The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

When you have the luxury of three carriers, you can get away with two carrier air groups and ship crews. The British with three carriers only had two ship crews, rotating one of the ships into long refits and storage. But when you only have two carriers, you must have two carrier air groups and ship crews. Like the ship's company, the air group must also have down time too. No one would reenlist if they are at sea forever.

Unlike the Americans, which will enjoy new models of the F-35 production numbers later, the British and many of the other countries are getting their production numbers early. At a later time when the budget is favorable, the British could order more F-35s.

Remember I said could, not necessarily would. But it wouldn't surprise me if they did.
 
Last edited:
Sea Toby said:
When you have the luxury of three carriers, you can get away with two carrier air groups and ship crews. The British with three carriers only had two ship crews, rotating one of the ships into long refits and storage. But when you only have two carriers, you must have two carrier air groups and ship crews. Like the ship's company, the air group must also have down time too. No one would reenlist if they are at sea forever.
Click to expand...

For the reasons you have given I fully agree re the need for two air groups and I also agree with EDS01475 re the benefit of the navy owning its own F-35s rather than drawing from a 'joint' force.

I expect that the RN will maintain both carriers in commission. Whilst there will often be times when only one is available I would expect refits to be planned around major exercises so that the two will operate together on occasion. When only one carrier is available the second air group will also provide the capability for the embarked air group to be enlarged in the event of an operational deployment. This was something I remember the RAN doing during the Korean War. At that stage the RAN had two air groups but only one operational carrier (the second was still incomplete). When the light carrier Sydney deployed to Korea it embarked an additional Sea Fury squadron, drawn from the unassigned air group, to increase its aircraft complement from its normal 26 to a rather crowded but still manageable 38.


Tas
 
As I recall with the Queen Elizabeth class, the Ministry of Defence decided to go with 36 F-35Bs for peaceful operations instead of 48, but they can at a later time choose to go with 48 F-35Bs in case of a war. Having 24 or so extras on hand which can be flown by reservists can be handy during a crunch. Face it, by the time the Lightning IIs enter service the Harriers will be pretty much worn out unsuitable for reserves. The same can be said of the air force's squadrons. With the joint force, having a reserve of extra aircraft won't hurt for either service. While this appears a bit too much, as noted, it is a wise policy. While the extra aircraft won't squeeze in the hangar, they is plenty of flight deck space aboard the two carriers. I see no problem with the joint force, the US Marines fill out US aircraft carrier air groups all the time. With future upgrades in mind, having extra aircraft will make it easier to do the upgrades without suffering aircraft shortages.
 
Sea Toby said:
I see no problem with the joint force, the US Marines fill out US aircraft carrier air groups all the time.
Click to expand...

And that is causing some inter service political problems right now as the USMC wants to replace their Hornets and Harrier II's with F-35B's and the USN wants them to buy both F-35B and F-35C's
 
ASFC said:
If 138 F-35Bs are bought, then we could operate 6 Squadrons of Twelve plus an OCU and still have 30-40 spare. 6 Squadrons because the RN wants to operate three squdrons on each carrier, so there is enough if we ever have to operate both CVFs at the same time. (I am led to believe the plan is to operate one carrier at a time and task the other Squadrons elsewhere for RAF duties.
Click to expand...

I seem to remember reading (can't recall where) that the MoD was planning on operating 4 squadrons of 12 aircraft with 18 pilots each, one OCU/Training squadron of 18 aircraft and using the rest of the buy as attrition reserves and units rotated through the fleet to extend airframe life.

Evidently the figures came from a US-sourced document on proposed production and delivery schedules which showed which production aircraft were to be allocated to which F35 partner nation.

WillS.
 
I can't stand all this 'extend the airframe life' nonsense. They should bite the bullet as Seatoby suggested and possibly buy some more F-35s in the future when the budget is nicer. In my mind (as a British Taxpayer) it is such a waste of money to buy some of the worlds most sophisticated aircraft just to then stick them into storage because you don't want to buy more aircraft later on. It is not like the Typhoon buy, where there might not be a production line in the future to build replacements, as the Americans will still be producing them until they have their full compliment (which seems to be until 2030)
 
WillS said:
I seem to remember reading (can't recall where) that the MoD was planning on operating 4 squadrons of 12 aircraft with 18 pilots each, one OCU/Training squadron of 18 aircraft and using the rest of the buy as attrition reserves and units rotated through the fleet to extend airframe life.

Evidently the figures came from a US-sourced document on proposed production and delivery schedules which showed which production aircraft were to be allocated to which F35 partner nation.

WillS.
Click to expand...

You are probably correct. My recollection isn't what it used to be after my recent stroke. I had read that the British were discussing their air groups numbers with the carriers during peacetime. As long as there are extra aircraft for a larger number of pilots, they should have enough for wartime operations. The idea was to save funds during peacetime. Aircraft that don't fly and are in storage during peacetime don't costs much to maintain. During a wartime situation, the government is willing to spend more to win a war.

As far as the USMC aircraft, I can see the Marines wanting to do it their way, and I can see why the Navy wants to do it their way. Since the Navy is the senior service, I am sure the Navy will have their way.

Yes, all of the aircraft don't have to be bought now. Some aircraft could be bought at a later time, after all this is going to be a long program. Just keep in mind these aircraft will take a few years to build, they won't be built overnight.
 
Last edited:
You can't do 'just in time' supply for aircraft though, the same with Ships. Wars tend to come along at short notice and having a significant reserve you can call on quickly is a given. You won't be able to order 50 F-35's at even a years notice so having 30-40 or so pre-purchased and in storage somewhere is sensible.

Does anyone know what the size of the current in reserve fleet is for the RAF ?
 
To hit on the crux of the matter is it RN really wants Typhoons and F-35c ?

For the sake of uniformity their efforts to combine old squadron to
new squadrons are taking numerous notes to table.

Tender and meaningsful consideration finds room among the most
waited decision making. Is this budget fulfilled by all funds expiring.
 
Pro'forma said:
To hit on the crux of the matter is it RN really wants Typhoons and F-35c ?

For the sake of uniformity their efforts to combine old squadron to
new squadrons are taking numerous notes to table.

Tender and meaningsful consideration finds room among the most
waited decision making. Is this budget fulfilled by all funds expiring.
Click to expand...

Why would the RN want Typhoon? It would cost a fortune it doesn't have to navalize the Typhoon for a very small number of planes.
 
A better bet would be between F-35 et al and Rafaele. Although that would only happen if the Americans would not give us the software codes (and the B model failed) making Rafaele more attractive than F-35C.

Typhoon will never be navalised.
 
AegisFC said:
Why would the RN want Typhoon? It would cost a fortune it doesn't have to navalize the Typhoon for a very small number of planes.
Click to expand...


Thinking what wouldn't RN want.
Mostly concerned, however are keeping balanced cost-module.

To navalize Typhoon could be hardest note to savings inflow.
F-35c will fly after all planned as expected, new exiting seabreeze above
Arafura Sea.
 
There is no way the MoD would fund navalised Typhoon, the cost would be too much to justify.

If the Fleet Air Arm for some hypothetical reason could not get F-35B, would not the Hornet be a more logical choice than Rafale for RN service???
 
Actual said:
There is no way the MoD would fund navalised Typhoon, the cost would be too much to justify.

If the Fleet Air Arm for some hypothetical reason could not get F-35B, would not the Hornet be a more logical choice than Rafale for RN service???
Click to expand...
it could be ether raf or honet they both would be consider if the F35 were canceled [about as likely as pig flying]
the Raf is europen and despreat for an export which would be a compelling argument as well as preliminary talks with Dassult as plan B which would give it an advantage of the hornet
 
Actual said:
There is no way the MoD would fund navalised Typhoon, the cost would be too much to justify.

If the Fleet Air Arm for some hypothetical reason could not get F-35B, would not the Hornet be a more logical choice than Rafale for RN service???
Click to expand...

Rafale would come with Meteor already integrated, very simple integration of Storm Shadow, & a closer support base.
 
Actual said:
There is no way the MoD would fund navalised Typhoon, the cost would be too much to justify.

Wouldn't navalize Typhoon ?

This one is a diamond speculating, if you are anywhere close getting to
cost-profit anachronism where analysing the changeable role of
Typhoon construction.
Click to expand...
 
We are getting far more Typhoons than we actually need for the RAF. That, plus all of the other cost pressures will mean fewer F35's than we need. So, unless the cost of navalising Typhoon is greater than procuring the F35 it makes sense to do that rather than have all the £80 million per shot excess Typhoon airframes mothballed in hangers whilst carriers go to sea with piss ant sized air wings of F35's due to the numbers procured being cut.
 
Unfortunately once again politics and bussiness comes into play. BAE Systems has a major workshare on the F35 programme and the UK government wants to support that by buying the aircraft.

I don't see them withdrawing unless a major problem arises.

I do believe, however, that as a platform, the F35 will do an excellent job as the UK's next naval fighter.
 
spsun100001 said:
We are getting far more Typhoons than we actually need for the RAF.
Click to expand...

Does that include Tranche 3?

If gossip is to be believed, the MoD are looking at the possibility of India or Saudi buying up the RAF's Tranche 3 allocation. Planning is apparently already underway to divert more UK production for a highly possible 12-24 plane order from Oman starting from 2010.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top