Subscribe
Notify of
guest

27 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
David MacDonald

How many F35bs do we now have in service. I ask only to be informed.

David MacDonald

Thanks.

Duker

In an operational context:
As of July 29, 2024, there were 26 F-35B aircraft in operational service at RAF Marham”.

David MacDonald

To me that does not seem yet quite sufficient for 617 squadron, 809 Naval Air Squadron and the OCU.

Duker

Perhaps. But the ‘modern’ RAF approach is to have a station pool of planes rather than have any allocated for squadrons.

Tabby

What are the chances of having 24 F35s onboard?

Hugo

They’ve said they want to achieve that before but would be a stretch and leave very little at home

Paul

Would have been much cheaper in long run to have had steam catapult on the ship s as the carrier f35 is much cheaper and to run it’s so sad because we invented the steam catapult system

Jack P.Q.

Steam catapults powered by what steam? EMALS, perhaps…

Georgie

Way too many, our bases are not able to handle the sheer quantity and the carriers are dangerously overloaded. Don’t worry though, Labour will realise this and make some drastic cuts soon.

Duker

A false claim of ‘overloading’.
The hangar alone can take 20 F-35B comfortably , probably more if some are reserves close packed.
The deck could easily take another 12
The USN did an exercise with 16 F35B on one of its much smaller LHA

7125613-11
Sailorboy

Pretty sure Georgie was being sarcastic there, Duker.
Check the last sentence.

Sunmack

Likely to be an unpopular view but wouldn’t we be better with one carrier active and the other one in reserve/maintenance/refit?
We don’t have enough F35’s or AEW Merlins for two full air groups or enough escorts for two carrier strike groups. The air group is also limited in its usefulness for the next few years until the F35 has a stand off weapon.
Meanwhile, we’re retiring useful assets such as frigates, LPD’s and MCM’s due to insufficient crews. Keeping one carrier operational and the other in reserve would surely go a long way to solving the crew shortage issue.

mike

That’s exactly the plan. The carriers are just so new they’re able to operate together but like the article states HMSQNLZ will undergo her first refit next year, leaving only HMSPWLS in service.

Hugo

Putting a carrier in long term reserve results in 1 being overworked and the other rotting like Albion and Bulwark

DRS

Be interesting to see do they go through the Suez and Red Sea next year. Bit different there from when Lizzie went through. Don’t want to be like the Germans and go the long way. Hopefully a couple of t45s etc will give a good screen and they also have phalanx mounted and active.

Hopefully better for the crew too without covid restrictions on shore. Have not seen if they will do a detour to Sidney or similar. That be awesome especially with AUKUS.

Is is smaller than Panamax? What about a LA visit too?

ATH

Much to wide at flight deck level.

Duker

The new wider Panama canal locks ( 180 ft ) can accommodate a Nimitz and Ford class for waterline beam but its the side sponsons as the water level falls(52 ft) that become the issue.

The QEC are 128 ft waterline beam but I dont know the sponson width – the flight deck is wider again

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2008/september/special-panama-canal-new-century-wider-speedier-busier

Duker

Superblock during construction shows sponsons might fit within 180ft dock width

Its 30m or 100ft from keel to flight deck

te_blog_carrier_superblock1
Last edited 1 month ago by Duker
ATH

Looking at satellite photos of the locks there are a heap of big light poles close to the lock edge. I suspect they would definitely get in the way. These locks were clearly designed for modern “slab sided” commercial vessels not carriers.

Duker

Yes. That is so for the older docks. The neomax docks seem to be clearer.

Not all commercial vessels are completely slab sided
The ACP or canal authority has highly detailed requirements for passage, right down to display of the Panama flag, but overhang width is said to be ‘case by case’

Screenshot-2024-12-04-164852
Wizzard

I can’t see the value in these when neither can be adequately loaded with an air wing.
In the eventuality of another ‘Falklands’ scenario any task group cobbled together would find itself wanting and vulnerable. This is further exacerbated by CIW systems. They should be more than adequate given the reliance placed on this platform to provide force projection.

Rodney
Simon

Going before Xmas? Wish the crew all the best hopefully a good experience and port stops.

Michael

I’m curious as to why the PoW has been named flagship instead of the QE. Elizabeth is the “ older sister” and the lead ship of the class.

Duker

It says in the story