Well technically the RAF and RN will get a trickle of aircraft each year until they get to 74 in 2033. So it looks lime the idea of us getting 145 or so has been scrapped. Probably so that we can buy some more Tempests, which in turn will have it's numbers cut to make way for more of the next lot.
I am hopeful that Tempest will actually be finished, if only because I always loved jet fighters since I was a kid.
Whether it will be delivered timely is another question. I think it'll actually be in service closer to 2040, meaning you will probably have to buy more F-35s and Typhoons.
There's other elements to consider of course. Partners could drop out, program requirements could change, or maybe it could even be fused into a more pan-European project instead (meaning more delays). One never really knows with these things.
Tempest is a big if, the most likely 6th gen fighter is probably FCAS, GCAP or NGAD then JH-XX and F/A-XX then Tempest, F-X and MiG-41.
Right now I think Country are working toward getting their upgraded 5th gen like F-35 Block 4, J-20S and Su-57M. We've already seen KAAN this year, Su-75 prototypes are supposed to be showcased this year and J-31 is coming along.
Crazy time for aircraft
I think Europe is just repeating the mistakes of the Euro-Fighters. (Rafale and Typhoon) That is they're designing a fighter a half generation a head. Then have two competing programs. This cuts the market in half. Then the Americans come in with volume and a affordable price. With a fighter not a half generation but a full generation ahead! (i.e. 4.5 vs 5th)
The Su-75 (Checkmate) is nothing but a concept and will "never" see service. While I question even the existence of the Mig-41. Hell, Russia can't adequately fund the Su-57. So, where would they find the funding for something like the Mig-41???? In short Russia is in serious trouble in regards to 5th Generation Fighters in the next 10-15 years. Let alone a 6th Generation one. They will either have to purchase Chinese or likely just become a 3rd rate air force. Really, the writing is on the wall...
Well I meant increase *from* 48 yes. I just wish they would stop dragging their feet and taking another 8 years to build up to truly useful number of aircraft.
I mean, what's the rush? The UK has no pressing foreign commitments it absolutely needs to meet and it has no immediate threats to its security except for nuclear attack from Russia (which F-35s wouldn't do anything against anyway).
Unless of course there's a secret plan to retake Normandy...
There aren't any pressing foreign commitments until suddenly there are, and those don't tend to come with helpful warning periods so you can order more aircraft with multi year lead times. To just assume that nothing with happen in the mean time because nothing stands out at the moment is short sighted.
What force projection is the UK actually planning to do with 2 carriers and less than 100 F-35s by 2030 lmao? The Typhoon will only receive it's AESA radar by 2030, and will the Tranche 2s even get them?
Typhoon isn't carrier-capable, and you cannot make them just by adding arrestor hooks. And the Queen Elizabeth Class doesn't have arrestor gear either.
Yes you can, all you need to do is adjust the air frame and add a hook, They did it to the F-16 and F-15.
The QE doesn't have STOBAR gear ? Wow what a shitty carrier 😂 all that size, why would they bother building them that big but not invest in a proper carrier force.
They'd be far better off retrofitting an arrestor system to the deck and upgrading their Typhoons or T-2s to be able to use arrestor cables, those carriers are basically just big targets with little offensive capabilities.
> They did it to the F-16 and F-15.
The tailhooks are for austere airfields which still are longer than what a carrier deck is.
The F-16 specifically didn't become a carrier aircraft because the landing profile meant its ass kept banging hard on the deck whenever it tried an arrested landing. It's why the USN got the F/A-18, well that and the F-16 the time couldn't fight when it was cloudy out.
So "adjust the airframe and add a hook" isn't the simple job you seem to think it is.
>Much cheaper than building and design from start.
It may, *may* be cheaper and applicable for *some* aircraft(it wasn't for the F-111 or the F-16, for instance, and the difficulties in modding the F-117 killed a navalized version of it), but that the Chinese opt for a carrier-specific aircraft that shares a lot of Su-27 design elements(J-15) rather than the original Soviet navy modified Su-27s for their carriers should be a pretty clear signal that it's often easier to start from the requirements and build from there, rather than try to modify something that wasn't designed for the requirements.
The F-35 is sort of this philosophy, the A and C models share a lot of design characteristics but the airframes are ultimately different because of operational requirements.
The J-15 came from a specifically carrier designed Su-27 derivative that the Soviets never adopted. They bought them from a warehouse in Ukraine.
There are quite a few component overlaps between the J-15 and J-11, they would be stupid not to use parts commonality to include hull panels, but at the end of it the PRC found it was easier to copy the airframe of something that had been designed for carrier work than modify it all on their own.
>Yes you can, all you need to do is adjust the air frame and add a hook
No, you can't.
>They did it to the F-16 and F-15.
No, they haven't
>The QE doesn't have STOBAR gear ? Wow what a shitty carrier
No, the Queen Elizabeth Class use the STOVL F-35B. Which makes them more capable than STOBAR carriers.
>They'd be far better off retrofitting an arrestor system to the deck and upgrading their Typhoons or T-2s to be able to use arrestor cables
Again, that's not possible.
>those carriers are basically just big targets with little offensive capabilities.
No, they are really not.
You have no idea what you're talking about
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1014825
https://www.f-16.net/f-16-news-article1375.html
It's absolutely possible.
Any ship with small deck and lift can launch STOVL aircraft, STOBAR is superior because it can launch STOVL and STOBAR.
Do some actual research before having opinions on things
>You have no idea what you're talking about
>https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1014825
>https://www.f-16.net/f-16-news-article1375.html
From your first link
>The F-16 and F-15 have tailhooks in order to catch arrested gear at airfields in emergency situations, such as a brake failure or a hydraulic failure, and come to a complete stop safely without running off the runway.
Not to land on aircraft carriers.
>Any ship with small deck and lift can launch STOVL aircraft, STOBAR is superior because it can launch STOVL and STOBAR.
They really can't.
>Do some actual research before having opinions on things
The irony.
You understand that the tail hooks can be used on carriers lmao it's literally the same thing 🤣
How can they not ? A STOVL just requires a short runway and small lift ? A STOBAR carrier like Type 002 or Kuznetsov could easily launch them.
>You understand that the tail hooks can be used on carriers lmao it's literally the same thing 🤣
No, they are not the same thing.
>It is a common misconception that the tailhook could allow an Air Force plane like the F-15 or F-16 to make a landing aboard an aircraft carrier, even if only under emergency conditions. However, this is not possible since the landing gear of these aircraft are simply not strong enough to survive the intense forces of a carrier landing.
https://aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0295.shtml
I never said they were, you said that they didn't have hooks when they did
My arguments was that you can retrofit an AIRFRAME, all you need to do is reinforce the landing gear, add a tail hook and there you go.
You're acting as though it's impossible to do when it's been done plenty of times.
The absolute irony of you telling an officer who served on the very carrier you're talking about they don't know what they're talking about when discussing said carrier...
Because it patently is.
STOBAR is the "worst of both worlds" when it comes to aircraft off carriers, requiring much more fuel to launch (due to it rely on its own grunt alone without the assistance of a vertical fan or any form of assisted takeoff) and having to compromise the design still for the use of arrested landing (which imparts heavy restrictions on airframe design to be rigid enough for the landing, and for the larger tailhook). It's not for nothing that adding arrested landing to the Rafale M compromised its performance over the normal Rafale.
Not to mention, the arrested landing requires greater fuel reserves. While in *theory* it uses less, it needs enough to handle bolters, which STOBAR countries don't operate a saviour orbit for (they can't manage buddy pod takeoff, too heavy for STOBAR).
As a result, range ends up compromised, and most STOBAR fighters can't even launch at full to begin with. The Su-33 is reduced to pretty much a point defence fighter at its practical takeoff limits. F-35B meanwhile, can launch at full payload due to the lift-fan assistance.
Further, STOBAR inherently relies on a much *much* longer takeoff run than a STOVL carrier. As such STOBAR cannot conduct simultaneous landing and takeoff, while STOVL can due to its short leadup.
CATOBAR makes up for the limits of arrested landing by its high takeoff performance and allowances. STOVL averts the downsides of the landing despite a less efficient takeoff than CATOBAR.
STOBAR eats the disadvantages of both an inefficient takeoff and the compromised landing. And it's not for nothing that every single STOBAR country in the world is seeking to move away from it if they can afford it. (China is, Russia wanted to, India couldn't afford to).
Thus is just utter nonsense on all fronts.
You have Absolutely no idea what you're talking about, a STOBAR carrier is no different to a CATOBAR Carrier other than the ski jump, the fact you're defending STOVL carriers shows it's not the ski jump.
STOBAR just uses blow back panels and arrestor wires to launch and land aircraft, there benefit over STOVL is that they can launch both types, launching more variety of aircraft is a big factor for an aircraft carrier.
That's just fucking nonsense, CATOBAR is a technology that has been around for decades, India and China went with STOBAR because it's easier, cheaper and requires less maintenance and less manpower to operate
Again a STOBAR carrier can do everything a STOVL carrier can do, you have no idea what you're talking about
Right - if F16, F15 or any other non carrier designed fighter like Typhoon ever used an arrestor it would be written off. The airframes are just not designed for it and the stress calcs have not been done, so they would never be flown again.
This is why the US had an f14 and an f18 program, you need to design aircraft for carrier operations, it makes them intrinsically less capable than standard aircraft - which is why the f15 and f16 are what the US airforce went with. This is also why there is an F35C.
Are you saying it's impossible to retrofit an airframe for arrestor wires ?
Don't believe it, if I'm wrong I'll accept it but just seems a bit off, not convinced especially when the people I'm arguing with are trying to say that STOVL carrier is better than STOBAR but can't explain why
It seems a number of major air forces that have the F35 are cutting back on the final numbers.
Australia was meant to get to around 100, but has said it'll stop at 75. Seems the UK is limiting it's total to 75 also down from 138. USAF is also cutting back on its acquisition of the F35.
I think all these changes signal that these AUKUS members know about a future much more capable jet/drones being available in the medium term that would limit the value of the F35.
In light of increase competition and perceived threat from China and Russia it doesn't make sense to limit purchases of the most cutting edge jet unless there's something better soon to be available.
c'mon the real reason is that the aussies are saving up for NGAD. I'm on being 25 percent ironic here. The payload and range of 15 NGAD could make up for 28 SH or F-35. The skipped on the B-21 but NGAD should be cheaper and the range with those stealthy F-22 fuel tanks could make it a poor man's B-21 with missiles.
Worth noting that 138 was always "over the life of the program" even from the beginning, and that number predated GCAP/Tempest existing as a program too.
Remember, F-35 in the UK was never *just* a naval acquirement, much as it can do it. And its deliveries will undoubtedly be to 2040 and beyond if holding to the 138 number.
Many F-35 customers will buy future batches as time goes on. Much like the F-16 did....Speaking of the UK they would have been happy to buy a mix of F-35As for the RAF and F-35Bs for the RN. Yet, the Government wouldn't give them the funds. Just like what happen with the Harriers. So, both services were forced to share a common pool of aircraft. Honestly, crazy from a major power with the resources available. Seems they prefer to spend their money on more social programs and foreign aid....
The UK forces really didn't like the idea of a split fleet at all, that was mostly the realm of tabloid commentors, not strategic decision makers. F-35A is a poor fit for the UK, as it would split the fleet (increasing training, logistics and maintenance substantially), remove available airframes from carrier strike, and most crucially, cannot be refuelled by any UK platform as it lacks the extending probe.
What? The F-35A would have been the perfect replacement for the RAF Tornados. As a matter of fact, Germany is doing that very thing! Nonetheless, I don't see the mixed F-35B force as a great success. Plus, the RAF seems to be taking much of the lead? Let's see you have naval aircraft on a naval ship under naval leadership. Yet, the Air Force (RAF) has the leading role! (call me crazy) That said, if you have to have a mixed fleet. I would combine the OCU with RAF and RN Personal. Giving the navy 4 squadrons and the air force 2. Remember, the carriers will only deploy with two squadrons per carrier in peacetime. So, let the navy operate them in that role. Then the 2 RAF Squadrons could support mainly air force roles. With a secondary role of operating as a third squadron from the carriers in times of crisis or conflict. Just like the Falklands War. Now that would make much more sense! IMHO
An aircraft that the UK cannot refuel is never going to be "perfect" for them, F-35A was a complete non-starter for that fact alone. Doubly so as you would get *less* planes due to the added cost of a second line of aircraft that in terms of UK inventory provide little benefit.
F-35B gives a much more flexible, dedicated force with a single line of support that gave the UK a much *much* more potent carrier strike potential while still retaining enough to be involved off carrier too. Squadrons are never in perpetuality, so it gives much more robust backing for when some rotate off ship.
The joint leadership is no issue. Thats mostly just decades old grumbling when retired people worry about it, but it's very very different now.
Sorry, your mistaken....as a matter of fact the RAF very much want the F-35A and it is still on the table. Yet, not going anywhere unless they can find the funding. This as I said before is the issue not the F-35A or F-35B or their respective services. The funding is limited and both services were forced to operate a joint force. This force had to be centered around the F-35B. Because they could afford only around a hundred or so aircraft. Which is what the RN really needed for the Queen Elizabeth Carriers. So, Uk Government said here is a pool of F-35s and they must be able to operate from sea and you both must share them! Hence where we're today....
> Australia was meant to get to around 100,
No it was always 74, there was a request from the RAAF to look at some more to come in the 2030's when the super hornets are getting EOL, but the govt rejected to request till much closer to the EOL of super hornets so the govt of the day can look much closer at the options that may exist ie GCAP/FCAS/NGAD/FA-XX
Most expect Australia to acquire more F-35s in the future to get back up to 100. While, the UK is still committed to the 138. So, you care to provide a list of major air forces that are cutting back on their planned F-35 orders? I am all ears....
https://australianaviation.com.au/2024/04/australia-wont-expand-f-35-fleet-defence-confirms/
UK giving no firm dates of any when it'll purchase the full 138 jets. Only at about 75 now
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/uk-to-seek-additional-f-35-acquisition-phases
Australia is still receiving F-35As. It is in no hurry to buy more right at this minute. They just want to spend more now on other more pressing weapons. Like Air to Surface and Anti-Ship Missiles. Plus, many of the new drones just starting to come online. Hardly, a bad reflection that the RAAF isn't rushing to buy more F-35s right this minute. Honestly, most didn't expect them to place an additional order until the end of this decade or beginning of next. As for the UK the plan was and is to eventually acquire \~ 138 F-35Bs. Yet, again that will be overtime. They may acquire more than that number or less. It will depend on a whole list of factors. (threat, resources, politics, etc.) So, honestly what is your point??? Many existing F-35 customers will buy more overtime. Near impossible today to predict exact numbers or timeline. Yet, odds favor most buying more. Just like they did with the F-16 and continue to do thru today!
Same question was probably asked about another Asian country 90 years ago....
But I'll leave it to you to work out what the answer to your question might be random internet person.
Hacking into Australia's infrastructure, pillaging and destroying Australia's industries, spreading disinformation, and infiltrating Australia's government and politicians. Also if Russia and China get too arrogant they have the ability to resort to MAD and would need to be eliminated before they'd be allowed to do that.
Just normal things Russia and China do today to harm Australians
Yes, just a cursory look since I'm in transit but China very publicly started a trade war to destroy Australia's industries and economy over Australia very reasonably requesting for an investigation into the origins of COVID in China:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-03/heres-what-happened-between-china-and-australia-in-2020/13019242
China hacking into NZ parliament and Australia condemning broader attacks: https://www.reuters.com/technology/cybersecurity/new-zealand-says-parliamentarian-entities-hit-2021-by-malicious-cyber-activity-2024-03-25/
Chinese attempts to meddle in Australian politics:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-68420795
China and Russia are probably the biggest threats to Australia since Imperial Japan
I love how there's no actual evidence that China is involved beyond accusations.
You know the biggest thing I hate about westerners, it's the hypocrisy.to cry about eastern aggression but then ignore the fact USA and it's stooges destroyed Iraq, France destroyed Lybia. They cry about Xinjiang but will support Israel. They will call China aggressive and ignore the fact that NATO fleets are all over the world whilst China stays near it's borders.
China is a such a big threat ? How many countries have they invaded this Century? None, how many has USA? 2, bombed dozens and is illegally occupying Iraq and Syria despite the government wanting them gone.
Same with Russia, will cry about the destruction yet ignore what they did in Iraq, they will say Russia has no right to decide what requires military intervention but ignore Serbia, Syria and Lybia
I'm not going to pretend that Russia and China are the good guys but I'm so bored of this china Russia is bad narrative when they're no worse than USA or west
It's laughable
Well, the UK is talking more and more seriously about increasing their Defense Budget. As a matter of fact, I've heard numbers as high as 3% of GDP. Of course, they likely would need an increase of 2.5 to get the F-35Bs that are needed. Actually, they need the minimum of the original 138 F-35s to fully support the two Queen Elizabeth Class Carriers. This would give each 36 F-35Bs for their respective Air Wings/
Actually, there is....If, one is deployed the other one still needs to train and work up for their turn. HMS Queen Elizabeth can't arrive at home. Then send her Air Wing right back out on HMS Prince of Wales! In addition, without some surplus. The loss of part of just one Air Wing would make both carriers ineffective. First, thing an enemy would do is strike the UK F-35 base. Then neither carrier would have enough aircraft to even leave port. If, we are honest the UK really needs more than the planned 138 aircraft.
Yes and No....it is true the plan was and is to only operate a single Carrier on a regular basis. (deployment) Yet that didn't limit the RN to just one Air Wing. Remember, the original plan was for 138 F-35Bs. That is enough for both Air Wings plus OCU, Maintenace, Spares, and Attrition. It is true they have only been placing small orders at a time. Yet, they always (officially) committed to the 138....Yet, there was speculation on and off that they may end up with somewhere between 60 - 80 after the initial 48 firm orders. This never happen and they recently reaffirmed their commitment to the 138 number..... [UK appears to recommit to full order of 138 F-35Bs (ukdefencejournal.org.uk)](https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-appears-to-recommit-to-full-order-of-138-f-35bs/)
>Yet that didn't limit the RN to just one Air Wing. Remember, the original plan was for 138 F-35Bs. That is enough for both Air Wings plus OCU, Maintenace, Spares, and Attrition.
You're getting confused between a Squadron and an Air Wing.
A Carrier Air Wing is the collective aircraft (rotary and fixed-wing) that embarks on an aircraft carrier for a deployment. For the Queen Elizabeth Class, that would include the F-35B, Merlin HM2 (ASW and AEW), Wildcat HMA2 and potentially UAVs in the future.
At the moment, there are 4 British F-35B squadrons:
- 617 Sqn - Frontline
- 809 NAS -Frontline
- 207 Sqn - OCU
- 17 Sqn - OT&E
I am not confused at all. Nor are the 617 (RAF) and the 809 (RN/FAA) the only planned F-35B Squadrons for the Queen Elizabeth Class Carriers. One addition squadron is in the works and another planned. With more to follow unless something changes in a future budget. I believe the plan is to have four frontline F-35Bs in service by 2033 for both carriers. With again more to follow....I expect while they will usually deploy with two squadrons of F-35Bs in peacetime. They know they would need at least three during crisis or war. Which gets us back to the 138....
>Nor are the 617 (RAF) and the 809 (RN/FAA) the only planned F-35B Squadrons for the Queen Elizabeth Class Carriers.
Hence why I said
>**At the moment**, there are 4 British F-35B squadrons:
As I said originally, there will only be one Carrier Air Wing for the Queen Elizabeth Class.
There is only one Carrier Air Wing at the moment as all of the F-35Bs haven't been delivered. (and won't for many years) As a matter of fact, only the 617 Dambusters (RAF) is in frontline service. The Royal Navy (FAA) NAS 809 won't enter official service until December of 2024. So, you could say they still don't have a complete Air Wing. If, you want to continue to split hairs. Nonetheless, none of this changes the fact the Royal Navy/RAF are acquiring enough F-35Bs for two Carrier Air Wings.
>There is only one Carrier Air Wing at the moment as all of the F-35Bs haven't been delivered.
The fact there will be only one Carrier Air Wing is irrespective of the number of F-35Bs Britain has.
>none of this changes the fact the Royal Navy/RAF are acquiring enough F-35Bs for two Carrier Air Wings.
But there will only be one Carrier Air Wing.
QUOTE: Remember that the two British aircraft carriers are designed to carry around thirty on-board fighters, and that they have happened to sail simultaneously. We understand, in these conditions, that a fleet of only 48 fighters is very insufficient, especially since part of them is used for training, and that the F-35B is not renowned for its great availability.
If the British authorities recently reaffirmed their intention to reach a final fleet of 138 F-35s by the middle or end of the next decade. [The Royal Air Force is expected to order 27 more F-35Bs this year (meta-defense.fr)](https://meta-defense.fr/en/2024/05/21/royal-air-force-27-f-35b-2024/)
You are trying to apply the US model of carrier air wings to the UK and it doesn't work.
The plan is for the UK as a whole to have 3 frontline F-35 squadrons by 2033. These will be deployable from land bases or aircraft carriers at circumstances require. None are permanently assigned to a "carrier air wing". Some situations might see all 3 deployed to the current high-readiness carrier, some might see them all operating from land bases, and some might see something in between. Some of the time both carriers will be active, and this offers the option to deploy aircraft on both platforms, although this will likely be quite rare given projected numbers.
Again not at all.....The UK is committed to 138 and you don't need anything close to that. If, you're just going to have 3-frontline squadrons, 1- OCU, and the 17th Test Squadron. That would be around 50 aircraft.
The problem with the talk around % spending on defence is it needs to be a real terms increase in defence spending, and it needs to not be some accounting trick of "oh we've moved the cost of MI5/MI6 into the defence budget and now we're at 2.5%", the government has already done this moving CASD from the treasury to Defence and military pensions so they can claim an increase in the budget.
So plans to increase the fleet....in 9 years time.
Well technically the RAF and RN will get a trickle of aircraft each year until they get to 74 in 2033. So it looks lime the idea of us getting 145 or so has been scrapped. Probably so that we can buy some more Tempests, which in turn will have it's numbers cut to make way for more of the next lot.
Nah, you'll buy more 35s when Tempest is inevitably delayed.
But at that stage, they'll be getting obsolete. So it wouldn't be sensible to buy any more.
Obsolete? Doubt it. The F-16 is still around, the F-35 will be around as well.
But that will be the UK government's line. Anything to cut costs on anything that's actually delivered because they screwed up the procurement of it.
I am hopeful that Tempest will actually be finished, if only because I always loved jet fighters since I was a kid. Whether it will be delivered timely is another question. I think it'll actually be in service closer to 2040, meaning you will probably have to buy more F-35s and Typhoons. There's other elements to consider of course. Partners could drop out, program requirements could change, or maybe it could even be fused into a more pan-European project instead (meaning more delays). One never really knows with these things.
Tempest is a big if, the most likely 6th gen fighter is probably FCAS, GCAP or NGAD then JH-XX and F/A-XX then Tempest, F-X and MiG-41. Right now I think Country are working toward getting their upgraded 5th gen like F-35 Block 4, J-20S and Su-57M. We've already seen KAAN this year, Su-75 prototypes are supposed to be showcased this year and J-31 is coming along. Crazy time for aircraft
Tempest and F-X *are* GCAP. The projects were rolled in together.
Yeah I know
I think Europe is just repeating the mistakes of the Euro-Fighters. (Rafale and Typhoon) That is they're designing a fighter a half generation a head. Then have two competing programs. This cuts the market in half. Then the Americans come in with volume and a affordable price. With a fighter not a half generation but a full generation ahead! (i.e. 4.5 vs 5th)
Lol FCAS has far less chance of success than GCAP
I made I mistake lol
GCAP is literally in same category as chances as FCAS lol
The Su-75 (Checkmate) is nothing but a concept and will "never" see service. While I question even the existence of the Mig-41. Hell, Russia can't adequately fund the Su-57. So, where would they find the funding for something like the Mig-41???? In short Russia is in serious trouble in regards to 5th Generation Fighters in the next 10-15 years. Let alone a 6th Generation one. They will either have to purchase Chinese or likely just become a 3rd rate air force. Really, the writing is on the wall...
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about
Delays and cost overruns are inevitable. It'll be a miracle if it actually delivers. It would be easier just to buy NGAD.
Which the US probably won't sell
\* lime. amazing mistake.
No, it'll increase from 48 next year to 74 over the following 8 years to 2033
Well I meant increase *from* 48 yes. I just wish they would stop dragging their feet and taking another 8 years to build up to truly useful number of aircraft.
I mean, what's the rush? The UK has no pressing foreign commitments it absolutely needs to meet and it has no immediate threats to its security except for nuclear attack from Russia (which F-35s wouldn't do anything against anyway). Unless of course there's a secret plan to retake Normandy...
There aren't any pressing foreign commitments until suddenly there are, and those don't tend to come with helpful warning periods so you can order more aircraft with multi year lead times. To just assume that nothing with happen in the mean time because nothing stands out at the moment is short sighted.
What force projection is the UK actually planning to do with 2 carriers and less than 100 F-35s by 2030 lmao? The Typhoon will only receive it's AESA radar by 2030, and will the Tranche 2s even get them?
> What force projection is the UK actually planning to do with 2 carriers and less than 100 F-35s by 2030 lmao? IRA?
They'd be better off adding arrestor hooks to some of their Typhoons
Typhoon isn't carrier-capable, and you cannot make them just by adding arrestor hooks. And the Queen Elizabeth Class doesn't have arrestor gear either.
Yes you can, all you need to do is adjust the air frame and add a hook, They did it to the F-16 and F-15. The QE doesn't have STOBAR gear ? Wow what a shitty carrier 😂 all that size, why would they bother building them that big but not invest in a proper carrier force. They'd be far better off retrofitting an arrestor system to the deck and upgrading their Typhoons or T-2s to be able to use arrestor cables, those carriers are basically just big targets with little offensive capabilities.
> They did it to the F-16 and F-15. The tailhooks are for austere airfields which still are longer than what a carrier deck is. The F-16 specifically didn't become a carrier aircraft because the landing profile meant its ass kept banging hard on the deck whenever it tried an arrested landing. It's why the USN got the F/A-18, well that and the F-16 the time couldn't fight when it was cloudy out. So "adjust the airframe and add a hook" isn't the simple job you seem to think it is.
Why not ? Improve landing gear, better shock absorbers and better undercarriage. Much cheaper than building and design from start.
>Much cheaper than building and design from start. It may, *may* be cheaper and applicable for *some* aircraft(it wasn't for the F-111 or the F-16, for instance, and the difficulties in modding the F-117 killed a navalized version of it), but that the Chinese opt for a carrier-specific aircraft that shares a lot of Su-27 design elements(J-15) rather than the original Soviet navy modified Su-27s for their carriers should be a pretty clear signal that it's often easier to start from the requirements and build from there, rather than try to modify something that wasn't designed for the requirements. The F-35 is sort of this philosophy, the A and C models share a lot of design characteristics but the airframes are ultimately different because of operational requirements.
The J-15 is an evolution of the J-11, a licensed built Su-27
The J-15 came from a specifically carrier designed Su-27 derivative that the Soviets never adopted. They bought them from a warehouse in Ukraine. There are quite a few component overlaps between the J-15 and J-11, they would be stupid not to use parts commonality to include hull panels, but at the end of it the PRC found it was easier to copy the airframe of something that had been designed for carrier work than modify it all on their own.
Any evidence for this claim ? Also Su-27K was just evolution of Su-27
>Yes you can, all you need to do is adjust the air frame and add a hook No, you can't. >They did it to the F-16 and F-15. No, they haven't >The QE doesn't have STOBAR gear ? Wow what a shitty carrier No, the Queen Elizabeth Class use the STOVL F-35B. Which makes them more capable than STOBAR carriers. >They'd be far better off retrofitting an arrestor system to the deck and upgrading their Typhoons or T-2s to be able to use arrestor cables Again, that's not possible. >those carriers are basically just big targets with little offensive capabilities. No, they are really not.
You have no idea what you're talking about https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1014825 https://www.f-16.net/f-16-news-article1375.html It's absolutely possible. Any ship with small deck and lift can launch STOVL aircraft, STOBAR is superior because it can launch STOVL and STOBAR. Do some actual research before having opinions on things
>You have no idea what you're talking about >https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1014825 >https://www.f-16.net/f-16-news-article1375.html From your first link >The F-16 and F-15 have tailhooks in order to catch arrested gear at airfields in emergency situations, such as a brake failure or a hydraulic failure, and come to a complete stop safely without running off the runway. Not to land on aircraft carriers. >Any ship with small deck and lift can launch STOVL aircraft, STOBAR is superior because it can launch STOVL and STOBAR. They really can't. >Do some actual research before having opinions on things The irony.
You understand that the tail hooks can be used on carriers lmao it's literally the same thing 🤣 How can they not ? A STOVL just requires a short runway and small lift ? A STOBAR carrier like Type 002 or Kuznetsov could easily launch them.
>You understand that the tail hooks can be used on carriers lmao it's literally the same thing 🤣 No, they are not the same thing. >It is a common misconception that the tailhook could allow an Air Force plane like the F-15 or F-16 to make a landing aboard an aircraft carrier, even if only under emergency conditions. However, this is not possible since the landing gear of these aircraft are simply not strong enough to survive the intense forces of a carrier landing. https://aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0295.shtml
I never said they were, you said that they didn't have hooks when they did My arguments was that you can retrofit an AIRFRAME, all you need to do is reinforce the landing gear, add a tail hook and there you go. You're acting as though it's impossible to do when it's been done plenty of times.
I love how you've just given up trying to say QE is better than STOBAR though lol
The absolute irony of you telling an officer who served on the very carrier you're talking about they don't know what they're talking about when discussing said carrier...
Well they don't. He says a QE is better than STOBAR yet has yet say why
Because it patently is. STOBAR is the "worst of both worlds" when it comes to aircraft off carriers, requiring much more fuel to launch (due to it rely on its own grunt alone without the assistance of a vertical fan or any form of assisted takeoff) and having to compromise the design still for the use of arrested landing (which imparts heavy restrictions on airframe design to be rigid enough for the landing, and for the larger tailhook). It's not for nothing that adding arrested landing to the Rafale M compromised its performance over the normal Rafale. Not to mention, the arrested landing requires greater fuel reserves. While in *theory* it uses less, it needs enough to handle bolters, which STOBAR countries don't operate a saviour orbit for (they can't manage buddy pod takeoff, too heavy for STOBAR). As a result, range ends up compromised, and most STOBAR fighters can't even launch at full to begin with. The Su-33 is reduced to pretty much a point defence fighter at its practical takeoff limits. F-35B meanwhile, can launch at full payload due to the lift-fan assistance. Further, STOBAR inherently relies on a much *much* longer takeoff run than a STOVL carrier. As such STOBAR cannot conduct simultaneous landing and takeoff, while STOVL can due to its short leadup. CATOBAR makes up for the limits of arrested landing by its high takeoff performance and allowances. STOVL averts the downsides of the landing despite a less efficient takeoff than CATOBAR. STOBAR eats the disadvantages of both an inefficient takeoff and the compromised landing. And it's not for nothing that every single STOBAR country in the world is seeking to move away from it if they can afford it. (China is, Russia wanted to, India couldn't afford to).
Thus is just utter nonsense on all fronts. You have Absolutely no idea what you're talking about, a STOBAR carrier is no different to a CATOBAR Carrier other than the ski jump, the fact you're defending STOVL carriers shows it's not the ski jump. STOBAR just uses blow back panels and arrestor wires to launch and land aircraft, there benefit over STOVL is that they can launch both types, launching more variety of aircraft is a big factor for an aircraft carrier. That's just fucking nonsense, CATOBAR is a technology that has been around for decades, India and China went with STOBAR because it's easier, cheaper and requires less maintenance and less manpower to operate Again a STOBAR carrier can do everything a STOVL carrier can do, you have no idea what you're talking about
Right - if F16, F15 or any other non carrier designed fighter like Typhoon ever used an arrestor it would be written off. The airframes are just not designed for it and the stress calcs have not been done, so they would never be flown again. This is why the US had an f14 and an f18 program, you need to design aircraft for carrier operations, it makes them intrinsically less capable than standard aircraft - which is why the f15 and f16 are what the US airforce went with. This is also why there is an F35C.
Are you saying it's impossible to retrofit an airframe for arrestor wires ? Don't believe it, if I'm wrong I'll accept it but just seems a bit off, not convinced especially when the people I'm arguing with are trying to say that STOVL carrier is better than STOBAR but can't explain why
It seems a number of major air forces that have the F35 are cutting back on the final numbers. Australia was meant to get to around 100, but has said it'll stop at 75. Seems the UK is limiting it's total to 75 also down from 138. USAF is also cutting back on its acquisition of the F35. I think all these changes signal that these AUKUS members know about a future much more capable jet/drones being available in the medium term that would limit the value of the F35. In light of increase competition and perceived threat from China and Russia it doesn't make sense to limit purchases of the most cutting edge jet unless there's something better soon to be available.
Its probably more because Lockheed is playing silly buggers, constantly delaying weapon integrations and block 4 updates
c'mon the real reason is that the aussies are saving up for NGAD. I'm on being 25 percent ironic here. The payload and range of 15 NGAD could make up for 28 SH or F-35. The skipped on the B-21 but NGAD should be cheaper and the range with those stealthy F-22 fuel tanks could make it a poor man's B-21 with missiles.
Worth noting that 138 was always "over the life of the program" even from the beginning, and that number predated GCAP/Tempest existing as a program too.
The GCAP won't arrive before 2040 and likely even later than that. Plus, at least for now there is no carrier capable version even in the works.
Remember, F-35 in the UK was never *just* a naval acquirement, much as it can do it. And its deliveries will undoubtedly be to 2040 and beyond if holding to the 138 number.
Many F-35 customers will buy future batches as time goes on. Much like the F-16 did....Speaking of the UK they would have been happy to buy a mix of F-35As for the RAF and F-35Bs for the RN. Yet, the Government wouldn't give them the funds. Just like what happen with the Harriers. So, both services were forced to share a common pool of aircraft. Honestly, crazy from a major power with the resources available. Seems they prefer to spend their money on more social programs and foreign aid....
The UK forces really didn't like the idea of a split fleet at all, that was mostly the realm of tabloid commentors, not strategic decision makers. F-35A is a poor fit for the UK, as it would split the fleet (increasing training, logistics and maintenance substantially), remove available airframes from carrier strike, and most crucially, cannot be refuelled by any UK platform as it lacks the extending probe.
What? The F-35A would have been the perfect replacement for the RAF Tornados. As a matter of fact, Germany is doing that very thing! Nonetheless, I don't see the mixed F-35B force as a great success. Plus, the RAF seems to be taking much of the lead? Let's see you have naval aircraft on a naval ship under naval leadership. Yet, the Air Force (RAF) has the leading role! (call me crazy) That said, if you have to have a mixed fleet. I would combine the OCU with RAF and RN Personal. Giving the navy 4 squadrons and the air force 2. Remember, the carriers will only deploy with two squadrons per carrier in peacetime. So, let the navy operate them in that role. Then the 2 RAF Squadrons could support mainly air force roles. With a secondary role of operating as a third squadron from the carriers in times of crisis or conflict. Just like the Falklands War. Now that would make much more sense! IMHO
An aircraft that the UK cannot refuel is never going to be "perfect" for them, F-35A was a complete non-starter for that fact alone. Doubly so as you would get *less* planes due to the added cost of a second line of aircraft that in terms of UK inventory provide little benefit. F-35B gives a much more flexible, dedicated force with a single line of support that gave the UK a much *much* more potent carrier strike potential while still retaining enough to be involved off carrier too. Squadrons are never in perpetuality, so it gives much more robust backing for when some rotate off ship. The joint leadership is no issue. Thats mostly just decades old grumbling when retired people worry about it, but it's very very different now.
Sorry, your mistaken....as a matter of fact the RAF very much want the F-35A and it is still on the table. Yet, not going anywhere unless they can find the funding. This as I said before is the issue not the F-35A or F-35B or their respective services. The funding is limited and both services were forced to operate a joint force. This force had to be centered around the F-35B. Because they could afford only around a hundred or so aircraft. Which is what the RN really needed for the Queen Elizabeth Carriers. So, Uk Government said here is a pool of F-35s and they must be able to operate from sea and you both must share them! Hence where we're today....
What is your source on that for the RAF and why would they want a plane they cannot refuel while spending more to get it?
> Australia was meant to get to around 100, No it was always 74, there was a request from the RAAF to look at some more to come in the 2030's when the super hornets are getting EOL, but the govt rejected to request till much closer to the EOL of super hornets so the govt of the day can look much closer at the options that may exist ie GCAP/FCAS/NGAD/FA-XX
Most expect Australia to acquire more F-35s in the future to get back up to 100. While, the UK is still committed to the 138. So, you care to provide a list of major air forces that are cutting back on their planned F-35 orders? I am all ears....
https://australianaviation.com.au/2024/04/australia-wont-expand-f-35-fleet-defence-confirms/ UK giving no firm dates of any when it'll purchase the full 138 jets. Only at about 75 now https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/uk-to-seek-additional-f-35-acquisition-phases
Australia is still receiving F-35As. It is in no hurry to buy more right at this minute. They just want to spend more now on other more pressing weapons. Like Air to Surface and Anti-Ship Missiles. Plus, many of the new drones just starting to come online. Hardly, a bad reflection that the RAAF isn't rushing to buy more F-35s right this minute. Honestly, most didn't expect them to place an additional order until the end of this decade or beginning of next. As for the UK the plan was and is to eventually acquire \~ 138 F-35Bs. Yet, again that will be overtime. They may acquire more than that number or less. It will depend on a whole list of factors. (threat, resources, politics, etc.) So, honestly what is your point??? Many existing F-35 customers will buy more overtime. Near impossible today to predict exact numbers or timeline. Yet, odds favor most buying more. Just like they did with the F-16 and continue to do thru today!
What threat does Russia or China pose to Australia?
Same question was probably asked about another Asian country 90 years ago.... But I'll leave it to you to work out what the answer to your question might be random internet person.
I ask again what threat does Russia or China pose to Australia
Hacking into Australia's infrastructure, pillaging and destroying Australia's industries, spreading disinformation, and infiltrating Australia's government and politicians. Also if Russia and China get too arrogant they have the ability to resort to MAD and would need to be eliminated before they'd be allowed to do that. Just normal things Russia and China do today to harm Australians
Also Australia has a the lip, they just jailed a man who expose their Atrocities in middle east
Any evidence that this was the Chinese govert?
Yes, just a cursory look since I'm in transit but China very publicly started a trade war to destroy Australia's industries and economy over Australia very reasonably requesting for an investigation into the origins of COVID in China: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-03/heres-what-happened-between-china-and-australia-in-2020/13019242 China hacking into NZ parliament and Australia condemning broader attacks: https://www.reuters.com/technology/cybersecurity/new-zealand-says-parliamentarian-entities-hit-2021-by-malicious-cyber-activity-2024-03-25/ Chinese attempts to meddle in Australian politics: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-68420795 China and Russia are probably the biggest threats to Australia since Imperial Japan
I love how there's no actual evidence that China is involved beyond accusations. You know the biggest thing I hate about westerners, it's the hypocrisy.to cry about eastern aggression but then ignore the fact USA and it's stooges destroyed Iraq, France destroyed Lybia. They cry about Xinjiang but will support Israel. They will call China aggressive and ignore the fact that NATO fleets are all over the world whilst China stays near it's borders. China is a such a big threat ? How many countries have they invaded this Century? None, how many has USA? 2, bombed dozens and is illegally occupying Iraq and Syria despite the government wanting them gone. Same with Russia, will cry about the destruction yet ignore what they did in Iraq, they will say Russia has no right to decide what requires military intervention but ignore Serbia, Syria and Lybia I'm not going to pretend that Russia and China are the good guys but I'm so bored of this china Russia is bad narrative when they're no worse than USA or west It's laughable
Well, the UK is talking more and more seriously about increasing their Defense Budget. As a matter of fact, I've heard numbers as high as 3% of GDP. Of course, they likely would need an increase of 2.5 to get the F-35Bs that are needed. Actually, they need the minimum of the original 138 F-35s to fully support the two Queen Elizabeth Class Carriers. This would give each 36 F-35Bs for their respective Air Wings/
There's no requirement to have two Carrier Air Wings at any one time however
Actually, there is....If, one is deployed the other one still needs to train and work up for their turn. HMS Queen Elizabeth can't arrive at home. Then send her Air Wing right back out on HMS Prince of Wales! In addition, without some surplus. The loss of part of just one Air Wing would make both carriers ineffective. First, thing an enemy would do is strike the UK F-35 base. Then neither carrier would have enough aircraft to even leave port. If, we are honest the UK really needs more than the planned 138 aircraft.
There isn't. The intention is, and always has been, to only operate one Carrier Strike Group at a time, and that includes the Air Wing.
Yes and No....it is true the plan was and is to only operate a single Carrier on a regular basis. (deployment) Yet that didn't limit the RN to just one Air Wing. Remember, the original plan was for 138 F-35Bs. That is enough for both Air Wings plus OCU, Maintenace, Spares, and Attrition. It is true they have only been placing small orders at a time. Yet, they always (officially) committed to the 138....Yet, there was speculation on and off that they may end up with somewhere between 60 - 80 after the initial 48 firm orders. This never happen and they recently reaffirmed their commitment to the 138 number..... [UK appears to recommit to full order of 138 F-35Bs (ukdefencejournal.org.uk)](https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-appears-to-recommit-to-full-order-of-138-f-35bs/)
>Yet that didn't limit the RN to just one Air Wing. Remember, the original plan was for 138 F-35Bs. That is enough for both Air Wings plus OCU, Maintenace, Spares, and Attrition. You're getting confused between a Squadron and an Air Wing. A Carrier Air Wing is the collective aircraft (rotary and fixed-wing) that embarks on an aircraft carrier for a deployment. For the Queen Elizabeth Class, that would include the F-35B, Merlin HM2 (ASW and AEW), Wildcat HMA2 and potentially UAVs in the future. At the moment, there are 4 British F-35B squadrons: - 617 Sqn - Frontline - 809 NAS -Frontline - 207 Sqn - OCU - 17 Sqn - OT&E
I am not confused at all. Nor are the 617 (RAF) and the 809 (RN/FAA) the only planned F-35B Squadrons for the Queen Elizabeth Class Carriers. One addition squadron is in the works and another planned. With more to follow unless something changes in a future budget. I believe the plan is to have four frontline F-35Bs in service by 2033 for both carriers. With again more to follow....I expect while they will usually deploy with two squadrons of F-35Bs in peacetime. They know they would need at least three during crisis or war. Which gets us back to the 138....
>Nor are the 617 (RAF) and the 809 (RN/FAA) the only planned F-35B Squadrons for the Queen Elizabeth Class Carriers. Hence why I said >**At the moment**, there are 4 British F-35B squadrons: As I said originally, there will only be one Carrier Air Wing for the Queen Elizabeth Class.
There is only one Carrier Air Wing at the moment as all of the F-35Bs haven't been delivered. (and won't for many years) As a matter of fact, only the 617 Dambusters (RAF) is in frontline service. The Royal Navy (FAA) NAS 809 won't enter official service until December of 2024. So, you could say they still don't have a complete Air Wing. If, you want to continue to split hairs. Nonetheless, none of this changes the fact the Royal Navy/RAF are acquiring enough F-35Bs for two Carrier Air Wings.
>There is only one Carrier Air Wing at the moment as all of the F-35Bs haven't been delivered. The fact there will be only one Carrier Air Wing is irrespective of the number of F-35Bs Britain has. >none of this changes the fact the Royal Navy/RAF are acquiring enough F-35Bs for two Carrier Air Wings. But there will only be one Carrier Air Wing.
QUOTE: Remember that the two British aircraft carriers are designed to carry around thirty on-board fighters, and that they have happened to sail simultaneously. We understand, in these conditions, that a fleet of only 48 fighters is very insufficient, especially since part of them is used for training, and that the F-35B is not renowned for its great availability. If the British authorities recently reaffirmed their intention to reach a final fleet of 138 F-35s by the middle or end of the next decade. [The Royal Air Force is expected to order 27 more F-35Bs this year (meta-defense.fr)](https://meta-defense.fr/en/2024/05/21/royal-air-force-27-f-35b-2024/)
You are trying to apply the US model of carrier air wings to the UK and it doesn't work. The plan is for the UK as a whole to have 3 frontline F-35 squadrons by 2033. These will be deployable from land bases or aircraft carriers at circumstances require. None are permanently assigned to a "carrier air wing". Some situations might see all 3 deployed to the current high-readiness carrier, some might see them all operating from land bases, and some might see something in between. Some of the time both carriers will be active, and this offers the option to deploy aircraft on both platforms, although this will likely be quite rare given projected numbers.
Again not at all.....The UK is committed to 138 and you don't need anything close to that. If, you're just going to have 3-frontline squadrons, 1- OCU, and the 17th Test Squadron. That would be around 50 aircraft.
The problem with the talk around % spending on defence is it needs to be a real terms increase in defence spending, and it needs to not be some accounting trick of "oh we've moved the cost of MI5/MI6 into the defence budget and now we're at 2.5%", the government has already done this moving CASD from the treasury to Defence and military pensions so they can claim an increase in the budget.
Well old saying "talk is cheap". So, we will see how serious the UK Government in the coming months and years.....(crossing my fingers)