A sorry state of affairs if true. I don't believe it will be the caseTempest414 wrote:The UK carriers will almost always carry USMC jets and at this time the USMC are looking to dedicate one of it F-35B sqn's to the UK carriers as for the first deployment of 8 x 8 =16 5th gen jets in anyone's back yard is not to be taken lightly this will grow to 12 x 12 24 jets as a norm in the coming years
F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2762
- Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Though the statements seem to be clashing, I think you are both right. USN - believe it or not - is struggling with carrier numbers vs. required deployments. Hence, though there are often plenty in Norfolk, virginia, few make their way towards the northern shores of Europe nor the Med (the Med cases would be transits).dmereifield wrote:A sorry state of affairs if true. I don't believe it will be the caseTempest414 wrote:The UK carriers will almost always carry USMC jets and at this time the USMC are looking to dedicate one of it F-35B sqn's to the UK carriers as for the first deployment of 8 x 8 =16 5th gen jets in anyone's back yard is not to be taken lightly this will grow to 12 x 12 24 jets as a norm in the coming years
- hence having a squadron well accustomed to working with the facilities of our QEs would make sense
- without it needing to be constantly onboarded
Remember, too, that the USMC 'embassy-rescue' specialist unit for Africa is in Spain, a helluva way away from most of Africa
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
The operations of the carriers are likely to be in roles previously held by U.S carriers in the Med and Atlantic though not exclusively previously it was reported there would be more movement of U.S carriers to the Pacifichaving the U.S.M.C operate from the Queen Elizabeth class carriers though suggests that some memororandum of understanding has been reached on what would be the circumstances they would launch ,if the U.S.A.F launched from the U.K they would not need the same collaboration as with operating from an aircraft carrier ,is for example an understanding that American aircraft operating from the carrier are able to go to action against targets that are independant of the U.K,s interests certainly there would have to be co-operation for this to happen from the R.N ,but this comes back to the question is there a M.O.U on this ?
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Which bit is a sorry state of affairs?dmereifield wrote:A sorry state of affairs if true. I don't believe it will be the caseTempest414 wrote:The UK carriers will almost always carry USMC jets and at this time the USMC are looking to dedicate one of it F-35B sqn's to the UK carriers as for the first deployment of 8 x 8 =16 5th gen jets in anyone's back yard is not to be taken lightly this will grow to 12 x 12 24 jets as a norm in the coming years
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5598
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Yes very good but 48 F-35B is not enough to maintain a Carrier air-wing + a land based strike capability plus a OCU/ OEU . If we are to stop at 48 jets then the RAF will need to be told to put any F-35 land based strike in the back seat as with only 48 jets and no USMC jets we could really only manage 20 jets for HMS QE plus 10 jets for HMS POW and 10 jets for the OCU/OEUSW1 wrote:Tempest
Well very much depends on your aspirations are, and aspiration are tempered by fiscal reality. The number is similar to a number of other nations however by all means buy more it will simply mean cutting deeper else were..
Samlesbury is the main production site is and we’re engineering on boarding occurs but engineering resource to the program is more spread out. However any UK order would have little impact on current to medium term workload as it’s rate is based on lot ordered for all customers.
The next question would be is what are you trying to keep busy with tempest if that is its main intention. It would predominantly be the engineering R&D and integration side to which additional orders for f35 does little for. I suspect the main investments on manned fast jets over the coming years will be framed around upgrade of f35 to block 4 standard and of upgrade of typhoon with regard to asea radar. I cant see us buying more of either at this time.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2762
- Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Having to rely on an ally to make up the numbers for almost every deploymenttopman wrote:Which bit is a sorry state of affairs?dmereifield wrote:A sorry state of affairs if true. I don't believe it will be the caseTempest414 wrote:The UK carriers will almost always carry USMC jets and at this time the USMC are looking to dedicate one of it F-35B sqn's to the UK carriers as for the first deployment of 8 x 8 =16 5th gen jets in anyone's back yard is not to be taken lightly this will grow to 12 x 12 24 jets as a norm in the coming years
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
meh, happens all the time.dmereifield wrote:Having to rely on an ally to make up the numbers for almost every deploymenttopman wrote:Which bit is a sorry state of affairs?dmereifield wrote:A sorry state of affairs if true. I don't believe it will be the caseTempest414 wrote:The UK carriers will almost always carry USMC jets and at this time the USMC are looking to dedicate one of it F-35B sqn's to the UK carriers as for the first deployment of 8 x 8 =16 5th gen jets in anyone's back yard is not to be taken lightly this will grow to 12 x 12 24 jets as a norm in the coming years
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
If it’s 48 then it’s 48 and that will allow a strike capability to be generated. Though I would suspect the sustainability will be challenging for any extended deployment. I would think 48 would allow something comparable to what the sea harrier force achieved in the 90s in terms of numbers.Tempest414 wrote:Yes very good but 48 F-35B is not enough to maintain a Carrier air-wing + a land based strike capability plus a OCU/ OEU . If we are to stop at 48 jets then the RAF will need to be told to put any F-35 land based strike in the back seat as with only 48 jets and no USMC jets we could really only manage 20 jets for HMS QE plus 10 jets for HMS POW and 10 jets for the OCU/OEUSW1 wrote:Tempest
Well very much depends on your aspirations are, and aspiration are tempered by fiscal reality. The number is similar to a number of other nations however by all means buy more it will simply mean cutting deeper else were..
Samlesbury is the main production site is and we’re engineering on boarding occurs but engineering resource to the program is more spread out. However any UK order would have little impact on current to medium term workload as it’s rate is based on lot ordered for all customers.
The next question would be is what are you trying to keep busy with tempest if that is its main intention. It would predominantly be the engineering R&D and integration side to which additional orders for f35 does little for. I suspect the main investments on manned fast jets over the coming years will be framed around upgrade of f35 to block 4 standard and of upgrade of typhoon with regard to asea radar. I cant see us buying more of either at this time.
But anything ordered from here will be seen as typhoons replacement whatever that will be f35 or otherwise. It is a decision that is going to need to be made sooner than later because it will have large implications far beyond just buying the jet, it will be highly political as it will signal implications across a number industries from jet manufacture and test to complex weapons and sensors.
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Whenever one of the Queen Elizabeth's put to sea for any period of time it must have between 20 and 24 F-35B, 3 to 4 CROWSNEST and 6-8 Merlin HM2 embarked unless otherwise specified in the mission orders and objectives, with the F-35 numbers able to be surged to around 32 if needed.. The Navy and MoD need to forget this crap about the QEs actually being large LHAs, and plan to use them as they were designed to be, with the Carrier Strike mission being their primary.
The RAF is going to have to wait until either whatever results from Tempest arrives or orders for F-35s are place above and beyond the initial 48 to regularly have access to such platforms, getting by with incrementally upgraded Typhoons, which will still be a good platforms especially with the new weapon systems also coming on line. Again for a specific mission then their would always be he F-35s of the OCU available.
If part of a larger multinational campaign then more options open up with the ability to embark USMC F-35B units as we will have worked very closely with them over time, which in tern would allow the land component to be increased. One caveat though, USMC squadrons to not routinely train for fleet defence or even air defence over the beach so to speak, that is the role for the USN in their play book, so to maintain maximum flexibility USMC units deploying on the Queen Elizabeth's will have needed to have gone through additional Air Combat and fleet defence training prior to any deployment to prevent the joint FAA/USMC force being split by role. I am sure this will be done moving forward, and would actually benefit the US units for when they embark on a USS America class in a naval group not including a USN Carrier.
The RAF is going to have to wait until either whatever results from Tempest arrives or orders for F-35s are place above and beyond the initial 48 to regularly have access to such platforms, getting by with incrementally upgraded Typhoons, which will still be a good platforms especially with the new weapon systems also coming on line. Again for a specific mission then their would always be he F-35s of the OCU available.
If part of a larger multinational campaign then more options open up with the ability to embark USMC F-35B units as we will have worked very closely with them over time, which in tern would allow the land component to be increased. One caveat though, USMC squadrons to not routinely train for fleet defence or even air defence over the beach so to speak, that is the role for the USN in their play book, so to maintain maximum flexibility USMC units deploying on the Queen Elizabeth's will have needed to have gone through additional Air Combat and fleet defence training prior to any deployment to prevent the joint FAA/USMC force being split by role. I am sure this will be done moving forward, and would actually benefit the US units for when they embark on a USS America class in a naval group not including a USN Carrier.
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Yeah, a sorry state of affairs.topman wrote:meh, happens all the time.dmereifield wrote:Having to rely on an ally to make up the numbers for almost every deploymenttopman wrote:Which bit is a sorry state of affairs?dmereifield wrote:A sorry state of affairs if true. I don't believe it will be the caseTempest414 wrote:The UK carriers will almost always carry USMC jets and at this time the USMC are looking to dedicate one of it F-35B sqn's to the UK carriers as for the first deployment of 8 x 8 =16 5th gen jets in anyone's back yard is not to be taken lightly this will grow to 12 x 12 24 jets as a norm in the coming years
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Face it, we live in a shameless times, so it's not only possible, but realistic possibility.dmereifield wrote:A sorry state of affairs if true. I don't believe it will be the caseTempest414 wrote:The UK carriers will almost always carry USMC jets and at this time the USMC are looking to dedicate one of it F-35B sqn's to the UK carriers as for the first deployment of 8 x 8 =16 5th gen jets in anyone's back yard is not to be taken lightly this will grow to 12 x 12 24 jets as a norm in the coming years
It's like fuc**** my wife, excpecting that my neighbour/cousin will jump in every third day and/or when I'm not in the mood.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Why? The UK doesn’t concentrate that number of fast jets in one location unless is about to enter a major war.Lord Jim wrote:Whenever one of the Queen Elizabeth's put to sea for any period of time it must have between 20 and 24 F-35B, 3 to 4 CROWSNEST and 6-8 Merlin HM2 embarked unless otherwise specified in the mission orders and objectives, with the F-35 numbers able to be surged to around 32 if needed..
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Then we've set the bar to a sorry state of affairs quite low indeed, the vast majority of countries rely on each other for all manner of things. Don't underestimate what is being achieved now and how much hard work went in to getting it that point.abc123 wrote:Yeah, a sorry state of affairs.topman wrote:meh, happens all the time.dmereifield wrote:Having to rely on an ally to make up the numbers for almost every deploymenttopman wrote:Which bit is a sorry state of affairs?dmereifield wrote:A sorry state of affairs if true. I don't believe it will be the caseTempest414 wrote:The UK carriers will almost always carry USMC jets and at this time the USMC are looking to dedicate one of it F-35B sqn's to the UK carriers as for the first deployment of 8 x 8 =16 5th gen jets in anyone's back yard is not to be taken lightly this will grow to 12 x 12 24 jets as a norm in the coming years
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
The UK most certainly does. You've not been paying attention.SW1 wrote:Why? The UK doesn’t concentrate that number of fast jets in one location unless is about to enter a major war.Lord Jim wrote:Whenever one of the Queen Elizabeth's put to sea for any period of time it must have between 20 and 24 F-35B, 3 to 4 CROWSNEST and 6-8 Merlin HM2 embarked unless otherwise specified in the mission orders and objectives, with the F-35 numbers able to be surged to around 32 if needed..
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
That's why they're called allies. Jeesh, twas always thus.abc123 wrote:Yeah, a sorry state of affairs.topman wrote:meh, happens all the time.dmereifield wrote:Having to rely on an ally to make up the numbers for almost every deploymenttopman wrote:Which bit is a sorry state of affairs?dmereifield wrote:A sorry state of affairs if true. I don't believe it will be the caseTempest414 wrote:The UK carriers will almost always carry USMC jets and at this time the USMC are looking to dedicate one of it F-35B sqn's to the UK carriers as for the first deployment of 8 x 8 =16 5th gen jets in anyone's back yard is not to be taken lightly this will grow to 12 x 12 24 jets as a norm in the coming years
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Having allies is one thing, being useless and not willing to spend money on it's own defence- that's something completely different. Who needs such "allies" that you need to prop all the time? There's another word for that: LIABILITY.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2762
- Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Which other nation has to rely consistently on an ally to provide a substantial (ca. Half) of its carrier air wing?
If it happens occasionally then by all means, great cooperation which is a strength not a weakness, but if it happens consistently because the UK can't/won't buy sufficient F35Bs then it's a sad state of affairs
If it happens occasionally then by all means, great cooperation which is a strength not a weakness, but if it happens consistently because the UK can't/won't buy sufficient F35Bs then it's a sad state of affairs
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Moan about something that's a real problem for goodness sake. There's plenty to chose fromdmereifield wrote:Which other nation has to rely consistently on an ally to provide a substantial (ca. Half) of its carrier air wing?
If it happens occasionally then by all means, great cooperation which is a strength not a weakness, but if it happens consistently because the UK can't/won't buy sufficient F35Bs then it's a sad state of affairs
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Yeah sure Mr "lives in a country who's very existence is due to NATO", but the UK has bought and is operating two 70k ton aircraft carriers. How many other countries have made that financial commitment??? Not yours for damn sure.dmereifield wrote:Which other nation has to rely consistently on an ally to provide a substantial (ca. Half) of its carrier air wing?
If it happens occasionally then by all means, great cooperation which is a strength not a weakness, but if it happens consistently because the UK can't/won't buy sufficient F35Bs then it's a sad state of affairs
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Shooting from the hip, are we?Ron5 wrote:Not yours for damn sure.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
The carriers themselves are fairly flexible ships and designed as per the report to the commons to provide a high sortie rate ,interoperability with the U.S.N ,The flexibility I refer to is the ability to perform other roles not as a strike carrier loaded up with the F35B but with the ability to put boots on the ground with rotary assests , also a power projection and certainly of real use in providing aid to other countries ,I believe the U.S gets something in having the R.N provide carriers so it can divert carriers as required to the Pacific fleet
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/guide-q ... t-carrier/
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2019/11/s ... riers.html
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/guide-q ... t-carrier/
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2019/11/s ... riers.html
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2762
- Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
What are you on about cowboy? I'm from and live in the UKRon5 wrote:Yeah sure Mr "lives in a country who's very existence is due to NATO", but the UK has bought and is operating two 70k ton aircraft carriers. How many other countries have made that financial commitment??? Not yours for damn sure.dmereifield wrote:Which other nation has to rely consistently on an ally to provide a substantial (ca. Half) of its carrier air wing?
If it happens occasionally then by all means, great cooperation which is a strength not a weakness, but if it happens consistently because the UK can't/won't buy sufficient F35Bs then it's a sad state of affairs
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
I'm probably going back to far but the original procurement plan for F35s was going to make the first deployment light on f35. It was planned for deployment of single squadron of F35s. They would be supplemented by a harrier squadron. The disastrous treasury driven S.S.D.R scuppered the original plans. The U.S. providing aircraft to support first deployment is mutually beneficial. It expedite the carriers operational ability. Therefore allow as soon as the second F35 squadron is stood up.The ability for carrier to cover an tasking requirement with two U.K. squadrons embarked. Therefore releasing a U.S. carrier if needed. The Marines prove that they can be seamlessly incorporated into U.K. carrier ops. Giving them a proven integration ability should the operational requirement arise. So strategically it is beneficial for the Americans to provide the aircraft for the first deployment as is to us working our way back to full carrier operations.
.
.
Re: F-35B Lightning (RAF & RN)
Many apologies my dear chap, my rant was directed at that fool ABC123. Please forgive me.dmereifield wrote:What are you on about cowboy? I'm from and live in the UKRon5 wrote:Yeah sure Mr "lives in a country who's very existence is due to NATO", but the UK has bought and is operating two 70k ton aircraft carriers. How many other countries have made that financial commitment??? Not yours for damn sure.dmereifield wrote:Which other nation has to rely consistently on an ally to provide a substantial (ca. Half) of its carrier air wing?
If it happens occasionally then by all means, great cooperation which is a strength not a weakness, but if it happens consistently because the UK can't/won't buy sufficient F35Bs then it's a sad state of affairs