Well, therein lies an inherent tension between the RN and RAF. STRIKE will obviously be conducted, but DCA must be the primary purpose, if only because you can't STRIKE if your airfield is sinking.

And I suspect the clique that want to disembark at the earliest opportunity every time they see land may be a little disappointed.

Alfred, not really. As I intimated, the F-35B will HAVE to fill any shortfall in the T45 protective AD shield, where it has the capability to do so, when sailing unescorted - um, when will that be? - or out with a Theatre Air Defence Plan, which is routinely covered by other AD assets like F-15, F-22, and Typhoon to name but a few. In other words, when the Carrier is 'in Theatre' the Air Defence of it WILL be covered by dedicated DCA assets which will not always be organic F-35B - in fact, I'd wager it wont be, because it wouldn't be a smart move by the CFACC to apportion when a better plan could be generated. Why? Well, the UK will not have the numbers of F-35B to put a 24/7 DCA cap over the ship let alone do the Strike missions it was designed to do - I.e project "Power", "Enabled" by the "Carrier". Oh hang on, what did CEPP stand for again...?!

Notions that QE will conduct multi-mission Ops on the scale of a CVN are preposterous. A 75+ CAW vs a 12-20 F-35B QEC doesn't equate, not at all. Those hard core Naval enthusiasts who believe otherwise are harking back to the days of yore of a blue water angled-deck Carrier equipped RN, and will be sadly disappointed.

Finally, the "clique" you speak of will not decide to step ashore. It will be the decision of those much higher up and only ever for a good reason - perhaps the Carrier has to RIP out of Th with a US CVN so it can go along side for essential maintenance, but the jets have to remain in Th to maintain CFACC's Air Tasking.

Stop living in past/fantasy and grasp the reality of what is and is not going to be possible. Or be prepared to live with disappointment.

In sum, if the DCA screen requires F-35B to help T-45 then it will be the priority. If it doesn't, which it won't when in a Th with a Theater Air Defence Plan, the few jets we have will be used for what they were designed for...Strike.

Indeed it seems that the "plan" is now aircraft to embark the PP's onboard asap and the RAF not to get a look in.

Outstandingly played RN :D:D

Hmm wonder what "organic" AD assets the UK has around the South China sea region?

Oh you mean we have to rely on other nations assets to defend our "target"? righty ho !




#Heavier than a Strike Eagle crazy, crazy.

glad rag,

Catch up sunshine. If you think UK is going to the South China Sea as anything other than part of a large US-led operation, you need to stick to fixing aircraft and leave the analysis to the smarter folk.

I mean....really!

Only going on what's out there buddy if you have further info please let us all know..

MSOCS,

Perhaps I can help here (perhaps not....)

The F-35B is certainly designed as a 'strike' aircraft - but it's a 'strike fighter', and is certainly capable of carrying out AD (or CDA?) if called upon. With 20 aircraft embarked, they certainly could do both at the same time, if required. By the way, I'm calling on experience of much smaller ships with much smaller decks and smaller complements of aircraft. However, I do recognise that whatever 'maritime aviation' ends up looking like on QEC, it won't be anything like it was before.

The central issue here appears to me to be who exactly will decide what the aircraft do when they are embarked. How would the JFACC/ATO construct work with a QEC carrier in a fleet that may be required to change its location, speed or course as local circumstances require? Who would make the call to send every aircraft on board on a strike mission and leave nothing on board for DCA? Would a DCA tasking require aircraft constantly in the air, or on some form of 'alert'? How many aircraft would an 'alert' DCA task require? Just how would a QEC carrier generate a strike package? How big would that strike package be? What would be the expected launch and recovery rates? How long would a QEC be required to maintain these rates?

Now, I don't know the answers to these questions. Nor should I. I'd hazard a guess that there are all sorts of planning assumptions going around to scope them out. All I know is the war you end up fighting is almost never the one you expected to fight. Planning assumptions never survive the first few months of any war. Air operations are no exception.

So, I sincerely hope that whoever eventually runs the 'air' show off the QECs, they have the following tools in their kitbag:

Aircraft and aircrew able to carry out as wide a range of tasks as possible
Command and control arrangements that can recognise and react to rapidly changing circumstances without referral back to a 'central' command.
A concept of air operations that exploits the ability of the carrier to manoeuvre, as well as sustaining high tempo air operations.

Best regards as ever to all those rebuilding UK fixed wing naval aviation...

Engines

All depends who we're fighting I guess

it's unlikely we will be able to afford to have them constantly at sea on stand-by waiting for something to happen - much more likely it'll be a Libya/Gulf War type operation .

We'll know who our allies are, what they are providing , what fixed base air cover there is and the threat level. Given the last 25 years of operations air cover is going to be minimum and strike capability much more important - probably only another Falklands War would see us requiring the opposite balance of capability

Let me add to that....

Surely the presence of a carrier in a maritime task force adds long range weapons and sensors, in much the same way other ships add specific capabilities. Some people seem to forget other things (amphibious forces, ships/helicopters doing ASW, mines countermeasures forces, key logistic ships) also need air defence.

Strike alone will not win the war. As for the idea of relying on ship based anti air capabilities when carrier aircraft are available - WTF?

Gambler's folly? The last 25 years of operations have been mostly against land locked or nearly land locked opponents with no aircraft and have provided ample warning and preparation time for the West. The strategic sands are shifting - and in a scary way.

glad rag Are you willing to elaborate on your assertion that QEC lacks self defence? What do you think they should have?

Regarding self-defence I think he is referring to the absence of any fitted to them aside from CIWS. First time this absence-of-defence has been tried on a major warship so everyone is wondering how it will all work out.

Refuelling
 

Surely the biggest flaw in the defence of the QE Class is the limited radius-of-action of the 35-Bs combined with the lack of any Air-to-Air refuelling capability?
The need to be so close to potential targets acts as a nice force multiplyer for any 'peer' adversary.
And of course the lack of catapults really limits any potential options.
KB

Even the USN depend on land-based AAR to project strike packages so it will be no different for the F-35B/QE.

Using the QE class for amphib / littoral / helicopter carry will present the biggest challenge range vs threat conundrum. Nobody has ever used a such a large ship in this role, or one with such reliance on others for self-defence.

The mantra (admittedly flawed) with the QE class was 'steel is cheap, air is free... but weapons are expensive'.

https://youtu.be/ATHhsrH16VQ

A Year Late, UK Receives First Carrier-Support Ship

LONDON - The first of four British military tankers being built in South Korea to support operation of the Royal Navy’s new aircraft carrier force has finally been handed over to the Ministry of Defence, twelve months later than expected. “Royal Fleet Auxiliary Tidespring was accepted off contract earlier this month and is due to arrive in the UK in 2017 for customisation and capability assessment trials before entering service,” an MoD spokesman confirmed to Defense News Jan 17.

RFA Tidespring should have been accepted off contract last January but has been delayed while technical issues have been resolved by the builders, Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering (DSME). “Some technical issues were discovered following RFA Tidespring’s sea trials, and alongside this, new regulations around cable insulation required adjustments to the build schedule. These issues were fully resolved prior to acceptance,” said the spokesman.

The 37,000 tonne tanker was due to have been in service with the RFA, the logistics and operational support arm for the Royal Navy, last September to start replacing single-hulled ships that no longer meet international standards. Under the original time frame three of the four ships should have been handed over to the British by now with the final tanker scheduled to be accepted this April. Despite the problems, the spokesman said all four ships are “expected to be in service by the end of 2018, consistent with the original intent.” The spokesman said the firm-price nature of the contract meant the delays had not resulted in any additional cost to the MoD.

The ships are the first element of an overdue modernization of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary meant in part to support the introduction of the Royal Navy’s new 70,000-ton Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers. The first of two carriers is due to start sea trials in the next few months. Britain ordered four tankers from DSME in 2012 in a $597 million deal that sparked controversy here over the MoD’s decision to put the program out to international competition, rather than reserving the work for local yards. None of the British yards submitted a bid.

On its arrival in the UK the tanker will be delivered to the A&P yard at Falmouth, western England, for customization work involving the fitting of sensitive equipment like self-defense weapons, ballistic protection and communications systems. The first tanker is likely to enter service toward the end of the year. In a statement issued at the start of the month on upcoming developments for the Royal Navy in 2017 Defense Secretary Sir Michael Fallon said Tidespring would “arrive from South Korea in the spring.”

Designed by Britain’s BMT Defence Services, the new tankers are equipped with a helicopter flight deck and hangar. Besides ship and aviation fuel, they are designed to hold ammunition and solid stores.

The handover of the first tanker will ease embarrassment in the MoD over the delays by a foreign contractor just at the time the British start to gear up for a competition to build three fleet-support ships capable of delivering munitions and stores to the carrier task force. An MoD spokesman said that the new requirement will also be put out to international bids.

“We plan to procure three Fleet Solid Support Ships, as announced in the Strategic Defence and Security Review of 2015, through open competition among UK and international bidders. The programme is currently in its assessment phase, and we anticipate that the MoD will be in a position to award the contract by 2020,” the spokesman said. "The current planning assumption is that ships [will enter service] from the mid-2020s . . . to replace aging Fort-class vessels,” he added.

WEBF, I'm beginning to think you really don't understand this. What I said (and please look back through it) was, if QE is alone with its few escort ships and maybe a Sub, then it will have an AD screen provided by T45, supplemented with F-35. To provide 24/7 DCA cover organically with F-35 takes more aircraft than you and many others appreciate. Way, way more. The USN can do it because they have 70+ ac on board - we never will have anywhere near that number. So, if the Captain wants 24/7 F-35 overhead in the AOR covering his/her own carrier, there will be no strike going on. That's fine if you're transiting in and out of the Theatre, but if you're there with a job to do, it ain't fine. This is where the analysis implies we have to be part of a larger coalition warfighting fleet (US, UK or Fr led) where AD is provided by a combination of a few QE's F-35 but also by CVN, CdG and, because we're likely to be in range of land based AD air assets, various F-type jets.

The capability that's been bought is for Carrier Enabled Power Projection. The Carrier gets the jets, rotary and Marines to the fight and sustains them, accepting that in today's age, with the relatively few F-35 bought, you cannot do all of this alone in a near peer environment. The weapons are there to project power where it matters, to meet the JTFC's aims and objectives. If you spend all your organic assets flying hours being parochial - and not accepting other fighter cover AD - the question 'what are you actually doing of use then?' quickly hoves into view.

MSOCS, I believe the technical term is an SLL - a "Self Licking Lollipop".....

MSOCS

Can you accept that scenarios might occur where ground attack is not the only thing needed - perhaps not even the primary thing? What if you need to support other activities?

I said Some people seem to forget other things (amphibious forces, ships/helicopters doing ASW, mines countermeasures forces, key logistic ships) also need air defence.

You seem to have ignored that, and said So, if the Captain wants 24/7 F-35 overhead in the AOR covering his/her own carrier, there will be no strike going on. That's fine if you're transiting in and out of the Theatre, but if you're there with a job to do, it ain't fine.

So what if the Joint Forces' job includes things like clearing mines, conducting ASW operations, putting troops ashore etc - and the bad guys actually do have a navy and an air force?

WEBF, what I am saying (and I assure you I'm not conveniently ignoring), is that yes on a particular day Strike won't be the primary mission but even so, the quantity of ac may not be sufficient to do it alone. Therefore, if the QE is acting as the air base for assets conducting ASW, etc, then it will have to be in conjunction with other AD assets: T45 and probably other carrier-based air and/or land-based air.

People seem to forget that this aircraft has some great all-mission capabilities but some amazing niche ones as well. Those niche capabilities are going to drive the JTFC to pull them for his Strike plan and, quid pro quo, apportion other (less-niche) AD air (F-15/16/18/Ty/Rafale) to provide the required screen for QE and other ships/helo/amphibious doing their business. Now, if the mission is entirely minesweeping, that's different but also unlikely. If the mission is entirely about Amphib, I agree totally with you, but getting Marines ashore against a near peer enemy will require a LOT of battle space shaping BEFORE any air can get near the coast.

The thing to bear in mind is ensuring flexibility but please remember: in the Joint fight, the Theatre Air Defence Plan is entirely CFACC's call, not the ship's skipper's, whose concerns will undoubtedly be made clear to him via the MOC to CFMCC. The only time you really need to be a self-licking lollipop is when you're alone and unafraid AND in range of the enemy ("who has a Navy and an Air Force..."), which should never happen. If you're underway/en-route 1000nm from the AOR, the jets probably can't reach targets anyway so yeah, skipper asks CAOC or other agreed C2 agency to assign assets to Air Defence or training sorties.

WEBF - I'm wondering if you think we may be depending on the QE (as we'll only have one at any time) to engage in any unilateral action against an enemy with a serious airforce or navy? Always excepting the FI I can't think of a single one ................

especially when we allow them to build nuclear power stations at home plate....

Indeed - our national defence strategy is planned around the premise that we will never face a threat that has not been selected/determined/contrived by the USA. The QE is just an extra USMC amphibious assault ship for the US DoD planners. It will be incapable of operating independently (even against the FI threat).

Our restrictive alliance with the USA has been the principal reason for decline in our operational capability against any unique threats to the UK. We have lost so much capability and flexibility by tying ourselves so closely to US strategy.

Just look at French capability and flexibility - on a budget less than ours. They can mount rapid, expeditionary operations to protect French interests and citizens (e.g. Mali), but are still regarded as valuable allies by the USA when objectives align.

MSOCS

Think back to the Gulf 1991 - the coalition had months to prepare to fight Saddam. But as part of the overall plan, it was necessary for British and American forces to clear minefields at the top of the NAG. Although the air threat had been nullified, there was a threat from missile armed Fast Attack Craft and land based anti ship missiles - which complicated mine clearance efforts. Is that what you mean by battle space shaping?

What if there had been a real air threat?

F-35B is a flexible beast, so this is largely a pointless argument - assuming flexible command and control arrangements. Will they be responsive enough to cope with the enemy taking the initiative?

I am minded to quote Not_a_boffin from the Decision to axe Harrier is "bonkers" thread:

By the way you do realise that one of the niches of F-35B is ISTAR capabilities, and network connectivity, and in trials it has provided cuing for surface based weapons? Another carrier role is to carry and operate ASW helicopters (Merlin HM2 in our case) as I am sure you know. This is a task group capability and will coexist with supporting fixed wing operations.

HH

Why does it have to be unilateral? Even in coalition operations a UK task group may have considerable geographical area to cover.