That speech of Richards was one of the latest confirmations indeed.

POW is the “second carrier”, and at this time is planned to be the “back-up carrier”… placed in “quick reactivation reserve” until needed for either duties as an LPH or to replace QE while QE is in extended maintenance.

There is also talk of having them rotate “in service” periods, to extend the life of both ships.

For this to work fully, though, both ships will need to be equipped with full flight deck equipment.

This is what me and Swerve discussed a few posts ago. It is obviously needed that both carriers are fully kitted out, and the Navy will push for it.
However, so far, the possibility of only one (QE) getting catapults do exist, and it is better not to exaggerate with the entusiasm.

The navy, in practice, would do what, from next year, will be done with Ocean/Illustrious and Albion/Bulwark:

-Ocean is due to enter refit next year. Illustrious will come out of hers in the meanwhile: HMS Lusty is going to act as LPH until Ocean gets back into service, and then go into reserve.
They will alternate in service and reserve this way until at least 2020, when Lusty will bow out and Ocean remain until around 2022 or so, when she is expected to bow out as well, leaving the CVFs covering Carrier and LPH roles.

-Bulwark just came out of refit, and it surprised me to no end that Albion was chosen for Flagship role, because logic suggests that it will be Albion to go into reserve next year, to come back into service only when Bulwark will have to undergo another refit.
The Royal Navy will lose another flagship next year, and two in the space of months is… well, you judge.
Unless Albion enters her own refit first, handing over the flagship role to Bulwark, then getting it back when she comes out of refit and Bulwark goes in reserve. We’ll have to see.

As to the fact a lot of people was wondering why Albion became the Flagship and not HMS Ocean or Illustrious is that, respectively: Illustrious is not yet back in service from refit, and Ocean does not possess the command and control facilities of the Albion.
Besides, Ocean is soon to enter refit next year. So it was pretty much an Albion/Bulwark choice.

Well, there are hopes that they will enter service because of a good few considerations:

-They have already screwed upon the Nimrod. Can they dare screwing on the carriers too? After scrapping Ark Royal, besides…? Risky. Defence might not be considered a vote-winner, but lots of people would totally loathe seeing the carriers being wasted.

-If the nation has to retain a bit of capacity for indipendent action, there’s no way it can be done without carriers.

-Not have the CVFs will actually not just mean the end of Carrier Strike, but almost nearly kill off amphibious warfare and Royal Marines altogether: with Ocean not going to be replaced by a dedicate platform, and the Commandos expected to operate from CVF that will be at this point more of a “Sea Base” than a real carrier, if you lose the CVFs as well you are left with just the LPDs and LSD(A). Even with the refit allowing Bulwark (and in future Albion) to operate 2 Chinooks, and not one, and so along, an amphibious group would have no hangar at all, very limited helicopter facilities and support, and a total of perhaps 7 Chinook in total in the very best case in which 2 are embarked on each LPD and 1 on each LSD(A), assuming, between other things, that every single amphib left can be put at sea as part of the ARG.

-Without carriers, at the point we have reached, there’s not even navy anymore. It would be more of a glorified coastguard.

-The RAF might finally be moderately supportive of the carriers, because they probably have realized that, without them, they might be ordered to do everything with just 5 frontline squadrons of Typhoon AND THAT IS IT FOR FAST JETS.

-Without carriers to refit, maintain and support, 50 years worth of secure work and occupation for thousands of persons will be gone and vanish.

And many other good reasons.

Meanwhile, some news from the RAF:

Britain may halve its fast-jet fleet by 2020 or so, according to the commanding officer of the Royal Air Force’s No. 1 Group.

“We are heading for five Typhoon squadrons and one JSF [Joint Strike Fighter] squadron,” said Air Vice-Marshal Greg Bagwell, who commands the RAF’s air combat group. “It will be a six-squadron world; that’s what’s on the books.”

That could mean 107 Typhoons, plus about 40 F-35C JSFs that support a large operational squadron of 20 to 25 crews, Bagwell said.

Considering that a squadron has more crews than airplanes, 25 crews would suggest no more than 20 operative airframes.
Unless the RAF-oriented speech is not reporting that 12 of the airframes go to – say – 800 NAS, we are looking at:

– a Fleet Air Arm without fixed wing airplanes AT ALL
– a RAF horribly wasteful which uses half or less of the airplanes it buys. Spare airframes are good, but this is getting ridicolous. Why Israel, which works airframes even harder than the RAF, can buy 22 F35 and use practically them ALL and the RAF needs to buy 40 to operate MAYBE 20???? This practice has to finish, it can’t be sustained anymore with the ever-shrinking numbers of planes available.

Typhoon numbers could be clipped even further if Britain and Oman seal a deal to send the Persian Gulf nation about a squadron’s worth of aircraft. The planes could be diverted from an existing RAF order; the question is whether they will then later be replaced, he said.

In 1990, the RAF had 33 fast-jet squadrons; in 2003, 17. Today, the number stands at 12: seven Tornado, three Typhoon and two Harrier squadrons, plus the offensive firepower of a growing fleet of Reaper UAVs.

By April, Britain will be down to eight fast-jet squadrons, thanks to the retirement of the Harriers and the shelving of two Tornado units.

I couldn’t resist highligting that simple passage. It is HORRENDOUS.

“Six squadrons is the low point for the U.K.’s fast jet fleet,” one analyst said. “You can expect that to recover a little as the Ministry of Defence bolsters its force of Joint Strike Fighters beyond the current level mandated in the new strategic defense and security review.”

Bagwell was less sanguine. He called the first JSF squadron a “start point” and said more may come, but for the moment, “I expect a single squadron in 2020 and that’s it.”

Other senior RAF officers have said they aim eventually to operate around 100 F-35Cs, which will split their time operating from land bases and from the new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers being built for the Royal Navy.

The idea is that the UK will be buying 40 airframes as part of the 2020 target. This will allow a “large squadron” of both front-line and OCU airframes operating under a single squadron organization, apparently.
The 40 airframes could (but they also could not) include 12 assigned to the Fleet Air Arm – if the admirals are noisy enough to make the government listen and recognize that a carrier without at least a hint of airgroup is REALLY a laughing stock.

After 2020, in time, more airframes are expected to be bought, up to a long-term target of possibly around 100 total airframes.
It could mean restoring a force of 4 squadrons or so of Strike Aircrafts plus the OCU detachment, (5 squadrons with 800 NAS) compliant with what is going to happen from April when 96 Tornado GR4 will operate in 5 + OCU squadrons.

Bagwell also revealed:

■ The 2011 planning round could change the timing of the upgrade of Typhoon jets to a full multirole aircraft. Dubbed the Future Capabilities Program 2, it will allow the jets to carry Storm Shadow, Brimstone and other weapons.

[the idea is that this process will be speeded up, possibly, giving the RAF far more capable Typhoons at the cost of losing a significant part of the Tornado force earlier than the 2021 OSD]

■ The decision to switch the planned purchase of short-takeoff, vertical-landing F-35Bs to the conventional carrier C version will give the Air Force a true deep-penetration capability.

■ The Sentinel R1 surveillance capability, to be axed by the government after the Afghanistan war, could be replaced through programs like the Scavenger UAV and new active electronically scanned array radars on Typhoon and JSF.

■ The 2011 planning round may speed up creation of the final two Typhoon squadrons, now slated for 2015, by as much as a year.

Bagwell told reporters that the date on which the RAF hits six squadrons would depend in part on Ministry of Defence decisions about the drawdown of the Tornado strike aircraft as Typhoons arrive.

“We still need to hold on to a portion of the Tornado force, and it will be a very important decision for the next defense review [expected in 2015] as to how the crossover is achieved between Typhoon and Tornado,” he said. “My gut instinct is that we will need at least two or three Tornado squadrons at the 2017 point, keeping the squadron numbers at the six to eight figure.”

The Tornado fleet is currently scheduled to retire in 2021. The government recently announced a reduction in the number of Tornados required to sustain ongoing operations, known as force elements, from 40 to 18 by 2015.

Elizabeth Quintana, head of air power and technology at the Royal United Services Institute, said she didn’t think air power suffered worse in the cuts than many other sectors.

“The benefit is that unlike the Army [spared the worst of the cuts due to the war in Afghanistan], the Air Force now knows what its configuration is going to look like in the 2017-2020 timeframe,” she said. “Where aircraft numbers are going in the future and what impact unmanned combat air vehicles might have is too early to say. F-35 and Typhoon give you more capable platforms but with fewer numbers.”

She noted that synthetic training will reduce the number of aircraft kept off the front lines.

Whole article: http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=5211718&c=EUR&s=AIR

It could be done by having one in commission, plus one if reserve but ready to be regenerated quickly, i.e. not in deep reserve.

Huh. No.
If Prince of Wales is not fitted with catapults (very likely) it won’t be a proper reserve for QE, unless we have a couple of years of early warning from any enemy to pull her out of reserve and fit her with the needed equipment, put her at sea, try her and get her a crew.
Equipment (cats and traps) that would have to be stored somewhere in the UK, because it would take even more YEARS to get PoW ready if it was to be ordered yet.
So, no. It wouldn’t work.

It could only work pulling her out and using her as LPH, that she could do.

But that would not answer to the requirement, because there wouldn’t be anymore a LPH available for the fleet save in extreme circumstances.

It would only work if Prince of Wales was kitted out, kept in reserve for the first few years, and then regenerated fully to take on LPH role (with secondary role of Carrier-Strike fallback platform when her sister is unavailable) when HMS Ocean is retired in 2022 or whenever.

I don’t think it is sci-fi, goddamnit. It is just about using the money that kept Ocean running until the day before to get PoW finally in full working shape. I’m not advocating for 10 Carrier Strike groups with nuclear DDGs as escorts… XD

Otherwise, it will work just as well as a C130 chasing an Akula in place of a Nimrod.
AKA= political lie.

First EMALS Aircraft Launch Test expected before Christmas in the US:

“The shot should take place within a couple of weeks,” said Rob Koon, a spokesman for Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR). Asked if the engineers were trying to make the launch before Christmas, Koon replied, “that’s what they’re hoping for.”

And more detail:

An F/A-18E Super Hornet strike fighter is now being instrumented for the launch, Koon said. Test data is being analyzed for safety issues to obtain the necessary flight clearances.

The launch will take place at NAVAIR’s facility at the Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst, N.J., where the service and prime contractor General Atomics have built a full-scale test site replicating a shipboard installation, including major software and hardware components.

The development team began shooting test “dead-loads” from the system in the spring, Koon said. Since then, 722 dead-load launches have been made at speeds of up to 180 knots, the highest end-speed requirement for the system. The launch tests are part of the program’s system functional demonstration phase.

If the Super Hornet launch is successful, other types of carrier aircraft will be tested next year, including C-2 carrier-on-board-delivery planes and T-45 Goshawk jet trainers.

Koon said the EMALS program remains on track to deliver its first components to the new aircraft carrier in 2011.

General Atomics made something of a statement of confidence on July 13, when it agreed to a $676.2 million fixed-price contract to produce the EMALS system and a new advanced arresting gear installation for the carrier.

676.2 millions to equip the new CVN of the US Navy. That means 4 catapults plus a complete barrier system for landings.

A very, very rough estimate for HMS Queen Elizabeth, which is going to have only two catapults, would give a cost possibly as low as 169 USD million dollars for catapults and barrier both.
With, say, 400 USD millions, both CVF could be properly kitted out. At current trade rate, thats a 254 millions pounds for BOTH carriers. Of course, this is the cost of the mere acquisition for the components: there will still be to factor in the re-design and installation…

But the cost estimates that were announced some time ago sound truly off. Too damn high. With 500 million pounds likely both carriers could comfortably be kitted out, seeing the price reported in the US contract.
Unless of course, buying american is deemed too smart and the UK re-develops something already existing by drowning in money the Converteam technicians to size-up their 450 kg-sized EMKIT.
Not a smart thing that would be.

Here is the full article too:
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=5192796&c=AME&s=AIR

For the F35C, by the sound of the SDSR, we’ll be looking, if very lucky, at a single Navy squadron, (800 NAS i’m guessing) plus a number of RAF Squadrons, three plus OCU is my guess, and this is the lucky case.

However, of course, i’d like a lot more to see a 50/50 arrangement in the new Joint Combat Aircraft Force, with both 800 and 801 NAS reformed, with the RAF equipping 617° and 13° Squadrons with F35C with a small OCU/OEU. Most of the training of the pilots would be done in the US to save money and airframes both.

If we are to take the Tornado fleet as an indication, we have a future target fleet of 96 (down from 133) Tornado GR4, with OSD 2021, in 6 Squadrons (two will be closed down next year, along with an air base).
My understanding is that the 6 Squadrons will actually be 5 + OCU.
If so, 5 x 12 = 60 active frontline airframes on 96 total.

To have 48 F35C in 4 frontline squadrons plus an OCU/OEU, the total F35C buy would have to be around 76/77 up to possibly 80 airframes.
In the very worst case, with the F35C costing 145 million dollars a piece, a buy of 80 airframes with spares and everything would thus cost 7341 million pounds. (Out of an original F35 acquisition budget estimated in 8000 millions; then ballooned to well over 10.000 and other even more sci-fi amounts the anti-military press bragged about).

Two things can help the F35 buy: a strong pound over the dollar, and LM/US Navy efforts to lower the cost of the plane significantly.

I used the 145 million dollars figure because apparently the US Navy has paid this amount for the 4 F35C ordered for the test phase. (I divided the amount paid by the US Navy on the 4 airframes bought, very empiric)
The UK has been asked to pay 119 millions for its single F35B, with the 16 F35B ordered by the Marines costing just about 105 millions each.

Obviously, details are not fully revealed, but these figures could be tricky.
The US Marines’s 16 F35B are listed under a lower cost than the UK one probably because the tail of spares and other cost voices for their planes has been calculated on the US Navy bill instead. (US Navy is responsible for Marines aviation too)
In theory, (again, my own attempt to read in the depths of the contract), the F35B with spares and such should cost the same. It is the same aircraft, and there’s no reason why the US Marines would pay 105 millions a piece and the UK 119. The 224 millions “missing” from the US Marines bill are likely to be factured in the US Navy one, along with the funding for the next missions of the Test programme itself, for both F35C and B variants.

If my analysis was true, the actual F35C cost could be closer actually to 90 millions a-piece.

The USAF is paying roughly 110.6 millions a-piece its F35A, but then again, this is not the price of the plane alone, but the plane+spares, engines and continuation of the Test flights for the A variant.

Lokheed Martin was awarded about $3.5 billion modification covering the procurement of 31 aircraft. Including the long-lead funding previously received, the total contract value for LRIP 4 is $3.9 billion. This contract represents an average cost of $105-109 million per A and B type aircraft, excluding long lead funding, or $125 per aircraft on average, including all costs. This cost is well above the Pentagon estimated rate, yet, this amount allocates the necessary funding for flight testing, and other developmental activities that may not be necessary in future procurement.

The current lot includes 10 conventional take-off and landing aircraft for the U.S. Air Force (31.6% of the cost); 16 short take-off vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft for the U.S. Marine Corps (48.4%); one STOVL aircraft for the United Kingdom Royal Navy (3.4%); and four carrier variant aircraft for the U.S. Navy (16.6%).

This kind of contracts are always murky, especially for the outside public who does not knows the details. But i tried making something useful out of the little available, and some interesting observations come out.

In the meanwhile, it has surfaced that the Italian Air Force is more than likely to drop the requirement for its own spare of F35B, scared by costs, ongoing US rumours and suggestion of cancelling the variant altogether as cost-saving measure, and so along. The number of required airframes is also going to shrink (no surprise! This happens everytime, everywhere… But to be sincere, here it only makes sense: the air force wanted 40 F35B and 67 F35A, plus 22 F35B for the Navy!!!! Frankly oversized for Italy… XD).
Obviously, the Navy said that Italy remains committed to the F35B (since it is the only thing which can fly off the Cavour unless the Harrier II has to keep flying for 25 more years!) for the navy requirement of 22 planes. I can imagine the Navy is a lot nervous about the cancellation rumours, too…

In the end, i guess Italy will buy around 70 F35A and 22 F35B (i don’t think cancellation is really possible, despite groups of the US Parliament calling for it…). And that would sincerely not be bad anyway, also because the italian air force is not “spare-airframes” hungry as the RAF seems to be. Likely the AMI will have more active F35 squadrons than the RAF even with less airframes.

True, the AMI collects a lot less flying hours than the RAF on average… But are we sure the RAF is justified in keeping SO MANY airframes as spares, i always wonder…?

will never leave pax river.

Highly doubt so. I don’t think the 3 UK Test aircrafts were in any time planned to never leave the US, but even so, it makes no real sense. The UK can and should finance one of the F35C test aircrafts instead, and let the US Navy (which funds the F35B of the Marines too) deal with the F35B.

on Taliban using SAMs: if China and Iran do give them weapons, than I’m extremely surprised that they’ve not used these already. but if they would, it’s not so much the UAVs I’m worried about, as the helicopters: more expensive, harder to replace, full of soldiers or valuable equipment, and much easier to detect than a UAV

I think there have been several engagements with manpads over Afghanistan. Some did indeed cause losses to the coalition too.

The US military covered up a reported surface-to-air missile strike by the Taliban that shot down a Chinook helicopter over Helmand in 2007 and killed seven soldiers, including a British military photographer, the war logs show.

The strike on the twin-rotor helicopter shows the Taliban enjoyed sophisticated anti-aircraft capabilities earlier than previously thought, casting new light on the battle for the skies over Afghanistan.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/25/afghanistan-taliban-missile-strike-chinook

China does not want to encourage wild Islamic extremists who want to bring the entire world under the Caliphate. There are too many disaffected Muslims in China for that. No, it’s not logical.

Maybe. But i keep thinking that, in a way or another, Talibans get a lot of weaponry from nearby China.
The west struck in a complex and bloody mess in Afghanistan…? Too tempting not to make some efforts to make it last.

I don’t think it is too much of a problem, especially if LEAPP continues to go well and delivers all the capability it promises. At that point, cueing the CAMMs won’t be a problem.

But i can agree that maintaining the possibility to use an IR seeker would have had its advantages.
However, the modular nature of CAMM does not rule it out at all: with CAMM expected to influence the future upgrades of the ASRAAM just as the current ASRAAM influenced the CAMM design, i guess an IR seeker will always be a feasible option.

What i really wish for is for a functional secondary surface-attack capability. That would be a major plus.