UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C

[old_rn]

I like the names for F-35 parking areas, I don’t recall if US carriers do this.

That makes 45 on the deck + 20 in the hanger, or 65 a/c?

[spazsinbad]

45 annotated F-35Bs on deck PLUS one unannotated on centreline cribbed from the hangar lot - so therefore only 19 in it?

Earlier some bigwig said "64" so perhaps only 18 F-35Bs remain in the hangar to make the numbers square to 'when I'm 64'!

[spazsinbad]

The doco series was about the 1st test period at end of 2018. Apparently there will be more episodes at end of 2019 tests.

NOPE. No more doco series I'm told via e-mail. As indicated earlier SRVL tests continue aboard PRINCE of WALES in 2021.

[spazsinbad]

The game of 'how many aircraft can one fit into an aircraft carrier' is the 'never-ending story' - here is but onesuch & two:

https://www.slideshare.net/robbinlaird/ ... t-carriers (PDF 2Mb) I spy a V-22! With my little eye.
&
https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.file ... andhms.gif

[spazsinbad]

More pitchas than youse can stick a poke at in this artickle with some JPGs repeats of course so only one shown below:

Photo essay: HMS Queen Elizabeth – Westlant 19 deployment – Part 4 22 Nov 2019 SaveTheRoyalNavy

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/photo- ... nt-part-4/

Photo: "7 jets on deck" https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/wp-con ... n-deck.jpg

[zerion]

Via Twitter

Our #UKF35 Lightning’s have flown their carrier nest - marking the end of this historic phase of #WESTLANT19 operational tests. If you like this teaser, click here https://youtu.be/wXmnnFcGVSE for the full video, and come back here to tell us what you think!
@RoyalNavy
@RoyalAirForce

https://mobile.twitter.com/hmsqnlz/stat ... 8642832388

[spazsinbad]

For those interested in 'aviation watches' here is the UK F-35B Test Pilot watch from video above - nothing fancy - I like it.

[spazsinbad]

Wrapping up the F-35 First of Class flight Trials on HMS Queen Elizabeth 29 Nov 2018 SaveTheRoyalNavy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6wGN8PK9u4 [referenced by the 'goodstevenwondering' earlier but not obviously]

viewtopic.php?f=58&t=15969&p=429345&hilit=goodness#p429345 [page 150 this thread 31 Oct 2019]

[mixelflick]

The 65 Lightening loadout... is that for HMS QE??

If so, I didn't realize it could carry that many. With those kind of numbers, they're not messing around and can really bring the pain. My reference point was the Falklands, and the pittance of Harriers deployed on their carrier there. It was an absolute miracle IMO they were able to establish air superiority vs. the much larger numbers of Argentine Mirages.

You really have to hand it to the brits/RAF, they always rise to the occassion no matter what the odds...

[spazsinbad]

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding. The CVF / QE deck diagram illustrating deck spot names and F-35B / aircraft spots only shows this. How would 64 F-35Bs operate from one QE Class deck? IF the hangar and deck are jam packed where do the necessary support helos go/operate. How are such a large number of F-35Bs supported? The recent UK brief diagram shows a more realistic aircraft fit out for a stated purpose: download/file.php?id=31858



'mixelflick' said above:

"...My reference point was the Falklands, and the pittance of Harriers deployed on their carrier there. It was an absolute miracle IMO they were able to establish air superiority vs. the much larger numbers of Argentine Mirages. You really have to hand it to the brits/RAF, they always rise to the occassion no matter what the odds..."

This meme that the RAF saved the Falklands is getting very old indeed. Yes the RAF have great PR and they still trumpet saving the UK during WWII. However let us not forget some facts about the Falklands War. The Royal Navy took the RN SHARS (Sea Harrier) and the RAF Harriers to the spot. The SHARS flew Fleet Defence sorties whilst the RAF GR3s flew mostly ground attack. A good read may be found in NON-RAF websites about the history & also in this forum - otherwise:

"...Falklands War
Sea Harriers took part in the Falklands War of 1982, flying from the aircraft carriers HMS Invincible and HMS Hermes. The Sea Harriers performed the primary air defence role with a secondary role of ground attack; the RAF Harrier GR3 provided the main ground attack force. A total of 28 Sea Harriers and 14 Harrier GR3s were deployed in the theatre. The Sea Harrier squadrons shot down 20 Argentine aircraft in air-to-air combat with no air-to-air losses, although two Sea Harriers were lost to ground fire and four to accidents. Out of the total Argentine air losses, 28% were shot down by Harriers. One Sea Harrier alone, flown by RAF Flight Lieutenant David Morgan, shot down two Skyhawks in a single encounter.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_A ... ea_Harrier

[madrat]

If not for a lapse of concern, Argentina would have never been able to assert control on the island to begin with. One submarine literally turned the tide, as it prevented Argentinian naval assets from leaving port. Sea superiority initiated an inevitable outcome. Air superiority only cemented that fact. One could argue the RN asserted true air superiority when Sea Wolf was established in the region, and Sea Harrier took undeserved credit.

[spazsinbad]

I don't have a problem with the Royal Navy being involved in the Falklands War however it is 'sliced & diced'. What is wrong is continual assertion that the RAF 'won the Falklands'. Sure they were involved & did well with the ROYAL NAVY.

Not forgetting ground forces involved but I guess I'm biased with a Naval Aviation focus/interest (less so about CRABS):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_g ... klands_War

[blindpilot]

I don't have a problem with the Royal Navy being involved in the Falklands War however it is 'sliced & diced'. What is wrong is continual assertion that the RAF 'won the Falklands'. Sure they were involved & did well with the ROYAL NAVY.

etc.

The Falklands War was complex with examples of great heroism, and some really bad mistakes that bordered on losing the war. It takes a deep dive to appreciate these. The Invincible SHARs basically maintained air control such that the fleet wasn't sunk. Not the Wolf's or the RAF,(or Hermes SHARs). Remember there were some serious ship losses, and that wasn't just because of the of the Exocets. The Argentines could have sunk the fleet with bombs, apart from Invincible's SHAR's. Add to this the very poor use of Hermes SHAR's (and in truth the AF GR's) the air war was dicey, great heroics aside.

Part of the issue with the Falklands is that there were enough mistakes/losses that more than a few lessons learned spilled out of that effort. It may not be as bad as the US performance in Grenada, but there are parallels.

Of course we need to keep in mind that the enemy can and does trip over it's own "shoe laces" as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjpgSEPk1TY (Sharkey Ward 1/4 30 minute parts)

MHO,
BP

PS don't forget the under table gift of AIM 9L's that made more than a slight impact on the results.

[quicksilver]

“The Falklands War was complex with examples of great heroism, and some really bad mistakes that bordered on losing the war. It takes a deep dive to appreciate these. The Invincible SHARs basically maintained air control such that the fleet wasn't sunk. Not the Wolf's or the RAF,(or Hermes SHARs). Remember there were some serious ship losses, and that wasn't just because of the of the Exocets. The Argentines could have sunk the fleet with bombs, apart from Invincible's SHAR's. Add to this the very poor use of Hermes SHAR's (and in truth the AF GR's) the air war was dicey, great heroics aside.

Part of the issue with the Falklands is that there were enough mistakes/losses that more than a few lessons learned spilled out of that effort. It may not be as bad as the US performance in Grenada, but there are parallels.

Of course we need to keep in mind that the enemy can and does trip over it's own "shoe laces" as well.”

x2

[madrat]

I agree with most everything posted. The Argentinian military hoped for a political outcome from the beginning and it never achieved that. The situational awareness of the RN really was the only reason Sea Harrier made their kills, and to do so meant not engaging the enemy with SAM assets. The Argentinian military could not sustain the losses of A-4s and it was crippling with each loss. Argentina had other enemies to contend with than just the British. The Super Etendard was the main mobile threat for locating RN ships once the Argentine navy was blockaded. Sending blind A-4 missions against the RN was an impossible hurdle to overcome. The RN never solved that riddle for years afterwards.