Well aware of F-35's missions thanks WEBF. In your cut and paste-a-thon above, it clearly makes an assumption of 30+ F-35 aboard and therein lies my point: There won't be enough aircraft aboard to satisfy the surface fleet's DCA ask as well as conduct Strike, ISTAR, CAS etc at range. The A-A capability is best served as an OCA element frankly, and I never said T45 would be the only thing; it will have to be a part of an overall AD Plan, of which F-35 MAY contribute but that is not a given because there are many other roles that have to be fulfilled and it's scenario dependent.

I personally know that the aircraft will do a lot for the Carrier Group. Question is, will it be enough?

I honestly can't envision UK forces acting on our own anywhere serious - we don't have the ships, the aircraft, the army or the supply chain to do so

We might be able to roll up off some failing state and rescue our ex-pats and tourists or even put a small force ashore but I suspect that is restricted to West Africa & the Caribbean as a capability

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

you're not seriously saying we could take on China???

For a start why would we?

Oh sorry - you meant the FRENCH!!!

Can anybody authoritative on here make a case that the new carrier with F35s will be able to carry out any unilateral UK operations where the F35 capability is needed? I can't think of any scenario (except just maybe FI) where we would ever use the capability except as part of a US led operation.

Leave aside operations to rescue/protect British interests in West Africa/Caribbean - the F35s would not be needed for that.

This entire procurement is a massive strategic blunder that is going to tie us into US foreign policy for decades to come. And look where that got us for the last decade or so.

Trim Stab. You aptly demonstrate the fallacy of the current F-35 narrative - in that it is all about stealth and high-end capability, whereas in reality it isn't. Stealth vastly increases survivability and lethality against all threats, from the very new to the very old, thereby granting unimpeded access and political choice. Therefore it is not a false-economy and will increasingly become the 'norm' for all fighters. Moreover, the sensors and fusion give SA and ISR which are again, not niche.

So, yes, I do see unilateral operations being undertaken, requiring F-35's capabilities.

I'm sorry I can't qualify my authority.

bang on trim stab, we (or rather the UK armed forces) are once again poodles on the Yank leash.

Trim Stab, if I didn't make myself clear, you have completely missed the point; and your demonstrable failure to grasp and comprehend this actually stymies your view, and many others' here, including jazz rag's.

"So, yes, I do see unilateral operations being undertaken, requiring F-35's capabilities"

come on - give us a hint!!

Just asking a stupid question but in terms of self defence.. why aren't the QE carriers going to be equipped with Sea Ceptor or similar ?

CdG has Aster 15, Nimitz Class (and the America Class LPDs) have Sparrow and RAM.

Would not a few handfuls of Sea Ceptor provide a useful addition when the T45 runs out...or has a flat battery?

Money, money, money.

I'd have thought surface to surface missiles for self defence would be more useful TBH

Really? So I guess by your reasoning the US was entirely responsible for:
-The cancellation of CVA-01.
-The decision to form Joint Force Harrier- and the early retirement of the Sea Harrier/Harrier Force.
-The A-400 program and delays.
-The Nimrod Fiasco and the total abandonment of MPA.
-The retirement of UK ELINT and recon platforms without like capable replacements.
-The decision of the UK not to invest in stealth, tactical jamming or heavy/medium bombers.
-The atrophy of the once robust and capable UK aviation and shipbuilding industries. The UK has bought off the shelf, or license built some very capable US platforms, but in decades past would have built them themselves. AH-64, C-17, C-130, Chinook, RC-135, E-3, P-8, S-3...
-The delays of the QE and PoW. The flip flopping between STOVL, cat and trap and back to STOVL.
-The retirement of the Invincible class carries well before replacements were ready.
- An air tanker deal that will cost billions- and you don't even own them, and it specifically prohibits putting hoses on the A-400.
- The decline of the UK frigate fleet.
- The decline of the UK submarine fleet
- The overall decline of man power across the services...


But OK- it is much easier to blame the alliance....

Sandy, hopefully Trim Stab understands that all the above were a combination of:

British realpolitik
Partisan skullduggery between individual Services
Ineptitude

I think I have said that - the scenario and threat level will vary. However, my point is that if the air threat to the task group is high, then the employment of carrier based aircraft will be different to a situation in which no such threat exists.

Simple.

So committing ourselves to land based conflicts and deciding all future conflicts will be land centric and asymmetric was all fine and dandy then? Perhaps having carriers again will reduce our reliance on our Atlantic cousins? Ever thought that? No?

Did I miss something?

I think you might want to add the F-4 to that list...... though we did mess it about a bit.

...and, of course, the Predator, Reaper, Shadow, Sentinel, Sea King, Wessex & Whirlwind. Some COTS, some modified and some nailed together in the UK....

The relatively short radar horizon of the Crowsnest Merlin and short "legs" of the F-35B is going to make fleet defence awfully hard work for the limited number of T45s....and probably require a disproportionate number of the embarked F35s for CAP if the Threat requires it.

Maybe we could have a new class of ship which could be deployed "up threat" with a couple of F-35 on board to intercept anybody inbound before they got to close to the carrier?

Now what would we call it? Hmmmm, maybe "Through Deck Cruiser"?............

The latest edition of Conrad Waters "World Naval Review" has a detailed rundown on the Japanese DD-115 Akizuki destroyers - a non stealthy general purpose design - what caught my eye was (first of class):-

Started July 2009
Launched Oct 2010
Commisioned March 2012

less than 3 years - the T45's are 6 to 7 years in construction...............

The book also reviews the Zumwalt - that 16,000 ton "destroyer" which also has taken 7+ years to service

So what is your point?