now, the GAO estimate for the life-time costs is 1/3 upfront and the rest over the life
- if the Tiffies will go out around 2040, how many of our F-35s now being delivered (now being the first 2 dozen, out to 2023) have any life left in them by then? One can see the "husbanding" of hours in the proportion of forward fleet to sustaining fleet, just to make the Tiffies go that far... so why buy a/c for storage (talking about F-35s past the 48 number)?

[topman]

Fleet hours in 2040 is a bit of a leap even for on here!

Ball park, they'd be fleet leaders but not life ex, possibly in LEP by then.

[topman]

that doesn't make much sense. Like I said look at historic norms. That'll tell you trends on what numbers are realistic.
If it's not full capacity then so be it, most airbases aren't.

When was the last time the RN operated a large carrier huh? 12 will be on minimum, if doing something like anti-isis ops then it will be closer to 24.

What you deploy to in terms of fleet generation and deployment support doesn't really matter, airbase or carrier.

How often do deploy those sorts of numbers that you think we should, especially from a small fleet?

[ArmChairCivvy]

not life ex, possibly in LEP by then.

Thanks, obviously if we stop at 36 (say) instead of 48, then by that time "life ex" would be approaching faster for a good proportion of the overall number
- hence after the minimum (within the overall fleet of combat jets and their capabilities) set at 48, and then followed by a drip feed does not sound as bad to me as to many others here

This is the problem for those countries that depend on a single type for their whole fast jet fleet: you'll have to buy the full number (whatever it is) in a fairly rapid succession, because otherwise you will be upping other than procurement costs (by having to support two fleets, through two separate training and logistics pipelines)

[ArmChairCivvy]

G(k)remlins on the line, came through in two copies
- even though repetition is the mother of all...? So deleted the second one

[dmereifield]

A routine deployment of F35 onboard a carrier is not the same as a deployment of fast jets for combat ops.

I guess most routine (6 month?) carrier deployments are unlikely to involve combat ops. The period aboard will be spent much like any period at the home base with a mixture of training, exercises and maintenance, possibly spiced up with a few QRA or operational tasking.

So if a carrier deploys with 12 or 24 F35s, not all of them would be expected to be immediately ready for combat at any time.

Interesting. This is what I had assumed. Even during peace time the carrier will deploy to medium threat environments or might have to respond to emergent threats. It makes more sense for the jets to be on the carrier, even if not immediately combat ready (or indeed they are not intended to be used on the deployment unless things kick off), rather than fly them out from the UK to the carrier after a threat has emerged.

With that in mind, Perhaps someone could help with estimations for the total size of the F35b fleet required for the following (based on my ill-informed assumptions so please feel free to correct me):

-Each carrier will deploy for 6 months out of 18.
-The deployment periods will not overlap (unless things have really gotten out of hand)
-QE the strike carrier will deploy with 18 F35b
-PoW as commando carrier /amphibious assault will deploy with 6 F35b
-therefore, in any 18 month period 18 F5Bs will be required for 6 months, 6 will be required for 6 months and 0 will ne required for 6 months
- on average, this equates to a mean continuous availability of 8 F35b over the 18 month period

Is this doable with 2 frontline squadrons if they are dedicated to carrier ops?

Is 48 airframes (those currently committed) sufficient the for this level of deployment, the OCU, Test and evaluation, and attrition and sustainment fleet?

[topman]

It can be tricky to work with if you deploy on a basis of we might be going to do ops, sort of. But we only want some of them ready to do ops, it's not impossible but it can be difficult to suddenly ramp up.

Something else perhaps people have considered is that you'll need to add in various exercises. Many of which you'll want to fly from an airbase to do, to get the most from the exercise. RF being the most obvious.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Something else perhaps people have considered is that you'll need to add in various exercise

A very important cost POV.

The IAF (no, not India ) is planning on the basis of 50/50 simulator and "live" training on their F-35s when the ratio for jets currently being used has been 20/80.

[Lord Jim]

It will be interesting to see exactly how the RN will operate its big new shiny aviation support vessels. Certainly not as others operate their carriers. Will we only deploy them for either training with a minimum air group or for a specific operation with a combat air group? What seems unlike is to have a carrier on "Patrol" ready to move at short notice to a trouble spot. Ours will probably have to return to a home base or Gibraltar to be kitted out before deploying on any operational tasks, and have additional escorts assigned. I just hope the carrier isn't too far away waving the flag when the call comes.

[ArmChairCivvy]

big new shiny aviation support vessels.

- and this is from someone who has only had one foot in the carrier camp, all along

[Pymes75]

I think it's definitely worth looking at the recent RFTG (previously Cougar) deployments as a sign of how the QECs will be used during peacetime deployments, utilising a 'Swiss Army knife-like' air group that can respond to the widest possible range of contingencies - NEOs, disaster relief, coercion. The beauty of the sheer size of the QECs over previous carriers (and even USN LHDs) is that they can comfortably operate a good number of each aircraft type: 12x F-35Bs plus 8x Apaches plus a range of support helicopters: Merlin (all flavours), Chinook and Wildcat...

[Lord Jim]

I was trying to think of how to classify the QEs as I have difficulty calling them carriers. They may look like one but unless they are used as one they aren't. All this spin about being flexible and so on is a smoke screen. The Government has simply not been will to spend the money for them to be used as they were intended to be and so has put out repeated statement down playing the lack of a true air wing. The QE's could still do all the things advertised as well as being full blown carriers. So Aviation Support Ship it is.

[ArmChairCivvy]

The beauty of the sheer size of the QECs over previous carriers (and even USN LHDs)

We can have a "beauty parade" as the Italians are planning to build an Aviation Support Ship (the plan was to build 2 LHDs first and then modify the 3rd for that use... may have changed since, but luckily we have, here, correspondents in-situ).
- Ozzies have one, fresh out of Vietnam

[Pymes75]

I was trying to think of how to classify the QEs as I have difficulty calling them carriers. They may look like one but unless they are used as one they aren't. All this spin about being flexible and so on is a smoke screen. The Government has simply not been will to spend the money for them to be used as they were intended to be and so has put out repeated statement down playing the lack of a true air wing. The QE's could still do all the things advertised as well as being full blown carriers. So Aviation Support Ship it is.

That entirely depends on whether you have a fixed definition of an aircraft carrier and want to take a negative view of them.

The RN realises that even if they had enough squadrons to permanently embark a full compliment of 36x strike fighters, that is not actually the best employment of air power for 99% of the operational life of the vessels. Over the last 40+ years, you can count on one hand the number of times the RN would have needed to deploy anything like 36x fighter aircraft. Far more useful is the ability to sail around the world with a wide range of aircraft that can cover just about any MOOTW and still have the presence to command attention when visiting foreign ports, etc.

[RetroSicotte]

That entirely depends on whether you have a fixed definition of an aircraft carrier and want to take a negative view of them.

The RN realises that even if they had enough squadrons to permanently embark a full compliment of 36x strike fighters, that is not actually the best employment of air power for 99% of the operational life of the vessels. Over the last 40+ years, you can count on one hand the number of times the RN would have needed to deploy anything like 36x fighter aircraft. Far more useful is the ability to sail around the world with a wide range of aircraft that can cover just about any MOOTW and still have the presence to command attention when visiting foreign ports, etc.

That's not the point he made.

If properly supported to what they ought to be, the carriers could do full carrier ops as per the rest of the world, AND convert to an America/Ocean/Cavour type vessel and support mixed groups.

But as it is, the intention only seems to be on the latter, with no real ambition to come out and flat say "We will have these things operating at full carrier role as a standard fit." in the same way as even CdG does.

There is nothing an "amphib" QE could do that other carriers could not do the same in a relative state. This isn't about "defining carrier", it's purely about the QE not being given the budgetry support to reach the heights that it's supposed to be at.

Even CdG has a dedicated group of 40+ Rafales to keep it around 30 on board for deployments, and that's a carrier 2/3 the size of QE. So having only the ambition to talk about 12-24 on board is not because there's some super secret tome of knowledge the UK possesses about carrier ops, it's purely because they don't want to commit the money to do so and then have separate flattops for helos as everyone else does.

[seaspear]

There may be a greater requirement for the f35b supporting the Eurofighter and N.A.T.O forces elsewhere in Europe than having a large specified amount set aside for both carriers.

[serge750]

It is a shame the QEC will not (initialy?) have enough airframes.. I would be grateful to see them deployed with a mix of aircraft for a multitude of possible tasks, my ideal would be 18 x F35b, 6 x apache, 6 x commando merlins with Royal marines, ASW & crowsnest merlins… obviously in a ideal world she would be used as intended when designed, 30 odd F35 and helicopters, but now as said the Gov are not investing... just cutting

[Lord Jim]

We will only have ONE carrier air wing available so we would need 24 "allocated to the ready carrier with a further 12 available for a surge. As for supporting the Typhoons, well that is what the rest of NATO can do, those that do not have a bloody great carrier with too few aircraft to embark on it. Maybe they should get some more of those plastic mock ups, like the one they used when QE was completed and they stuck on the ramp. At least it would look like we have some planes on the damn thing. As it stands with 12 aboard the carrier will be in self defence mode and you can forget about carrier strike. Now what did we buy the things for?