The MoD officially confirmed today that the long-planned deployment to the Indo-Pacific will begin in two weeks with the departure of the flagship.
The carrier will spearhead operation HIGHMAST, involving around 4,000 UK personnel. (2,500 Royal Navy sailors and marines, together with 592 RAF personnel will be joined by around 900 soldiers from the Army for various exercises). The group will meet up off the coast of Cornwall and embark aircraft before departing for the Mediterranean to participate in the large-scale NATO maritime vigilance exercise Neptune Strike 25-1, which is already underway in the Mediterranean.
In terms of naval assets, the group will comprise of the carrier, Type 45 destroyer HMS Dauntless, Type 23 frigate HMS Richmond an Astute-class submarine and RFA Tidespring. It has been confirmed that the Canadian frigate, HMCS Ville de Quebec and the Spanish frigate, ESPS Mendez Nunez will also join for most of the deployment. The previously announced Norwegian participants HNoMS Roald Amundsen and HNoMS Maud will be in support for the whole duration. There will likely be an intense shakedown period in the Mediterranean to integrate the non-RN vessels into the group and familiarise themselves with the CSG operating procedures.
It does not appear a US warship will be attached to the group, at least for the majority of the deployment, although this may be subject to change, given the current unpredictability of US foreign policy. The Nunez and Aumundsen have versions of AEGIS and can complement HMS Dauntless in the air defence role, but without a US destroyer, Anti-Ballistic Missile capability is limited. The MoD says “up to” 24 F-35Bs will be embarked on the carrier
The group will pass through the Suez Canal and Red Sea before continuing east through the Indian Ocean for a series of multinational exercises with the US, India, Singapore and Malaysia. There has been no official comment about whether the group will participate in ongoing US-led operations against the Houthis in Yemen.
In July, the group will join 19 partner nations for Exercise Talisman Sabre off Australia. Subsequent visits to Japan and India are also planned.
Main image: HMS Prince of Wales leaves Portsmouth, August 2022 (Photo: Andy Amor)
Related articles
The Carrier Strike Group sails – what it takes to prepare for global deployment
Is the Royal Navy Indo-Pacific ready, or should the carrier strike group stay closer to home?
UK carrier strike – full operating capability on final approach
A demonstration of strength? Royal Navy exercise Strike Warrior 2024
An impressive flotilla, but it would be even better if it were wholly British. Maybe someday.
Why does it have to be wholly British? We’re not an empire anymore, we have allies, we should embrace that
You never know when a falklands situation might happen again.
Would be good for the next visit to the pacific to be a full British tack forces.
would of been nice to have another frigate or destroyer though, 2 more type 45’s were meant to be finished with refits and what not early this year including the HMS Daring but no news on that in a while.
Not much left to do all the other tasks though.
Probably one is on backup for a breakdowns ?
That is likely true.
I’d be interested to see if another T45 is sent out East of Suez…..that would, to my mind, prove the point.
It’s not so much that we have to send a fully sovereign force, it’s that if it had been a real choice, it would signal capability to our enemies. Having allied forces join us also shows a different kind of capability, and having some deployments sovereign and some not would be best. A non-NATO ship or two from Aus, Japan or even India would nice. I hope there’s something beyond exercises.
It shows that we don’t have enough escorts to deploy on our own anymore.
By that logic, the USN doesn’t have enough escorts as T45s have been deployed with USN CSGs in the past.
What it does show, is that we have allies we can work with.
Type 45s have been deployed in addition to the US Escorts, to exercise with them, not in place of them – there’s a difference. US carriers always have a satisfactory sovereign escort, and to be honest, so should we as we did with CSG21 comprising 2 x Type 45 and 2 x Frigates. But things have gone badly wrong for the RN since 2021. For example, nobody seems to know what the hell is going on with Daring which should have been back in the active fleet months ago, and the crazy decision to take Argyle out of service….
I would say that a full strength Royal Navy CSG would consist of the following assets sailing in concert with the carrier: 2 Type 45s, 2 frigates, 2 SSGNs, and 2 replenishment vessels. I would have said a couple of minesweepers as well but these seem to have all but vanished. I don’t know what you chaps plan to do about mine clearance going forward. I’ve heard all the noise about unmanned surface vessels and such, but there doesn’t seem to be much in the way of actual capabilities in that regard just yet. It really wouldn’t do to have the cream of your navy sunk or disabled by a handful of cheap mines dumped into the ocean off of a sampan.
Don’t make logical comments, it annoys the old defeatist coagers!
Don’t forget ol’ NZ down here too. Its just increased its defence budget so there might be a fleet upgrade and or expansion in the future and a greater involvement from them.
Had a closer look, its just a future plan not a budget announcement.
Ie frigates will get another life extension for another decade – shades of T23
Ie 2016 DCP said NZ$20 bill capital spending ‘over next 15 years’
often ‘extra’ spending comes partly from defence cuts, ie smoke and mirrors
https://www.wgtn.ac.nz/strategic-studies/news/css-news-items/what-does-budget-2024-portend-for-defence-capability-procurement
Thanks Duker. Even if small NZ may get a bit of brotherly pressure from Aus here to up its Defence capabilities sooner than later what with the recent Chinese warships in the Tasman Sea episode. I think both countries need to keep sending strong “we’re here” and watching signals.
Australian warships travel to South China sea too, even their P-8s.
What goes around comes around. The Tasman isnt an australian lake
And the Aust Defence Minister Marles has said exactly that too. But what Australia does in the SCS and surrounds is for the benefit for all and done as part of an alliance upholding international norms, laws, recognition of international boundaries and the free flow of international trade through shipping lanes. And i hope that this is always done professionally on our part too.
Letting off or wanting to let off live fire missiles slap bang in the middle of a busy air traffic lane and at very short notice is very “yahoo” behaviour IMHO.
Let’s see what happens when the CSG heads through or close to the SCS?
No missiles were fired . Just gunnery practice on a floating target. A RNZN ship was observing from a distance
We should be offering allies the experience of working with a fully equipped CSG — learning from the best / working it all to the max or at least giving it a good go.
Instead we are doing a ring round at the last minute looking for mates to cover what we don’t have. I fear the Yahoos will see us as an easy target that will be one step removed from the USN who if they are too keep in with Donny John will be in full Admiral King mode.
The Yahoos seen to have a gun for hire dimension.
I wonder who would pony up the entry fee to their box of missile tricks.
Could get messy.
Because the operation is led by the RN ….. the US controls most naval exercises because of their logistics.
No Hugo, Will is right, you know what he is saying, the fact is we are not capable of doing this alone even if we wanted to.
I’m glad we have managed to assemble a half decent group using Allies assets though.
I know what he’s saying but in reality we’re never gonna break past 30 escorts again, might get above 20 if were lucky.
That means we will have to rely on allies
How many escorts does France have available for escorting Charles de Gaule.
They sent a horizon and 2 Fremm this year. But usually it’s 1 and 1 from what I recall
’Never’ is a brave statement and we never thought the US would levy tariffs on its allies but they just did. At least 24 escorts is required by the U.K. and optimally 32 but HM Treasury would like none.
I am not saying you are sea blind but many in the U.K. seem to have adopted a continental mindset, which doesn’t understand the implications of being an island. A very dangerous outlook for a nation wholly dependent on the sea for trade, food, energy and connectivity.
Comparing ourselves therefore with France or Italy in the number of escorts required is delusional when Japan is a far better gauge of our needs. It is of course a rather awkward comparison in many ways.
Where did I say we didn’t need more, but we have budgets and economies comparable to Italy and France.
Look at the current situation and look at the snails pace budget growth. Then tell me it’s got any chance of happening
I didn’t say you did but you could have said unlikely rather than never and whilst we have similar economies to that of France and Italy our real defence needs are quite different because of our geographic position but unfortunately we now have a mindset that reflects this sea blindness mentality.
If because of the available budget the Army needs to gets smaller so the RAF and RN can be larger then we need to do that, which has nothing to do with rose tinted views about Pax Britannica and everything to do with the defence of the U.K.
Many on here are right we are still pretending we can do everything but our leaders and others in Europe are now finding out that because of the cuts in our defence capabilities we cannot really provide a decent size peacekeeping force for Ukraine. You cannot expect to be heard at the top table if you have no real military clout.
Sadly we currently still have a political class that borrow a £100Bn a year to fund a welfare system that is out of control and a Net Zero policy that is tantamount to economic suicide.
Things are changing because of recent events but personally I do not see a general war in Europe in the near future but if Ukraine is carved up and the US draws down its forces in Europe then Russia will feed emboldened to perhaps take what is left of Ukraine or pressure the Baltic states. That is perhaps where we are heading and it will require a significant increase in defence expenditure in the 2030s, which is likely to see the U.K. military grow in terms of quantity.
In my view we are in a similar position as the 1930s with a weak economy and instability in Europe and the Far East but we did uplift expenditure during that decade to face the threat but it was not immediate and was a gradual process.
All the best
How come Russia hasnt ‘taken Belarus’.
The Spanish have always pushing to ‘take Gibraltar’
Nato member Turkiye could take the rest of Cyprus that dont occupy, they are already taking part of Syria. Greece spends 3.2% of GDP on defence because of aggressive Turkiye
No, being able to lead multinational coalitions is where we’re at, whilst preserving a full spectrum of capabilities. I daresay once the T26s, T31s and (fingers crossed) T32s are in service we could do an all-UK, but leveraging our allies makes more sense (and placing our ships in their task groups in turn)
Quite agree.
I don’t. The T32 is a complete waste of money, at least as this point. Just build more 31s until you get your escort fleet numbers back up to a bare minimum of 24. THEN build the 32 if you identify a legitimate need for another clean sheet design that comes with all of the additional expenses.
Why? Because when you depend on allies to make up for the ridiculously low numbers in your own national fleet / navy, you sign away your national sovereignty and freedom of action and maneuver to one degree or another. As John says below, what if Argentina decides to have another go at the Falklands? Where will your allies be then? And even if they decide to help you with spare parts, fuel, extra ordnance, and intelligence gathering (as was the case in 1982), they won’t be there to add hulls, tonnage, troops, or aircraft to your next Falklands (or Cyprus) task force.
Empire, what!?
I was just thinking it could be a bit light on longer distance air defences, even with the Spanish SM-2s, so it’s nice that the US will be sending a warship as well. Thank you to all allies helping out.
SM-6 is essentially the same as the older SM-2
very few US Navy destroyers carry/upgraded for the advanced longer range SM-3 and they wont be including one for a RN deployment as they are in high demand in Med or Red Sea or Persian Gulf
SM-6 is a development of SM-2. Where the SM-2’s SARH seeker was replaced with a version of the AMRAAM active seeker, plus it also includes an expendable 1st stage solid rocket booster. SM-2 has a similar performance to an Aster 30. Whereas SM-6 leaves an Aster in its wake, with its ability to intercept target way beyond 100,000ft. The next iteration of SM-6 sees the SM-2 body get a much wider diameter rocket motor along with some aerodynamic tweaks, which will enable to intercept targets above 150,000ft.
Are they looking at making the next Asters a more “fatter bodied” type?
From the images of Aster-30 Block 1NT test launches, the missile’s dimensions appear to be unchanged. The slightly extended range likely comes from changes in flight trajectory.
The next-stage in MBDA’s SAM series, the Aquila counter-hypersonic interceptor, has a thicker terminal dart section but is built for higher altitude interceptions.
Aster 30 has a expendable booster too. SM-2 has always had one, it was the change from the SM-1
Aster block 1 -3 has upgrades too and is used by French Army as Mamba theatre ABM
SM-6 is only operational with USN Aegis baseline 9 and later , that means from DDG-100 onwards and a few earlier ones refitted .
I thought on X you mentioned a US ship would not be part of the group, has that changed?
Apologies should say “does not” – amended
Australian destroyers HMAS Sydney and HMAS Brisbane will participate in CSG25.
Lots of warships of different nations will operate with the CSG for periods of varying lengths. However it is important to make a distinction between them and vessels permanently assigned and fully integrated with the group.
Bet Australia is really kicking themselves for not building at least a 4th Hobart class destroyer. The Navy League of Australia agitated loudly for this but was of course ignored.
Just not true
‘without a US destroyer, Anti-Ballistic Missile capability is limited”
The ships cant be targeted by ballistic missiles anyway
Ships absolutely can be targeted by ballistic missiles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ship_ballistic_missile#First_operational_use_in_war – I know it’s Wikipedia, but it’s a nice summary of the events in the Red Sea involving SRASBMs.
There’s no reason that SRASBM couldn’t target the UKCSG passing through the Red Sea.
Without a US destroyer, the group has no high altitude terminal phase defence brought by the SM-6, and no exoatmospheric defence given by the SM-3. Aster-30 Block 1NT is equivalent to SM-6, but will not be carried onboard Dauntless.
Wikipedia can be poor quality but that is terrible.
Everybody want to shoot down a ballistic missile — so every missile is now a ballistic missile just as in the 80’s every missile was sea skimming. plus the USN has history regarding claim inflation.
Those arent real BM. Just reused old AA missiles. the media stories/Houthi PR just say any cargo ship hit that isnt a drone attack is a BM -LOL
The French army uses Aster 30 for high altitude ABM, and so has the RN upgraded its Aster 30 to Block 1
“Previously, in December 2022, the MoD signed a contract with MBDA to acquire the Aster 30 Block 1, which will deliver an improved maritime anti-ballistic missile capability. This involves converting the RN’s existing stocks of Aster 15 and 30s to Aster 30 Block 1 standard at MBDA’s facility in Bolton and at DM Gosport.” NL
Aviation Week is reporting that the air group will initially include two squadrons (617 and 809), each of 8 F-35B’s – total of 16. Before the carrier passes through the Suez Canal (mid-May?), one squadron will return to the UK, air refueled by 5 Voyager’s (It seems AirTanker had to be given advance notice as 5 is more than can normally be provided from the core fleet). For the Indo-Pacific part of the deployment, POW will have just one squadron of British F-35B’s embarked.
If true, it’s hugely disappointing, and worse. It would tell the Chinese we can’t send any more planes after four years of build up than we could in 2021, and at least we had 18 on deck back then with USMC help. As messaging goes, it screams incompetence. We really need to send 12 at the very least to show progress. Let’s hope this is some sort of government fake out because we can’t send the promised 24, to make people say at least we aren’t only sending 8.
Indeed this is the unconfirmed rumour. Definitely an RAF decision which will not have gone down well with the Navy. Arguably having the larger air group will be more important once east of Suez.
The F35 force cannot deploy 50% of its total fleet for that length of time unless the Navy wishes to setback the development of the whole F35 fleet and it’s personnel.
The F35 force has insufficient depth and capability, 16 airframes is huge amount of the forward fleet and highly likely the most capable airframes, the ones also in demand to train the new generation of F35 pilots on the type and thus grow the force and sustainability.
Surely you’d train pilots and engineers on board, wouldn’t you? It’s not called a floating air base for nothing. As for missing out on training an entire generation in the seven or eight months they’d be gone…. pull the other one; it’s got bells on.
You don’t train anyone, pilot or engineer on a deployment, you can only consolidate any training. It’s not a floating airbase in that regard. Marham has the OCU,ground school and the maintenance school.
This number of aircraft will impact F35 growth and sustainability for one simple reason, the deployment would take the best of the aircraft ( capability, flight hours from maintenance due) and, a force that is short of spares ( major F35 problem on all variants) would be stripped out. There would be a serious possibility that the OCU will cease its output over the duration of the deployment IF all the aircraft are way the duration and on their return depending what maintenance they need.
There is a reason why this force has done very little deployments in the last 2-3 years since initial deliveries commenced.
At least we have found Leigh-Mallory’s log in.
All that is missing is rhubarbs / rodeos / circuses.
A boot up the erse might help but it would appear that many are so involved with the excel spreadsheets / powerpoints that they would not notice.
PoW defence is critical — Singapore vibe is strong.
Not good.
Safe operation of aircraft entails everything from build, acceptance, training, building maintenance systems, provisioning that maintenence/operational system then managing that fleet to balance fatigue/hours/capability of each airframe. The Army and FAA have the same systems in place for their aircraft.
The problem for F35 is that chain is not just in the UK but also Europe and Asia and is managed overall by an American Joint Project Office with everything and systems in place they use. If you ever want an example of complexity, beyond the F35 in general, then that be the F35 ecosystem.
For the UK it would have better to have had more independence such Isreal has with its F35i fleet but our Lords and masters choose not too.
Then just get Ryanair on the phone.
Ryanair do exactly the same. It’s the industry standard, both civil and military.
Well if they can do it what is the issue with the MOD?
Surely the Tim nice but dim vibe is history?
There was a lot of training going on in 2021. Check out the official report on the lost plane. I get the point about the quality of the F-35s and the lack of spares, and that is worrying. Nevertheless I’m not convinced about the rest.
I think you are saying that a new pilot can’t go from an F-35 simulator directly to carrier deck learning, even with their fast jet prep work, and it would require conversion at Marham airbase using a working F-35 beforehand. And you are saying that this step is what would be limited, because the OCU wouldn’t have any planes it could train with, at least not consistently enough to push pilots through to a point they could start taking off and landing on a carrier. Have I got that right? Of the 37 planes the UK has, not even with more than half of them available could sufficient be got into a fit state to train pilots with, and the OCU needs eight extra planes and that’s why after a month, eight planes must fly back to the UK, right? Not even the four new jets expected to be delivered next month and presumably in full working order will make any difference to this calculation?
I’m sorry, but this stretches my credulity. If I recall correctly only three of the eight planes embarked in CSG21 were fully mission capable and the rest were fixed on route, so we weren’t exactly brimming over with fully working planes then either, but we didn’t send half of them back from the Med.
How many pilots does the OCU train up in a year? Seven or eight? Maybe four over the course of the deployment? As of the end of last year, fewer than 50 pilots had ever been trained on F-35 for us and not all of those in the UK. What if “the worst” happened and the OCU didn’t train new F-35B pilots in the aircraft over those seven months or could only train an even more limited number? Given that they could use the simulators, how far would it actually have knocked back pilot training by say the middle of next year? A few months at most, right? The Navy has been prepping for this for a couple of years involving many thousands of people. Besides, couldn’t pilots achieve the missing step by training with allies? RAF pilots have converted to F-35 at MCAS Beaufort in the past.
The ability to send a carrier with a meaningful force is of huge importance to the credibility of the Navy, with so many ships lost over the last three years. They can’t afford to look like a token.
Pilots go through the OCU phase and pass out limited combat ready then they develop their skill sets on their first operational squadron, one of which would be operations on ship (in terms of numbers and importance look at the size of US Navy or Marine Fleet Replacement squadrons ). No country would miss this phase and hope they can learn on the job. The OCU is always the most important squadron, without it the normal churn of pilots or crews would render a force ineffective. To this point after actual operations they’re always the priority for spares or aircraft. To strip 207 of aircraft and skilled personnel for this deployment would have a negative effect on the stability of the F35 force let alone its growth.
Finally OCUs don’t just train new pilots, they do the development courses for qualified pilots – the Weapon instructors, the flight training instructors , the maintenance test pilots – every course needed to develop the crews and their skills.
Flying IS training most of the time. Considering how much of the F-35 training is done on simulators real world experience and in ‘live theatres’ even better. Where else where would they get ‘painted’ by Chinese radars and such?. Exercises with the allies from India to Japan and more . Do they get this textbooks and gopro videos?
The purpose of most the F-35B fleet is operations. Only a small number are the training flight.
The MoD and the Americans will not let countries like even India and certainly not China have an opportunity to see the performance and radar cross section aspects of F35. The value of training in that environment will more limited – sortie generation, planning and flying in coalition types scenarios etc. Yes, F35 training has a lot of simulation, perhaps a little too much given they can’t replicate g forces or the exertion of live flying, simulation is a tool to allow crews to gain the maximum value out of a live sortie.
The purpose of the F35 fleet is operations but they can only be delivered with the foundation a continuous and considered development and training of crews and systems. In this context the apparent slowness of this development is a question in its own right and perhaps it shows, as other operators have found, is that the aircraft and systems are not fully developed enough. Is this a reason why the US Navy is seriously reducing F35B buy for the Marines in favour of F35C variant.
The F35 operators use a radar enhancement/reflector device on the airframe when training in those areas.
This has been well known for some time
‘Stealth aircraft, such as the F-22 Raptor or the F-35 Lightning II 5th generation jets are equipped with Luneburg (or Luneberg) lenses: radar reflectors used to make the LO (Low Observable) aircraft (consciously) visible to radars. These devices are installed on the aircraft on the ground are used whenever the aircraft don’t need to evade the radars: during ferry flights when the aircraft use also the transponder in a cooperative way with the ATC (Air Traffic Control) agencies; during training or operative missions that do not require stealthiness; or, more importantly, when the aircraft operate close to the enemy whose ground or flying radars, intelligence gathering sensors.”
https://theaviationist.com/2022/03/02/f-35-without-reflectors-over-poland/
Yes, they’re called Luneburg lenses. However modern air defence radar systems look at number of factors not just the airframe. They will look all signatures from the aircraft and how it handles and performs. That’s before they listen, watch and study all the facets of these type of combined operations.
The radars ARE used by F35 operators to conceal their low radar signature. There would be nothing special about F35 ‘other signatures’, they can and do go ‘silent’ whenever the pilot wants. The other big advance is the passive early warning systems. Dont broadcast anything
Good points . But the F35B inventory by May 2024 will be 41
Type conversion doesn’t need 25 planes, anyway mostly done in simulators since there is no 2 seater.
The routine flying to keep aircrew current is what a CSG25 is all about.
The latest deliveries of F35 will have to undertake acceptance checks prior to issue to the front line units and depends on the aircraft passing all these checks. Whether they undertake full or just partial checks prior to the delivery flight across the Atlantic and complete them at Marham is a question in is own right. These checks cannot be rushed and include software, full functional check being repeated and it’s inspection to issue it’s MAR certificate releasing for full use.
F35’s — how many are coming this year?
One a month if we are lucky.
Sloths have more energy.
This is a joke surely?
No, it’s about how the Tri Service MAA mandates the acceptance of new aircraft from the builder.
I’m sure the Navy don’t just pick a frigate from the build yard on Friday then on the following Monday morning send it out on its first operational deployment.
How long would these checks take if done as a priority? Weeks or long enough to stop them being available to train a handful of pilots over the rest of this year? And would those pilots even be classed as fully trained if they’ve never flown off a carrier?
The delivery schedule is in contractors gift. Then the customer, MoD DE&S then will plan for delivery. Just because an F35 lands at Marham doesn’t mean it’s delivered to the customer….DE&S satisfaction. Sometimes, with other aircraft types it’s weeks before the aircraft is fully delivered then handed to the user…. the RAF, Army or Navy.
It’s the MoD (civil service) regulations .
Actual dates are arranged with the customer , down to the week or so.
Its not a surprise gift at all.
If a customer is buying in a specific production lot, Lockheed will know down to the day when various stages on build are complete for each of those 120 or so planes
this is the modern world!
The “gift” in this context means the delivery date is entirely in the contractors control, they know the state of the production line, it’s scheduling and any delays. They keep that information to themselves – commercially sensitive. Yes they “plan” the build from day one/ hour one to contractors flight test but they and the customer know there are many variables from industrial strikes to parts shortages from other suppliers.
The modern plans better but does not control everything.
How many F35s are we getting this year?
There must be a plan out there — so how many this year?
How many new F35’s from the production line this year?
Plus how many F35’s handed over to the squadrons?
This should be a pipeline where everyone moves forward one step at a time.
The F35 build and delivery pipeline had a few problems around Tranche 3 and 4 systems. Apparently it held up delivery and build for a while the JPO worked through this as far as possible. It affected all F35s. I think they’ve moved forward a bit but not sure if the US military has accepted any F35s and delivered them to operational units.
I admire your openness/ your honesty.
I just hope you are real or maybe I don’t as reality suggests MOD collapse / performance levels in the ditch.
What spec are we putting on the PoW?
Apple software / Samsung hardware — what could possibly go wrong?
Actual facts
The 36th jet [the 1st TR3]will stay in the United States and work at [NAS] Patuxent River and Edwards AFB for operational test,” says Mike Shoemaker, Lockheed’s vice-president, F-35 customer programmes. “The 37th will show up in December, and the next four jets in the spring time.”
The latter shipment of TR-3-standard aircraft is being planned to occur ahead of the RN’s Carrier Strike Group 25 deployment, he notes. “For the remaining seven, Block 17 jets, our intent is to deliver those before the end of the year [2025],” Shoemaker says” ‘Flight Global’
Its as I said, a new version is tested operationally in US. The ones after that just need a week or two of through check its all working .
No problem when its a single plane roughly every 2 months !
F35 Tr3 aircraft are flying now but operational test of the 80+ system changes, bar a couple of specific systems, will not begin until 2026 at least. All models of F35 tr3 (block 17) can fly but not in operational theatres and cannot carry live ordinance. That was what the USAF and Lockheed have stated publicly.
What a shambles — Jaffa spec now being delivered.
Can they do Red Arrow stuff?
Hopefully we haven’t handed over good money for these Hangar Queens.
Does Donny John know about this?
No EM fan but I can see a chainsaw moment coming up.
Well that is the problem. All the new customers for F35 like Finland or Switzerland want and need these aircraft now, as do we but with TR3 aircraft immaturity that will not happen. They can be flown safely enough just not anywhere we might want deploy or use them. There are plenty of books and articles that better explain F35 and the problems within it.
I think we are due the balance of the 48 but I think some might be delivered and then “parked” with Tranche 3/4 tech refresh. I think that’s new software and new computers. Not sure if all existing systems are compatible.
As before — what are flying at the moment?
How many / what level of spec?
Tranche 3 / 4 — what are we doing with them?
How do they fly out of the factory?
Replacing the software — fairly mainstream
Replacing hardware — mental stuff for something that is box fresh.
Big Auto builds without.
Parks the affected stock.
Does the update then OK to ship.
I couldn’t say how many are flying here now but I would guess we are “slow flying” to maintain hours to use either o deployment or keep the OCU ticking over for the duration.
As to the spec I think it’s our current operational speck. The latest spec might be good for UK flying but not yet released for any potential ops.
I think the plan to find the cash so we can operate a common fleet across all the sqns but I’ve read it could be eye watering cost wise.
Now for delivery. The aircraft will have a full flight and released to fly safely, however that software is a snapshot so might not be full UK operational software – mission data. When the aircraft is delivered it will have inspections as detailed by the MAA and it’s release to service. This can include inspection of components to verify correct standard and instalation, modern aircraft with composites will have initial verification of structural data. Then we come to any UK software standards. That will usually entail post loading full functional testing of the aircraft to ensure flying controls, systems, engine etc all work correctly. Then post all these tests, less any rectification and contractor reworks the aircraft would be released for a further full flight test and, fingers crossed, delivery to the user – an operational flying squadron.
Aviation, both civil and military will always complex because of its nature. A few weeks work and yes mess around is worth it to deliver serviceable and capable aircraft to the final user….a young man or girl who will possibly take it into harms way and fight with it.
Found it at last — this particular post.
What you describe is amateur hour regarding product engineering.
Product as designed.
Model Years or “Blocks” as you military types use.
Product as released with usage dates.
Build schedule with associated BOM explosion to list the parts.
Exceptions and concessions in the build book with build data.
End of line flash to add in the required software.
The software is associated with the model involved.
That is the state of the entity leaving the factory.
The customer can be involved with the build on the line.
Or they can check it against their requirements and the Build Book to make sure they are getting what they asked for and what the builder says was put in. Quality data will be available and further checks can be made if required.
The supplier will stand behind the entity / aircraft as built.
That will get it across the Atlantic and into everyday use if that is how we want to operate it.
UK changes / software loads will be on us.
Do we have the discipline to minimise our changes?
Do we have the capability to deliver our elements on time and at reasonable cost and do we trust our suppliers or do we test to infinity.
It would appear that F35 PLC is struggling to get stuff out the door.
UK / MOD service is in sloth mode both with the basics and the weapons integration side. Plus UK F35 PLC is slow and does not generate confidence in its efforts.
All known / all unfortunately MOD normality.
However the main point in all of this — if we have 16 good enough to sail they why don’t we have 35 good enough to sail?
They have been built to a stable and known standard and that standard is going to do all the heavy lifting of CSG25 — so if 1 can go all should be able to go.
There has to be some level of consistency / confidence in what F35 PLC is building and supplying. And there has to be some level of consistency / confidence on what UK PLC is adding to the aircraft once they get here?
Manufacturing should not be a lottery / lucky dip.
Hoarding kit on the prairies of Lincolnshire should ben seen as an end in itself.
PoW World Tour — if we own it then it should be on it.
What you’ve described isn’t how the F35 is built. The contractors do not let customer nations crawl all over the production line. In good faith the JPO will monitor production phases but customer will always do their own verification, you don’t buy any product with checking it on delivery. The customer in this case being DE&S.
The current F35 delivery standard is TR3 , this block as it stands cannot be used operationally so for the UK the useable pool of airframes is about 33. That means the only these can deploy to an active theatre but also being required for operational training. Simulation no matter how good cannot replicate the real thing.
F35 production and support is in general not the best, as F35 customers state. The F35B in principle has it’s own problems, perhaps explaining why the US Navy is cutting F35B orders and the USMC is abandoning it’s plans for F35 expeditionary operations.
Finally Marham is in Norfolk not Lincolnshire and these two counties have “Fens” not “Prairies”
Well to look at that in the mirror…..2TR3 can be used for OCU as it isn’t operation deployment?
Customer involvement is rarely if ever “crawling” over the production line. Rarely happens but not sure where we are with the F35.
Should be product engineering but the ghost of project engineering looms large,
Need for delivery checks — is it the wild west on the line?
Are usage dates more properly effectivity dates properly managed?
Old stock swept off the line and quarantined and the new stuff brought in?
I take it they work to static BOMs — line speed is glacial so it should not be too difficult. In fact what is the build rate — one or two per week?
3 per week globally is the target.
US / Italy / Japan have the lines — unlucky old us.
Plus config management — is it mixed condition or do they do small batches for the customer base? Might explain the lumpy delivery schedule if they do
What are the issues with TR3?
Is that F35 TR3 or is it F35B TR3?
What changed between TR2 and TR3?
What systems involved / how much hardware / how much software?
Are they operationally grounded everywhere or just in the UK?
OCU / Operational training — how many are flying today / flew yesterday?
As highlighted by the 1000 bomber raid — OCU stuff can do operations if required.
OCU workload — does it include flight deck operations?
Two birds / one stone — result.
Fens are for the tourists / painter groupies.
With their love of American cars and country and western music — prairie chat has started already. Having lived in Essex it was all too real for my liking.
This why I posted about how we, the UK, accept military aircraft from build. It’s the process the MAA have in place and the customer, DE&S has no choice but to follow it. I’m sure there are similar type procedures for warships and armoured vehicles ( hence all the troubles the Army had with its new tanks according to the news) It’s slow and cumbersome BUT look at UK defence flight safety in the last few years, it’s been very good. Delivering capability on time at spec SAFELY is the key, but F35?
We have been safe because we are not flying.
Who manages the MAA — are their processes credible in a global context or are they erse covering control freaks who love their position in the food chain?
MAA vs Global best practice — are they in the mix or are they just gum bumping because they can?
What is their workload for today and will they finish it?
Plus what is the measurement of safety?
Risk is always there but it can be managed.
Have all the TR frames been signed off for use?
Or are there some still in the MAA / MAR doom loop?
Have any of the TR3 frames been through the MAA / MAR acceptance process or are our box tickers working over all the boxes that were ticked in the US?
We would appear to be working to processes and procedures that we can’t complete because it is all new / complex / poorly understood.
No matter 24 frames on the water — that would be some photoshoot?
Run out of pilots — the media don’t need to know.
Then 16 frames in the Indian Ocean.
The RAF love a good jolly.
The MAA has its own basis in law the same way the CAA has because it is the legal regulator.
As I’ve posted already, the F35 and in its latest Tech Refresh has some major problems, and we can read all the many open source articles, the excuses Lockheed are giving to Congress and await what on earth the US DoD and Lockheed are going to do about it.
Yes we are “accepting” F35 Tr3 standard but we just cannot fly them anywhere they might EW, secure comms or live weapons, just the US military have acknowledged.
Finally I thought this exercise is a further development fof the Navy and F35 force? More dynamic training, confirmation of improvement to SOPs since the last cruise. A development where the RAF/FAA operate the force at distance with the minimum of UK or US support in as near real world conditions as possible? Is that not the focus of this CSG exercise is then ? Is a “jolly” ? Because if that’s the case why not take the training rigs from Culdrose instead ?
Banter my boy — banter.
Although …
Somebody else doing the driving.
Heading off somewhere warm.
Three square meals a day.
Meet some Aussies.
Oh well 3 out of 4 ain’t bad.
Mr Loaf would be well happy.
Lawyers involved — point in time solution.
So may change as we gain more experience.
CAA — decades of experience / challenging customers.
MAA — still in short trousers / issues with the customer.
Not a good look.
Are all Tranche 2 with the customer and fully capable?
Main thing about CSG25 — national credibility.
Potemkin village air wing going through the Red Sea / South China Sea will get noticed.
Defence spending is a lot of money for a charade / pantomime.
Nats vs MOD / value for money angle — too close to call.
I know Aussies are weird. Always prefer the Kiwis and their beer. Yes I believe TR2 versions, our first 30 or so are fine, we can use them but that a small fleet to do a lot of tasks with. As I said I thought the whole CSG25 mission is that growth, not necessarily in numbers ( that’s a problem in its own right) but what can be done for how long far from home. If it’s only 8 airframes but they, the systems the processes work fine then is a tremendous positive. As I said I think carriers have a tremendous future if we progress the drone capabilities.
“I think the plan to find the cash so we can operate a common fleet across all the sqns but I’ve read it could be eye watering cost wise.”
It was announced some time ago that only the first couple of orange wired F35B would not be upgraded to full spec.
The costs were also announced and a lot of people were surprised at how little they actually were.
Cash might be the problem. All F35 customers prior to tr3 refresh have been looking at standardisation across their fleets, but with tr3 problems going back about 2-3 years with no clear, economical solution to them it’s possible that these airframes become “orphan fleet”.
Tr3 test and certification has been pushed back to 2026 at least but that is under control of the USAF, the biggest customer of the type.
And yes, East Anglia is little like the wild west, I was based there long enough. Don’t miss it at all but the coast was nice.
The new features will be tested out by RAF at Edwards. They have a permanent detachment for that.
Clearly TR3 wont be going on PoW
There’s suppose to be two more arriving in May sometime.
Why would you even fly away from Fort Worth without comprehensive testing first.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/delivery-of-uks-first-batch-of-f-35-jets-to-complete-2025/
Its only going to be 1 every 2 months !
The aircraft will be delivered with production standard software so are safe for flight. However on delivery to the UK it would be loaded with the latest UK software which is written by the UK and US. This would be part of delivery and acceptance. Yes it absolutely does certainly make sense to carry this out before a long trans Atlantic flight but we have to remember that DE&S is customer on behalf of the RAF/RN.
This just isnt credible. The software isnt written UK at all. Zilch.
Please provide some evidence , as per the sites rules
Who do you think created the automated vertical take off and landing system for Harrier that was developed, built and never fitted?
What software do you think runs that function on F35B?
Which country did that originate in?
2025 F35 deliveries — Paddy Power is paying out now at 6 or less.
Done in US , as RAF/RN have a detachment at Beaufort MCAS ( plus another at Edwards for future development testing)
Its what they would do BEFORE accepting delivery from Lockheed, surely
typo in my earlier post as that was May 2025
Remember they are only getting 1 or 2 at a time. if they arent fully operational after a month something is very wrong with build quality ( which should be sorted in US)
How DE&S will run the acceptance process is down to them. Generally the aircraft will need a Military Airworthiness Review ,MAR Certificate prior to release to the Services. The post production acceptance tests will include full inspections for correct build, inspection of components part and serial numbers, relevant mod states (insitu because they’re only removed if faulty or incorrect and yes industry do make assembly mistakes) then there will full functional tests of all systems – avionic and mechanical.
As you point out it would make sense to most if not all in America but as I said before it’s down to how the customer, DE&S wants to organise this.
As far as I’m aware most UK staff are writing UK software with the Americans and also part of multinational test teams in the US.
I’ve found this discussion very interesting.
The F35B doesnt need full review , probably only at a major Block change
Please provide evidence as per the comment rules for ‘bold claims’
There is no ‘UK software’ , only Isreal has authorisation and the code to do so. Evidence please!
We have a joint RAF/RN squadron in America, along an RAAF squadron that is now doing this along with the US. The block 3 to 4 tech refresh has had problems that have been covered elsewhere. These are all open source issues that can be found online.
Also the review is called a MAR, every UK military aircraft has this process. It’s not type specific but unique to each airframe in terms of how it’s valid.
And yes Isreal is only non US operator with full control over its Mission Data because of its need to control its own EW and weapons packages.
Single vehicle Type approval strikes again.
This is not product engineering it is artisan / cottage industry / Repair Shed TV attention seeking.
F35 should have a total focus on the PoW — it is good for nothing else.
The best way to think of a MAR is that it’s like an MoT. Inspection every year or so (depending on the policy for that platform) when the airframe is in operational use the MAR process only takes a few hours and can be done quickly, inspection and documentation. 24hrs max. But it legally needs it to fly.
MAR = MOT …
Then it should be used on new planes — that would be a totally different process / procedure.
When did the MAR process start?
What drove its introduction?
Vehicle design and build is type approval — can be batch or it can be individual vehicle.
I fear the MOD is totally removed from the real world.
These processes have built over time but the true foundation is when the MAA was created out of the various airworthiness groups in the RAF, Army, Navy and the old Defence Aviation safety group and Directorate of aviation regs and safety. Its creation was in the findings of the Haddon Cave review into the Nimrod loss in 2006 and looked at the totality of defence aviation safety.
Basically it found years of cuts across defence meant kit was running on past it’s end date and all the maintenance regimes had seen massive cuts to staff facilities and even spares. Experience levels of engineers had dropped significantly during this time…. knowledge and experience is expensive. These cuts also saw severe delays in buying replacement systems compounding fatigue or using inappropriate systems for tasks they were not designed to do.
So one recommendation was to unify all the groups that work in all aspects of aviation safety into one body modeled on the CAA – Military Aviation Authority. They sit within the Defence Safety group, so while at Abbey Wood they are distinct from Defence in that respect.
They produce the guidance, RAs that inform how every aspect of defence aviation occurs from maintenance policy to the layout of aircraft tool kits to airfield infrastructure. It’s quite powerful body in aviation.
MARs came about the change in regulations when the previous groups in Defence Aviation where brought together with the creation of the MAA – the Military Aviation Authority, a military version of the CAA. This in turn came from the Haddon-Cave review into the loss of Nimrod in 2006.
Basically he found years cuts and under investment had dangerously eroded safety, the cuts had lost skilled people, facilities and undermined maintenance. This, along with delays in buying new equipment and working old equipment past retirement had removed the safety case for safe operation. It attributed to “can do Military attitude ” which meant obvious safety failures were ignored for operational reasons. This applied across all 3 services.
So MAA was created within the Derence Safety Centre to direct all aspects of aviation safety policy from release to service to tool control to airfield design and operation. They are very powerful.
The MAA regulations give direction how test and clear for service aircraft, drones and helicopters however an individual aircraft or air system will need it’s own MAR. Same principle would see a Boeing 737 type cleared around the world but each individual 737 has its own airworthiness certificate.
Mission ‘data’ isnt the planes operational software which have massive number of modules and 10s of millions of lines of code.
Its data about the target and the likely radar and missile systems to be encountered.
the data varies for each mission and is uploaded before take-off.
That is not mission data. Mission data encompasses a lot more than a target or a threat library.
Thats only what UK and other nations can update.
Its not writing code at all.
its like a hospital putting patient details in the existing software – which they cant rewrite.
ALIS (and its replacement Odin) are for maintenance and mission data or similar Not recode-able by user. Its a nightmare as it is
is this the RAF counter social media campaign for CSG25?
I pointed out that mission data is highly complex and that to operate a modern military aircraft to its maximum potential a country needs to control this on its aircraft. The UK produces RAF specific mission data for Typhoon as do Germans and Italians for theirs.
Ourselves and the Australians are now beginning to do this is for F35 in the US but there was a bizarre political choice very early into the program not to want this on UK aircraft, however Isreal did want this and we can see in the performance of the F35i that it was a wise choice for Isreal.
BAES writes quite a bit of the code for F35. It was confirmed to various UK news outlets, during the ‘kill switch’ nonsense, that UK has code base access and could get around modifying F35 if US cut off support.
However, there are specific comms mods for UK aircraft as well as the enabling of package specific modules.
Different customers order different hardware modules for add ons.
If you like a F35 is delivered with everything not needed for basic safe flight switched off at the software level.
We have all seen with complex cars how the ECUs can clash on the comms and so generate phantom errors or the need for resets.
When the aircraft is delivered all the hardware and software add ons are enabled and then ground tested in an extensive UK protocol.
Do you think shortcutting testing is a great idea?
Do you think we should duplicate these tests stateside?
We need them in UK as well to validate aircraft post upgrades and parts replacement.
This is pretty basic stuff — configuration and complexity management.
Not that difficult if you do the prep / lab car testing.
Where are your sources which say this as Im sure you have misunderstood what it means.
“It was confirmed to various UK news outlets, during the ‘kill switch’ nonsense, that UK has code base access and could get around modifying F35 if US cut off support.”
Just not true .
The support contract that BAE has involves Lockheed for obvious reasons
‘The UK’s F-35 Lightning II fleet maintenance is supported by a collaborative effort between Lockheed Martin (the prime contractor) and BAE Systems.’
BAE- in the US- certainly makes some of the major system hardware such ‘AN/ASQ 239 electronic warfare system’
BAE in UK are NOT writing the F35 main processor code.
BAE Britain is a subcontractor on the airframe rear fuselage only !
This data / software is something weird to me. Uk could be engaged with the bear whilst having an isolationist America. Data goes back to Lockheed and they have control over it.
Data goes back to ALIS [and its successor] so spares and servicing are ordered up.
For a variety of strange reasons UK didn’t initially buy the mission creating software.
The software is interesting. Uk f35b s on this CSG25 will be generating data which presumably goes back to Lockheed.
The F35 has no UK software. Please provide evidence for this ‘novel’ claim. That would require the source code . Lol
Riiiiight.
The point I made before was that it was perfectly possible to deploy 24 as a photo op in the Med – do some exercises around mass take off to test force generation rate and then sail with a lower number of say 12 to further places.
Whilst I agree the introduction of F35B has been catastrophically squeezed due to cheese paring with spares and pilot pipelines this is one of those ‘we have to make a show of it’ moments.
You could run that argument about force generation and OCU about anything anytime – a two week deployment would equate to four weeks use cycle of the jets. So a one monther can’t be planed around? I’m not buying that at all.
RAF are doing a very poor job of generating the F35B force for naval use – I’m afraid that is just a fact – it doesn’t seem to be any kind of priority.
As to the deployment of F35B that is more to do with [lack of sovereign] munitions fit/inventory and Typhoon’s superior munitions fit and inventory.
Otherwise this is just an excuse for various strands of poor planning crystallising together.
RAF are, maybe unwittingly, making a superb good case for F35B and its budgets to be handed to RN to manage.
The F35 force has issues outwith UK control. The logistics system cannot supply parts and day to day operation of the aircraft is far from straightforward, for example it’s coatings require a lot of care and attention. There is the lack of personnel, the haemorrhage of people in defence is well known and the aircrew training pipeline is still feeling the effects of near continuous cutbacks for the last 15 years or so before we look at the political choice to privatise aircrew training with MFTS.
Remember that US Navy is cutting F35B numbers dramatically in favour of F35C. The USMC who own and operate F35B are not opposed to this move, suggesting they are not satisfied with the aircraft and it flaws such as poor range for the their role in the Pacific.
The USN B vs C argument isn’t as you make out at all. BRAVO is so much more capable than AV8B they simply don’t need the numbers. Apart from which BRAVO is physically bigger and is a pain on the gator carriers.
The increase in CHARLIE for the carriers is more a vote of confidence in the program…
Sure I get that you are spinning for an ALPHA buy
No the B versus C argument is about how B variant cannot deploy like the Harrier because the jet blast from the B variant engine/ fan combination destroys these forward strips. That was from the USMC on their Expeditionary Ops trials with F35B.
The US Navy move to the C variant for the Marines is for two key reasons, range and payload. The B variant has the smallest internal weapons bay and fuel capacity. In beast mode the B variant is a short range bomb truck only works if there are enough AAR assets around.
Overall it is a reflection on how the US Navy and Marines see any potential Pacific campaign moving forward. And no, the A variant makes no sense for the RAF. It’s AAR system is not supported here, it doesn’t carry the ordinance we want to use and as already highlighted TR3 F35s AB and C are way off being released for operational service. It would even more years before they arrived.
1000 bomber raid in 1942 was barrell scraping at its finest.
Everything that was capable of flight and was on Bomber Command’s books was sent up to make up the numbers.
Long term planning came second to morale / posture / PR.
When times are tough you have to give it a go.
North Africa in turmoil.
Far East gone / Burma collapsing.
Battle of the Atlantic in full swing — and not going well.
Desperate times call for desperate measures.
The F35 cheese paring for the PoW cruise is not a good look bordering on the incredible.
Ammunition supply at the Battle of Islandwala comes to mind.
Plus asset management now becoming paramount — bean counter victory based on spreadsheets and navel gazing rather than reality.
What else is the F35 involved in today — bugger all to me apart from keeping Florence and Fred credible and safe?
Is the MOD fit for purpose?
Do they actually want to defend anyone apart from their own little empires?
We will soon have more military flying quangoes than fast jets.
Not good.
The problem the MoD and with it all 3 services is money. All the equipment from design to into service and then support through it’s lifetime has a cost. It’s these costs and their management which cause the problems.
Briefly take the Hercules. Great aircraft that was flexible and served well.
Now when they were bought they had a projected annual usage rate, the type of sorties flown then and predicted maintenance schedule all with a little flex.
Then we enter a new world, we have wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. These operations are busy, they burn through fatigue and flight hours which in turn burns up spare parts and adds more damage. Our planning assumption for the equipment use is now wrong. BUT…. guess what, our political masters don’t want to absorb those costs and certainly will not pay for much shorter lifespan of the aircraft, in this case Hercules cannot meet it’s projected out of service date and cannot be economically extended.
This is what the military has learned, politicians want high profile ops and photos to grand-stand on the world stage but do not want to pay the bill. So when we get our new aircraft or ship or tank we need to use it but not to the point it does last the projected lifespan. In a Navy context the delay with Type 26 replacing Type 23 demonstrates this problem.
The RAF and Navy generate F35 force readiness as far as they can with the many problems around F35, from the shortage of spares to lack of ground crews or aircrews combined with astronomical cost of operating F35. Strategic Command oversea this joint effort however it is DE&S role to provide the support allows flight hours and maintenance support to grow and develop the force (which obviously they -DE&S cannot achieve) As we can see there many problems. Trying to deploy most of the forward fleet of F35, taking most available spares to support this even for a photo op is not the best use if precious resources.
This is not a photo op — very light blue viewpoint.
This is about national credibility and local area defence.
Most available spares — what are you going to do with them over the next six months? Polish them / talk to them in a nice hangar somewhere in deepest / darkest Lincolnshire?
We are not doing enough flying / we don’t have enough available airframes by all accounts to need them locally in the UK.
If DE&S are in the loop then they need to provide answers.
If aircraft numbers / levels of spares are low then what are they doing to improve things. Rationing kit to active users is not an answer it is second rate / obtuse monkey management trying mug up on asset management using a Ladybird book.
Who runs the show — the services or the civil service hangers on?
And who runs the show if light blue won’t play nice?
We have been here before and it didn’t end well.
DE&S deliver the aircraft and the support package the operators, the RAF and the FAA. But F35 has one massive complication….. the technical data and support systems, the logistics systems, ALIS is theirs.
When the F35 moves from Forward (sqns) to Depth (schedule maintenance, modifications or heavy rectification) it passes to the AMO – DE&S appointed Aircraft Maintenance Organisation, which in this case is BAE (I believe there some RAF and Navy technicians provided aswell as contractors) . Now guess what ? The MAA has rules for the AMO to operate within aswell. So we now have a complex aircraft with a global and complex support system that needs work carried that has a major global supply chain problem.
The glacial pace of F35 delivery and growth is not a problem created by thd RAF or the Navy, it’s the overly complex nature of this program.
The carriers are designed to carry sufficient spares.
Getting half the F35B fleet to sea should be THE training goal. Not the other way round.
The RAF can surge Typhoons to fill any operations gaps back in the UK.
Its endemic problem in the military about to be deployed units are 80%+ strength while those that never deploy are 101% strength
General Hockenhull at Stratcom in Northwood is ending up his term so should crack heads at RAF to make sure they lean forward on their skis for CSG25
I’m sure the carriers can carry many spares of all types but that is the problem all F35 operators face …. the contractors cannot supply enough into the F35 global supply chain in the first place.
The Typhoon is already covering the gaps for an air system (F35B) that since arriving in the UK has done a few missions on Op Shader and then sent a detachment of four aircraft to Iceland as a Nato task. It’s a force that clearly has problems.
Interesting how the effort to get F35 in numbers for the carrier cruise involves an effort from Strategic Command, DE&S, Air Command and Navy and yet apparently if it fails it’s on the RAF and no one else.
Having been on various Invincibles I can tell you, first hand, the RAF approach to deploying a GR was very different to RN deploying a SHAR.
RN were going to get the specified number of SHAR into play moving heaven and earth.
RAF were doing you a favour being there at all and all you heard about where constraints and taskings.
The ghost of Leigh-Mallory strikes again,
Living off the omni-shambles that was the Battle of Britain for near on 90 years now.
To think that the RAF was seen as modern in the 1940’s.
Liberty Vallance in all of this — sell the myth that is all you need.
It’s more that the world has changed a lot and Navy has found itself with two large carriers that our political masters don’t really see the point of.
Politicians like jobs, they like photo ops and grandstanding on the world stage but they also like the new, the fashion. I think the only the Navy will make full use these ships is if they fully embrace the UCAV concept and push that hard. More so with all the faults F35 has.
As to the future of the RAF, well that is as bright as the other services.
Having been on JFH at Wittering and later Cottesmore with FAA “wafus” and still having mates from that time is,
Going to the boat was never straight forward for the SHAR also. Spares were a problem the compounded by the handling and issue of air spares on board.
The GR7 later GR9 was never designed for continuous deployment at sea so it was never practiced. Hence when they did go we had to modify them.
For us it was another Det, but we also had other ops to cover. Then (after I left) we had Telic and Afghanistan cover all while attempting to cover the boat taskings.
As my Navy mates point out it was the Navy that killed SHAR because it was expensive and the Navy posted everyone from Yeovilton to Wittering/Cottesmore. That created problems in its own right.
Now have our joint force… on paper 2 RAF and 2 Navy squadrons identical in make up……BUT we don’t have enough airframes ( Harrier had some fatigue issues that eventually killed it…) , and Navy didn’t have the people.
That led to 2 RAF sqns and The NSW … or 1 small Navy squadron.
Finally into this mix add Iraq ongoing, we have Afghanistan on going and for that ongoing cycle of deployments we have no money in defence so everything is wearing out and breaking faster.
What you describe is, if true, an abject failure to execute a plan that everyone has know about for half a decade.
It has even been put back a year!
If what you state, comes to pass, expect RAF to be stripped of F35 and its budgets as it clearly has its priorities wrong.
I hope this is untrue. Sailing into the Pacific with just 8 jets on board makes a complete mockery and just isn’t worth it. If we can’t deploy with at least the originally promised 24 jets, scrap CSG23 and spend the money elsewhere.
I hope we have just been given part of the script of an updated Bird + Fortune Long Johns sketch….
If it is for real then problems are even worse than I had feared….
Threadbare to begin with and then it gets worse.
Lack of UK escort capability is very noticeable.
Even worse is the lack of support vessels.
No matter we have some cargo drones.
And the PR effort will be first class.
Looking like we could not have done this trip on our own.
Is the issue working hulls or is it manpower gaps?
Barrel scraping to put on a show — beyond that now.
We are through the side and stirring fresh air.
Money wont fix our issues — it will help but we need focus / energy / leadership.
Sailing around the Indian Ocean and the Pacific with 8 aircraft onboard.
Screams of failure / flag waving — 1941/42 all over again.
Italians sent their frigate through with a single Frigate, we always get held to a much higher standard for whatever reason
Might need an edit.
Won’t let me. They sent Cavour through with 1 frigate escort. While that’s obviously not enough we more often get compared to America when our fleet is closer to Italy or France
And USN will send a Nimitz with one AB?
I think it is more the armchair admirals needing to adjust from their black and white Movitone newsreels of WW2 fleets forming up…..
But the US and IT carriers do have more onboard defences whereas QECs don’t making escorts much more important?
I mean in cavours case especially it’s essentially got a Fremm armament so it’s a fair point
What ships did the French send with CdG in its major deployment at end of last year?
https://x.com/mt_anderson/status/1871238866956398722?s=46
One escort for a mid sized carrier is a bit wild — hopefully the Treasury didn’t find out — no margin for unfortunates or technical failure.
ASW — helicopter based?
Did the escort have a TAS onboard?
No matter pretty mental — the USN must have been close by.
Only two UK surface escorts?
And do these “two ” have NSM fitted?
Richmond does, Dauntless does not.
You’d think doing both would be just the sensible thing to do? Is it really that difficult? Why not get it done or is it too late now? Sorry for too many questions.
Bit of a rant of mine over on ukdj but any news on whether the carrier’s four 30mm sponson spots will have anything mounted on them for the CSG trip? Could be a worthwhile extra layer of self defence while transiting the Suez and Red Sea areas. I understand the other ships are there as a shield for the carriers but I’m part of the “3 Phalanx’s is not enough club”.
On a less serious note, I hope the CSG comes down into Sydney where the harbour will be big enough.
At this point nothing is going to be fitted
Great!
Maybe they could look at navalising the Paladin Terrahawk system if its on a 20’/40′ flat rack setup? It should be able to then bolt this into decks. My 5p.
QuentinD^£
As I pointd out here on NL a couple of weeks back, the new RN 40mm Bofers should have all been manufacfturred by now and thus they should be in a MOD warehouse.
That is why I then pointed out they should have been fitted to the carriers ASAFP i.e. as a UOR
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
I really don’t understand why they haven’t just ordered the 40mm to replace all the 30 seems like such a straight forward thing to do and for comparatively little money, although I guess production of the ammunition might be an actual delaying factor.
Quite agree.
Just ordered? You don’t just order a massively expensive bit of kit like that, we have 30-40 30mm mounts that cannot be replaced quickly nor will be
Different mountings Not interchangeable due to the carriers sponsons
They could strengthen the sponsons for none deck penetrating mounts? And BAE Bofors has the Tridon 40mm system on the back of a truck!
Maybe during the carrier major refit
There’s no plans to add defensive armament
We’ve had the very same discussion (my rant…lol) on ukdj over many years so we are not alone on this issue. We’ll all see shortly what’s on and what’s not. It wouldn’t cost a bomb to up the self protection on these multi £bn carriers. Plus add Ancilia. Considering all the personnel and assets aboard. Anyway, being a Aussie-Brit i hope the CSG can pop into Sydney. 🇬🇧 🇦🇺 🚢
They’re a permanent installation intended for the T31s. We’d have to buy more to install on the carriers
What’s the use of a defence force when you let all your enemies in on rubber boats and pay to look after them better than your own people. Uk is well and truly f**ed. What a joke!
Putting aside the political debate, in which I suspect we have differing views, it is not the job of the Royal Navy is patrol our borders.
“all your enemies in on rubber boats”
Pretty sure Russian agents don’t come here that way.
Fly in commercial on consecutively numbered passports issued at a specific office.
Clouseau / Winkler levels of incompetence.
A Squadron of aircraft used to be between 12 to 24 so on that basis, two Squadrons should be a minimum of 24. This 24 number has been the headline number for at least 4 years on every MOD and Defence post I’ve read. Now a Squadron is 8 aircraft and we will be lucky to see all 16 other than for a brief period.
I was so excited all those years ago when the Carriers were announced and their capacity was known…. now I just think we wasted our money.
The plan is for 12 aircraft but we don’t currently have enough airframes or pilots to get upto 12
RAF doesnt have assigned/ strength aircraft for its squadrons any more. Theres a ‘pool’ now which is allocated for actual tasking
In these days of uncertainty around the globe, is it necessary to let other countries know what the UK are doing.
Cracking to see Prince of Wales finally stretching her legs — she’s been tied up in Pompey longer than the average midshipman’s laundry. HIGH MAST sounds the business: proper steel-on-water presence, and I’m chuffed to see we’re taking the fighty bits (Dauntless, Richmond, Tidespring) along with some continental friends for the ride. Mendez Núñez always did have nice lines…
Curious absence of a US tin can, though — AEGIS coverage from the Norwegians and Spanish is handy, but we’re a bit light on ABM without Uncle Sam looming in the background. Still, 24 F-35Bs will make a point, if not a full stop.
I’d wager there’ll be a bit of heat under the flight deck getting those jets shaken out in the Med, especially integrating with the allies. I remember duking it out (literally) on Iron Duke during similar drills — there’s nothing like trying to run a calm messdeck while half the ship’s chasing down a Frenchman on COMAO.
All in all, let’s hope PoW keeps her bow up and her rudders pointing the right way. She’s a looker when she’s moving — and finally, she is.
Not at all. The RN Aster 30 has been upgraded to Block 1 give ABM better the older SM-2 on the Spanish/Norwegians
Even the SM-6 can only do terminal phase like the RN Sea Viper
Has the A30 upgrade finished?
I thought it has only been started.
Please no road jokes …
No high altitude ballistic missiles are going to be targeting under way warships.
BM don’t really have a nose mounted targeting system to hit a moving target.
That’s why Houthis have been using ‘lofted’ older AA missiles- against cargo ships – for their successes.
Fair point — but not the question I was asking.
UK Aster 30 upgrade — recently in the media — when will it finish?
Like 2030s? Don’t think any ships have started it yet
Buying new Aster 30( replace those used in combat) and upgrading existing stocks.
The ships on board systems are upgraded more frequently , missiles arent stored permanently on board but are loaded ( and later unloaded ) for deployments from the armaments jetty
The Aster-30 Block 0 is currently the only variant of the Aster-30 in service with the RN. The Aster-30 Block 1 has not yet entered service.
‘Even the SM-6 can only do terminal phase like the RN Sea Viper’
Whilst this is true, it’s a slight misrepresentation of the true disparity between the capabilities of the SM-6 and that of the Aster-30 Block 1. The SM-6 has a far higher ceiling than the Aster-30 Block 1 (34km compared to 20km), meaning that the SM-6 can engage at a higher altitude compared to the Aster-30, giving it an overall better defensive capability.
Great to see allies involved in this, unlike Trump’s USA the UK has always seen the strategic advantage of strong relationships with allies.
Air-defence is a concern however. The impression I had was a U.K. CSG would consist of two frigates and an SSN for ASW, with two T45s for air-defence. (Not forgetting a CSGs best air-defence is its air-wing.)
To only see one T45 and the air-wing perhaps dropping to only 8 F35s (IF the rumour is true) is very disturbing.
Yes we’re not in a hot war with anyone at the moment, but neither was the USA when the battleships of the Pacific Fleet were sunk.
Unlike the USN, the RN has traditionally not favoured deck-parking of aircraft. Results from the USN proves that this is not good for stealth-coatings either. The hanger on the QE class can hold 20 F35Bs. This is sufficient for the 12 to 24 that has always been mentioned for peacetime deployments.
Given that things have been, ‘warming up’ globally with regards to military action, the number of F35s on this deployment should be towards the top-end of this range, particularly if only one T45 is to be present.
Sean
You have just made some very good and very valid points (note 1)
My own observations are as follows:
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
That is full on Hapsburg there — never forgive / never forget.
And I thought this was all banter.
It was interesting to read the USN appears to be on track to replace its F/A-18e/fs with the F/A-XX (25% increased range), I thought this had been paused for the time being.
Cough…. chose a EMD contractor! Its a long long way to the actual production being tested and into service
Not sure what you mean by inshore ASW
Who deploys MCM in a carrier group
Why would we bring Apaches if we’re not actually planning to attack anything, and the new ones probably aren’t marinised
Where are they gonna get funds to buy new 40mm. They’re not a modular system they’re a permenant installation.
The CSG will be conducting several workups and exercises before going through the Red Sea
With the current geopolitical landscape are we really that keen on a USN escort
Hugo
Replies as follows:
The houths and the Iranians have been deploying very quiet mini-submarines developed from the orginal North Korean models……. ones which are reported to be very difficult for even T23 to detect with its sonars – especailly when slow moving or stationary
Survivor of warship sunk by North Korea takes helm of namesake vessel | Stars and Stripes
Normally, out in the deep ocean, you would be correct,,,,, …no need for MCM
….. however this CSG25 is not going to be out in the deep ocean…..
2 U.S. WARSHIPS HIT MINES IN GULF – Deseret News
As I noted earlier this week….., : by now these excellent defensive guns should already been in the MOD warehouse “somewhere in England”
Guns contract for Royal Navy Type 31 frigates awarded to BAE Systems
If however you cannot be a***d to scroll down……repeated verbatum here:
“Both naval gun systems will be manufactured at BAE Systems’ facility in Karlskoga, Sweden, with deliveries expected to take place in 2023 and 2024”.
As for geo-politics, please don’t believe everything you see on the telly and read on MSN “news”
Trump warns Iran will face ‘dire’ consequences unless Houthi attacks stop – BBC News
With regards to Hitting Houthis, the UK and USA are still joined at the hip..
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
PS that particular news article was choosen because it has very nice photo in it!
Okay we really need to figure out this 40mm thing. It’s a permenant installation, not a modular one like Phalanx. Are you saying we should upgrade others ships to 40mm?
The turrets we’ve bought are for the T31s , not to be shared with other ships
Hugo
In focus: the Bofors 40mm Mk 4 gun that will equip the Type 31 frigates | Navy Lookout
Mounts
Basically there are two quite-similar versions of the 40mm.
The non-deck penetrating version has a ready-to-use ammunition on-board (i.e. inside the turret). That mount is, to all intents and purposes modular.
If I was specifying these, I would be asking those nice blond Swedes for the on-board camera version, i.e. for visual aiming from the Ops Room (Note 1). These non-pentrating versions could quickly and easily replace the RN’s existing 30mm cannons
The more sophisticated version has the below deck magazine (with a much higher capacity) and thus much-improved sustained rates of fire.
As with all modern weapons systems, the vital challenge is to intergrate with sensors etc etc (so for AAD, which is a bit like Sean’s ADHD, one really needs to link to the ship’s radars)
————————————-
Ammo
The programmable munitions give far greater accurately / lethality and also they can easily be switched, pretty quickly, between different types of targets.
So for example, when under attack by both Houthi drones and boghammer boats; both can be accurately engaged: and very speedily dispatched
——————————–
One more very general point.
I hope that all helps
Regards Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note 1
Or get the latest version of the Nintendo games console….. plenty of which will soon be flooding (very cheap) onto the Euopean market
Big difference with 57mm ( or 2.25in) is that is fed by below deck magazine in T31 (also has 120 rounds on mount)
Duker
2.25 inches!
Did you vote for Brexit?
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Nope. Plan for QEC was and always has been to keep the jets on the roof and operate them in the same way the USN does. Which is why the vast majority of the photos from CSG 21 show a large proportion of the aircraft deck parked. Yes the coatings can be affected, but its not a major issue.
What people don’t realise is that using the deck park is essential because the ships simply aren’t manned to conduct multiple aircraft movements taking them up and down lifts and around hangar and flightdeck.
Where QEC is not being operated in accordance with the original concept is in the use of the two flight decks mode, where the rotorheads essentially have the run of the aft end and the jets own the part forward of the after island. It’s worked fine up to now due to the relatively limited number of aircraft embarked, but was always going to struggle when a larger number of jets came aboard. It will be untenable should the MQ9 or similar ever get a look-in.
The coatings on the U.K. F35s were less affected by USN F35s (the infamous ‘rust’ marks) simply because the U.K. ones spend more time in the hanger deck. Work is ongoing to improve the stealth coatings because of this experience.
The reason why most photos show F35s on deck is because that’s when they chose to take photos. A photo of a deck full of F35s is more impressive than a photo of an empty deck.
In ‘surge conditions’ aircraft will be left on deck all the time. That’s why the figures quoted are getting towards double the usual deployment. Things are done in wartime that are not usual practice in peacetime due to the obvious changes priorities.
Where are all the bodies coming from to conduct these aircraft moves then? No-one in the Air department is running flypro on that basis.
More to the point, if they’re operating that way, why was the ASE fitted to ZM152 on the flightdeck? If you’re prepping on the hangar deck and then moving to the flightdeck for launch, you wouldn’t be doing that either.
You should read the BoI report into the loss which contradicts pretty much all your assertions.
“You should read the BoI report into the loss which contradicts pretty much all your assertions”.
N-a-B
Having read the BOI from cover to cover……
…….I must admit that I do not understand your last comment
Therefore could I please ask that you please explain it?
Peter (irate Taxpayer)
Pages 12 onwards – and in particular the descriptions of Red Sea and Suez transits make it clear that the jets were normally on the flightdeck.
Indeed were the coatings to be of such concern, then surely the thunderstorm warnings referred to at 1.3.55 would have resulted in the jets being brought below. Instead, it’s clear they were left on the roof. As normal.
Fig 1.3.4 is definitively not a promo shot, but shows the majority of jets on the roof. Fig 1.3.11 showing the Suez transit the day before the loss shows the majority of jets on the roof. Which led to the fitting of the ASE Red Gear as a security measure – not necessary if you’re keeping them in the hangar most of the time. The spot diagram at Fig 1.3.14 shows 13 of the 18 embarked on the roof, despite only a two-ship launch scheduled.
Throughout the report, the narrative is pretty clear that the flightdeck was very busy and the vast majority of servicing was being done up top.
Big fail all round.
Suez passage — heavily populated roof.
Yahoo central for some high productivity potshots using 50’s tech.
Heavily populated roof — why is the hangar so big? And why do we need two lifts?
I fear the RN has a bad case of USN envy / wants to show off with everything out in the open.
Or the hangar was booked out for some aerobics.
Treasury will be selling off the RAF hangers now — you know what they are like.
Auld Reekie slapper syndrome if you like.
No matter not a good look.
North Atlantic stuff / if we do any — all out on the roof?
N-a-B
Thank you for the answer
I accept that, during previous RN CSG’s – especially the ill-fated one – the F35’s were always stored aand maintained up on the flight deck
However my key point has always been: WHY?
The hanger on the QE class carriers is far larger than those on the preceeding Invincible class. Those ships had a surprisingly narrow beam and thus their hangers were always cramped and thus always congested. Therefore dozens of men were needed inside the Invincibles to move aircraft around “down below” – usually just to get at the one or two planes that were actually needed for “flight ops”. It was like game of solitaire with only one peg missing….
I am very surprised that the situation today is perceived to be the very-same on the QE class
The overall QE hanger is approx 150m by 30m: plus side lifts. That should be more than enough space to store a good sized fleet, and still have enough space left over to maintain them and arm them “downstairs” (at least, most of the time)
The amount of manpower needed for towing is, assuming the use of a vehicle (and not a manual tug-of-war team) – is relatively small
—————
Also correct me if I am wrong here…. however the biggest manpower saving on the QE class carriers has always been advertised (by RN) as being their mechanised weapons handling sytem.
Thus, if the planes are permenantly stored up top, more weapons handlers are needed. And that job is also being done outdoors
—————-
I can understand the need for a few F35’s to be “up top” at all times:
————
It is no secret that, when working on modern stealth aircraft, that when their aviation maintainence is being done in the warm and dry – especially with good overhead lighing – that is always far more effective than when it is being done “in the open air”
—————————-
Thus on the one hand, we have the RAF saying their very rare, precious and valuable F35’s
However, on the other hand….
AND
I would add that, overall RAF / RN (and USMC) availability on their F35 fleets is still only down at a level of about 60-66% overall
= which means for evey two planes flying, one is being repaired….
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
…..Or – am I missing somethng?
Note1.
Can anybody enlighten me as to what the female F35 pilot’s equivalent of a quick “jimmy riddle” is, please?
You’re missing something(s).
Firstly, the ammo lifts don’t just go to the hangar deck. They go elsewhere, which is where the weapons are built up and then taken to the aircraft on the flight deck. There was never a plan to arm the jets in the hangar.
Secondly, the whole operating concept of the ships and the airwing is to minimise aircraft movements – what was loosely termed “pitstop” but which people continually conflate with some sort of formula 1 activity. It’s not. It’s entire purpose is to minimise the number of times you have to move the jet, because each time you do, it takes 4-5 people and a lot of time. In essence, the jet recovers, taxies to a designated parking spot – and is tied down, serviced, fuelled, re-armed etc. When next on the flypro, it is taxied and launched from that spot – no need for all the pull-back from Fly1 and similar that used to occur on CVS. There simply isn’t the manpower to conduct those sort of additional movements. It’s also one of the reasons the flightdeck is as large as it is.
Thirdly, we have not yet operated at anything like the designed capacity for a number of reasons. Some to do with F35 build-up, some to do with some rather arcane and self-inflicted issues with the rotorheads (Merlin in particular) and some to do with the RN still relearning what it lost in the CS capability gap. CSG21 is the only occasion I’m aware of where a ship embarked more than 8 jets. Even the 18 jets on Fortis was nowhere near the surge capacity of the ship (she’s designed to be able to embark 36 jets with most of the rotorheads farmed out to RFA) and the normal complement was envisaged to be around 24 jets. Again, there simply isn’t the room in the hangar to be conducting movements all the time. The hangar is as large as it is to enable good maintenance space – compared to the fun and games on CVS – but mainly to allow the ship to carry its designed complement of aircraft – in particular with a specific deck park number. Essentially the hangar is sized to accommodate all the aircraft that can’t be fitted on the deck when she’s got a full complement and a full deck spot. When operating only 8, or course there’s plenty of room below, but you still see most of the jets on the deck. The hangar is used for major maintenance and things like hundred hour checks etc.
Lastly, don’t conflate serviceability rates or operational limitations with coatings. F35 doesn’t do rough-strip ops, because the potential to ingest FOD is huge and its just not worth it. The Crabs have nice warm hangars because they’re Crabs and to be fair the HAS complexes at Marham were knackered anyway. You’ll also notice there’s a lovely set of covered parking areas away from the maintenance hangars where the majority of the jets operate from. The serviceability issues are mainly to do with the p1ss-poor logistic support from LM. One lesson being learned the hard way is that contractor logistic support contracts, need to be written for the operator, rather than the Prime contractor. Perceived cost saving is one thing, but can end up as congress without lube…..
N-a-B
———————–
I am fully aware that almost all modern weapons (esp PGM’s) need to be assembled – before finally being moved and taken out to the aircraft
….and that this precision assembly takes a lot of sppace, time and manpower
However….that in turn leads onto the bleeding obvious question…….if the planes were all orginally planned to be armed up on the flight deck = then why are there not one or two weapons lift(s) directly servicing the top deck? (ie delivery straight from the weapons assemby area up to the flighdeck)
————————
All in all, I think that you have now confirmed my previous, and very long-standing, “very strong suspicion”
.
My suspicion (from about twenty years ago) was always that the whole of the RN – all the way down from the very top level – had never really throughly rethought how to operate its new fifth generation stealth aircaft from its then-planned carriers; “right the way through from first principles“.
Instead, and not for the first time, the RN appears to have simply copied the USN’s old homework……
= therefore all of what goes on onboard the RN QE class today (2025) is simply the very-same as those very long-standing operating practices that the US has always operated with all of its jet aircraft types ever since the Forrestal class was commissioned back in the 1950’s
Therefore – despite your very comprehensive answer – I am really not yet convinced that treating our F35 stealth aircraft in the very same way as all “previous generations (ie non stealth) of jet” is the right way to go.
All in all, it sounds like the RN really might be better off with optimising both carriers for “24 jets per carrier” – and making sure they all work 100% of the time
(Key Avaiability Formula: (36 x 0.66%) = (24 x 100%)).
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
PS
PPS
What makes you think there aren’t weapons lifts from the prep area to the flight deck? There are.
The Merlin operating issues are sadly more to do with “modern” process than anything else.
Re FoD and Merlin, it’s a lot easier to screen intakes, particularly 5m off the ground, than it is for jets where the intake is a lot closer to the ground, vastly higher suction and where both mass flow and frontal RCS requirements preclude screening
N-a-B
Munitions handling on the Royal Navy’s aircraft carriers | Navy Lookout
Score N-a-B: 1 Irate Taxpayer:0
(I put it down to old age!)
Agreed
Score N-a-B: 1 Irate Taxpayer:1
Even if the RAF reallty don’t want to do proper “rough field” operations with their shiny and (very) expensive F35’s
….so probably something to do with the wrong type of tyres……..
. …proper dispersed operations is a bit different…..
……there should be no reason whatsoever why the crabbs cannot be launching F35’s from short airstrips elsewhere: for example any other military airfield or even civilian airports
After all, the Swedes do it all the time
And the Swiss Air Force was once excellent at operating from many of its main roads.
switzerland aircraft operating from motoways during cold war – Search Images
Indeed rumour has it that some of the Swiss motorways were designed and built with special straight sections – and with hardened aircraft shelters cut into the mountainside nearby = for use as emergency military airbases
Score N-a-B: 0 Irate Taxpayer:1
———————————
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
PS
Fat Bloke on Tour is quite clearly not up to evaluating the pros and cons of these highly advanced fifth generation aircraft carrier designs.
So, one here to help him along…..First ever on Navy Lookout……….
…………..very rare footage of the Swiss Navy’s aircraft carrier
switzerlands aircraft carrier – Search Images
There’s a limited “need” for the UK to conduct dispersed ops, largely through the resurgent Russia missile threat. They’re now calling it Agile Combat Employment and have started to practise recently (with the USAF). However, its very much still fixed field as opposed to MOB. That’s a very different thing to the RAFG Harrier ops and very much limited by the need to avoid conducting VLs (which dig up any non-hardened surface).
When all’s said and done, I don’t need to convince you – or anyone else – as to whether the RN need to operate from the roof. Having been involved in the requirements and design process for QEC from the early days, I know who I’ve talked to, what the requirements were, what the operating procedures were and most importantly why they were done the way they were.
This whole debate has been initiated by a statement from someone assuming pre-WW2 policies were gospel and trying to apply them to carrier ops.
N-A-B
Noted
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
So we have done a complete 180 on aircraft storage strategies in the space of 20 / 40/ 60 / 80 years?
Hangar was key.
Deck parking was surge / desperation / flexibility but it was not key.
Now deck parking is the thing with every plane having its own open air stables — and all because moving a plane takes up too much manpower. Double mental.
Having all the embarked planes up on the roof is triple bonkers mental.
Yahoos work us over good style but we manage to use layered defence to stop the incoming.
Layered defence means that some of the stops will be close to the carrier with debris / shrapnel / fuel cans flying all over the place.
And we have all our very expensive and numbers very limited fast jets sitting on the roof with no cover. Sitting being serviced by teams of scarce skilled labour with no cover.
This is shambolic bordering on the catastrophic.
And that is the risk based on near misses / flying scrap iron.
What happens if a yahoo missile hits the ship or even the flight deck?
It will be like the Intrepid but in the open air.
When Victorious took a sore one in 1945 — the plan was to get everything damaged on the flight deck over the side ASAP because they were the gravy of her air wing as she still had numbers unaffected in the hangar.
Now their will be no active replacements safe in the hangar.
Everything will be out in the open up top and a messy miss is as good as a direct hit.
And to think James Lithgow gave up a couple of his grain carriers so that the MAC force could get the hangar that the tankers candidates couldn’t furnish.
What next on Florence and Fred — tents on the flight deck for the bad weather?
British sport and the forces .
The RAF gave up a hangar at RAF Cosford for the indoor athletics.
Will the RN give up the PoW hangar for some gymnastics / basketball?
To think a containership based carrier was going to cost £500mill.
If it is a roof only gig then the cost will come down to £250mill
Oh the money we could have saved
We should encourage the Dutch, Danes and Norwegians to buy a handful of F35Bs each, can regularly embark them as part of a multinational NATO task group, along with their escorts.
Why would they spend that money just for us
It’d be for them, to be able to take part in multinational task forces, project airpower where land-based cannot reach (e.g. Houthis). They could form a shared squadron like our Qatari/UK Typhoon squadron, or the Tornado Trinational unit.
Those shared squadrons for training only. Not operations. To use an F35B you need a carrier
It doesn’t make economic sense to buy a handful of jets. Remember there’s only something like 30% commonality of parts between variants of F35s.
So any national that operates the F35A would be essentially adding a different aircraft to its fleet by buying some Bs. That means extra maintenance costs, training costs for ground crew and pilots, etc etc.
Better that they provide escorts, support ships, etc.
“there’s only something like 30% commonality of parts between variants of F35s.”
Thats by low cost part numbers , but the large structural parts that costs most are more common, and theres the expensive systems and cockpit where are they are actually identical
By all parts. Cockpit, avionics are common. But wings, landing gear, airframe, even differences with the engine (F135-PW-100, F135-PW-400, and F135-PW-600).
Same production lines/manufactures helps too. I have heard the terms ‘sibling and cousin’ parts to indicate how variable closeness they are.
Singapore has purchase a small number of Bs. Japan has a relatively small B fleet also. Option exists to pool facilities or base alongside UK’s Bs even.
Germany had previously contemplated getting a squadron’s worth of carrier capable Rafales to operate from CdG, but this never came to fruition.
How comes we have carriers but I’ve never actually seen aircraft on them what’s the point of sending em all that way if they dnt carry aircraft hardly an effective strike group if they can’t strike! Or do we use other nations aircraft to strike absolute waste of time they should have built submarines with the money at least they have teeth.
Maybe if you go on the 22nd, you’ll see some aircraft.
You realise SSNs are insanely expensive right? SSBN even more so
Clearly because you don’t bother looking. Observation skills on par with your English skills…
Our once great navy is a bit of a sham these days 😞
People talk of capability were not capable of escorting our own carriers and that’s when there lucky enough to be at sea ⛵
We have our own escorts in there. France and Italy usually only have 1 or 2 escorts.
Carriers have got past their bugs and are working well
France has never sent its aircraft carrier with only 1 or 2 escorts. Never.
It’s always: 1 Destroyer for AA / two FREMM / one tanker + 1 SSN.
And at least we never have less than 16 Rafales on board, and sometimes 30…
France helps a lot the British Navy in these complicated times, it’s not very correct to say this kind of things….
PS: You can follow the return of the deployment of the French Carrier Strike Group on MT Anderson’s twitter account (MT_Anderson) you’ll see with satellite image the composition of the French Carrier Strike Group.
https://www.defense.gouv.fr/marine/actualites/clemenceau-groupe-aeronaval-francais-fait-escale-djibouti
How is France helping us exactly?
And there have been times with less escorts.
But the point is why is the Royal Navy held to a far higher standard. A French CSG needs more escorts as well. It also lacks in logistics like we do. Don’t tell me one tanker/AOR is enough
French CSG had 1 AAW destroyer and 2 frigates plus a support ship/tanker and a nuclear sub.
Remember through the Red Sea entrance has an existing multinational task force operating in the area. A CSG would coordinate closely when passing through
US carrier locations vary but the TF is permanent for foreseeable future
With Donny John in charge and with the Jaickie running the Defence Department the chances that the US will turn full on Admiral King when we need them most should not be underestimated.
The (North) Yemeni yahoos will be desperate for publicity and we will be an easier target than they are used to so they might take the bait.
Big Power games are back in fashion — some might say they never went away — so everything is in play now. It might suit someone to highlight our weaknesses just in case we start to think for ourselves.
We have bombed the country in the last 18 months.
The Houthis play a very good publicity game.
We are passing through the Red Sea soon.
The Yahoos would appear to have a gun for hire vibe.
Quite a few people have enough money to stump up the fee.
Donny John loves an angle to work.
His tariffs are not helping / working — men in grey stetsons might start to appear soon.
Canada and a Nordic country also involved.
Could get messy.
Trump is using B-2s to have major bombing of Yemenis as of last week.
Truman is in Red Sea, Vinson is heading that way
The Red Sea, The Straits and Gulf of Aden have multi national- incl Eqypt and similar – warships in task forces for a long time now.
Do you trust Donny John to support us if it all gets a bit hot?
First question from him will be whats is in it for me?
The FDR vibe is no more.
Do you trust the tech bros / proto fascists / right wing mentalists / Nigel F fan bhois that are drawn to the Donny John project?
They have their hands on the levers of power now.
Putting us under a bit of pressure to keep Starmer chained up / under the thumb would suit their pro Nigel F agenda.
The US is in transition now — what comes out is a mystery.
Remember if it wasn’t for the French they would be playing cricket now — and look at their opinion of the French.
Doony John owes us nothing.
The old certainties have gone.
DT approved the change in arrangement for Chago Is!
Most of the rest is just dementia
That is one reason why I don’t expect any help from the US in coming months. That is one reason why we may be under more pressure than we would normally be for the Red Sea exercise.
Admiral King and his vibe live on in the US.
And it has the NATO free loading angle to push it on.
Donny John and his what’s in it for me routine are new.
All go against the norms of UK / US arrangements.
I fear interesting times ahead.
CdG is nuclear powered. No lack in logistics.
So are the American carriers. Yet it’s be stated that 1 tanker cannot support combat operations, the French ones are not only smaller, they also have to carry munitions while the UK (eventually) and the US have dedicated ammunition ships
Little Froggy and Hugo
The USN and French Navy’s carriers are nuclear-powered…
However all the aircraft flying off them still require regular (and large) top-up’s of highly-flammable petroleum juice
That is when having the floating petrol station coming alongside ones floating airfield becomes very useful….
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
@Владимир Темников Peter & Hugo
UK need one tanker to move the carrier in high sea and another one for the escort group and the planes. France need one for the escort group and the planes.
About the escort: in peace time CdG (equiped with Aster 15) usualy had 2 french escorts. Since the wartime has occured (Red Sea, at least), there are 3 escorts.
While one or two escorts stay with the task group, the other one is escorting the tanker when she regularly goes in port for refuelling, like the PoW tanker will have to do to cross Pacific.
I don’t understan why I get russian words!
delete your NL cookies and then reopen website
Thanks!
Little Froggy
Thank you for your helpful answer about the Froggie tankers and escorts
I had assumed (incorrectly) that your use of russian lettering was simply because Mr Macron is now getting friendly with Mr Putin in one of their regular phone calls
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
May be there were ukrainian words, because nowadays Macron speaks often with Zelensky🥴
The French tankers are smaller and have to play double hat as ammo vessel. That inevitably means they’ll either be run ragged or be insufficient
If you speak of the old ones, I agree. But with the new BRF replenisment ships, is the difference with a brit tanker so important? And yes, BRF are solid and liquid replenishment ship: it means only one crew to enlist. Last but not least, France has some navy bases on the way to Pacific: Djibouti and La réunion, for instance.
That’s a fair point with the overseas bases. I only speak out of concern more than Malice.
The BRF must cover both roles and is around 10k tons lighter than the Tides as dedicated tankers
Hugo
Right, the BRF is the same size than the Wave class, and then, smaller than the Tides.
And no malice feeling👍
Never 30 Rafales on board. Never
See Radakins been to China last week. That’ll be to reassure the Chinese I expect
Interesting point from earlier — do we assemble weapons on the carriers?
Is that the case for all weapons or just some types?
What level of assembly are we dealing with — 30 minutes per missile?
Surely it would be better to do this all on land and deal with complete units at sea?
What will we be taking on CSG25 — posh freefall bombs and the ASRAAM missile would appear to be all the F35 can carry at the moment.
Do we assemble the 14″ torpedoes for the Merlin / missiles for the Wildcat “on the water”?
Or are they delivered and managed aboard as complete units?
What about RM munitions for the fighting onshore?
Do they come fully assembled or do we assemble them on the “Bays”?
Suspicions of box ticking lingering over all this?
We have the latest AMRAAM model for the F-35 fleet as well.
Nuclear A/Carriers still carry large amounts of fuel for several reasons. 1/nuclear power leaves a lot of spare internal space.2/The fuel is useful in protection if a nearby detonation occurs 3/Escort vessels can be refuelled at speed.4/The trim of the vessel can be adjusted with the fuel…
Is that really the Ville de Quebec?