40? Why that many?

Well……….. when the Cold war we were left with ton of medium range strike aircraft designed for low level penetration into eastern Europe to deliver tactical nuclear weapons, as we moved into a more expeditionary strategy I’ve often thought what the RAF really needed was range. I’ve often thought that the Tornados would have been better replaced by something between a Canberra and a Vulcan.

yeh, you know i woke up this morning in a cold sweat and thought to myself “You only mentioned two types, not the rest of the possible visitors!”:)

You are quite right, obviously there are other types that will appear on deck, but I was kind of referring to day in day out operations (and probably needed to add Wildcat to that list).

I know we are going to differ here, but I am hoping that the RN and all of its little wizards in the MOD have more vision than wanting to operate their massive carriers with only a handful of F35Bs and whatever helicopters other people want to fly off of their decks when situations require….

So as I said, I’m thinking more along the lines of post 2020 (not quite a decade from now I know) rather than as soon as QE is operational.

I’m wanting V22 of some sort (unless they are going to borrow a couple of the ubiquitous Chinooks to perform the COD mission) and the ability to launch UAVs. Ultimately both carriers should be UCAV capable.

By the way, halloweene has hinted (as is his way) that the Anglo/French UCAV now has to be carrier capable. Has anyone heard anything like that? Obviously that has some impact on the construction and possible use of EM catapults.

Well I’m also sure that the RN/MOD would like other stuff flying off the QE class, unfortunately I can’t see much coming from it because of lack of funds, and should any more funds appear I strongly suspect they would just elect to buy more F35B.

As for the Anglo/French UCAV I can see why they would want it to be carrier capable (I would too in their shoes), unfortunately for us that means it has to CATOBAR and we’ve effectively ruled out conversion at least in short and mid term anyway.

Incidently this seems like adecent enough place to post this:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]220613[/ATTACH]

We aren’t buying EMALS so it doesn’t affect them.

I understand all that, I just think that they are testing out all the kit that will be on the market and getting to understand how it will operate, whilst at the same time making a very very tentative commitment to having it on deck when it might be needed.

I suppose its all about timing, and you know better than me whether the MOD would prefer to carry on with the Seakings (assuming that is what will happen in the gap where Crowsnest is not available) whilst this system eventually becomes operational.

2017 is a long way off in terms of MOD budgeting and planning (and 2022 is even further)and I just wonder if they are doing some preparatory work whilst highlighting the potential costs of what they are doing…

The Seakings are being binned before Crowsnest becomes available, can’t remember the date, it’s another gapped capability to save money.

Some money has been made available for design studies etc, but as you say it’s more than a little tentative and many think it’s rather short-sighted for the carriers to go into service without it.

What a terrible article. Is David Axe the American Lewis Page?

It came up in a freedom of information request recently, it is a sensible solution in all respects. Eventually they can make a decision down the line of they want to add the capability to all six. Personally I think it is sill the recent talk about adding strike length silos to the T45, the money is far better spent getting as many capabilities on the T26.

I think a lot of that comes from examinations of what the Navy has to offer in situations like Syria now, without an aircraft carrier and with so few SSNs/with limited stocks of Tomahawks it looks like the RN is rather lacking in teeth right now.

With the RN why VL Exocet? The UK moved to Harpoon due to how poor Exocet was. Also Tomahawk doesn’t represent British industry, Naval SCALP would be better for the UK with regards to industry and independence. Could the US stop the UK using Tomahawk against Argentina for example?

Is there much in Naval Scalp (or whatever they’ve called it now) that’s British? the Broach warhead has gone.