Low start
Recently, special attention has been focused on the F-35B short takeoff and vertical landing fighter. Let us remind you that he delivered the first airstrikes in its history in a real combat situation. The plane attacked the targets of the Taliban in Afghanistan. This landmark debut was overshadowed by a very unpleasant incident: another F-35B crashed in Beaufort County, South Carolina. The pilot managed to eject. It is worth saying that the losses of the F-35 have occurred before, only they were the result of less serious incidents. In particular, one of them occurred on October 27, 2016 in the area of Beaufort Air Force Base in North Carolina, when a car caught fire during a training flight. The pilot was able to return the plane home, but then they decided not to restore the damaged aircraft.
Another important recent event (both the F-35 and the British Navy programs) was the first landings and takeoffs of F-35B aircraft on the British aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth. On September 25, 2018, two fifth-generation fighters boarded the new aircraft carrier off the American coast for the first time. In the future, they will become the basis of the air group of ships of this type and, in fact, the basis of the entire tactical strike potential of the Royal Navy. And for many decades and without any real alternatives.
After landing, these machines performed a springboard start from the deck. Both aircraft, by the way, belong to the American Marines, but were piloted by British pilots. The first landings were made by Royal Navy Commander Nathan Gray and Royal Air Force squadron leader Andy Edgell. They symbolize the two branches of the British armed forces that will jointly operate the new Lightning: the Navy and the Air Force. According to plans, test flights of the F-35B from the deck of Queen Elizabeth will last eleven weeks, during which time the pilots will have to perform more than five hundred landings on the deck. By the way, the bmpd blog, published under the auspices of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, drew attention to the fact that the British media strongly politicized this event, pointing out the connection between the trials and the difficult British-Russian relations. However, now is not about that.
What is "Queen Elizabeth"
Britain, of course, no longer pretends to be the "Lady of the Seas". However, the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers had to show: "we are the first after the Americans." These ships became the largest ships ever built for the Royal Navy. The total displacement of the aircraft carrier exceeds 70 thousand tons. The crew of the ship is 600 people, another 900 people are the personnel of the air group. It includes up to fifty aircraft. It is noteworthy that a number of very popular sources, including the Russian-language "Wikipedia", still point to the F-35C, although the presence of a springboard on the deck of the Queen Elizabeth, as well as the absence of a catapult, opaquely hint that the British have long opted for the F- 35B. In total, Great Britain wants to receive two ships of this type. The last one - HMS Prince of Wales - is still under construction. They want to start testing it in 2019.
A drop in the sea
Of course, there is no point in drawing an analogy between the British Queen Elizabeth and, for example, the American "Gerald R. Ford". Formally, both ships belong to the aircraft carrier class. However, in practice, "Queen Elizabeth" is closer in capabilities to heavy aircraft-carrying cruisers, or rather to their hypothetical more successful versions. True, without shock weapons like Granit missiles. In theory, the Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers can carry up to 90 aircraft, including the fifth generation F-35C fighters, which, of course, is incomparably larger than the Queen Elizabeth air group. But the question is not only about quantity.
It is no secret that the Harriers, previously used as carrier-based fighters of the British Navy, did not fully justify themselves. Therefore, back in 2002, the British military department announced that the F-35 in modification "B" was chosen as a fixed-wing aircraft for future aircraft carriers. In 2009, the British discussed a version of equipping new aircraft carriers with a catapult, and possibly an electromagnetic one, like the Gerald R. Ford. However, subsequently, the desire to save money was prompted to abandon the catapult and the air arrestor, and the F-35B was finally chosen as the basis of the air group. However, the word "economy" can be applied to any aircraft carrier only very conditionally. Thus, the estimated cost of the program for the construction of two British ships is 6, 2 billion pounds. An astronomical amount, even for a far from poor UK.
Further discussion of the program, in general, is in the light of the capabilities of the Lightning. And here for the British there is frankly little good news. Even if we assume that the F-35B really has outstanding stealth performance (its EPR, as you know, is classified), this does not at all make this vehicle a "wunderwaffe". There are many other important indicators, and specifically for carrier-based aircraft, the combat radius has always been of particular importance. It was this characteristic that at one time made the Japanese "Zero" a truly serious machine that could change the course of World War II.
What do we have in the case of the new Lightnings? On the official website of the manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, the combat radius for the F-35A is 1093 kilometers. For the F-35C, this figure is 1,100 kilometers, and for the F-35B chosen by the British - 833 kilometers. As far as can be judged, in all cases we are talking about an exclusively internal fuel supply, which is quite logical, since any outboard fuel tanks dramatically increase the radar signature of a fifth generation fighter, nullifying all the efforts of their developers.
Recently, by the way, the most "long-range" version of the fighter - the F-35C - was criticized for its insufficient combat radius. And not The National Interest or some other Western media, but the US House of Representatives Committee on the Armed Forces. According to experts, the problem is that the aircraft carriers on which the F-35C will be based will have to stay at a great distance from the enemy in order not to become a victim of a missile attack. As you know, the target range of the Russian aeroballistic missile "Dagger" is estimated at 1,500 kilometers. A very original Chinese ballistic anti-ship missile DF-21D has approximately the same range. Experts point out that if the fleet is forced to keep aircraft carriers at a safe distance of 1,800 kilometers from the target, then the F-35C will need tanker aircraft that are clearly visible on radars to complete their tasks. However, the tankers will reveal the location of the fighters, putting them in jeopardy.
As for the F-35B, its modest combat radius of 800 kilometers may not be enough for almost anything: even a relatively weak enemy such as Argentina could become a problem in theory. Having a good range (up to 1000 kilometers), the JASSM-ER cruise missile is too large for the internal compartments of the F-35B, so it can only carry it on external holders, which eliminates stealth. The small-sized SPEAR cruise missile cannot boast of a very long range at all, and the longer-range Norwegian Joint Strike Missile (JSM) is optimized for use from the internal compartments of the F-35A and F-35C. In general, technical limitations do not allow the F-35B's bays to be as spacious as other versions. This is a serious disadvantage, which will certainly affect the combat effectiveness of ships such as Queen Elizabeth. Any small ammunition like GBU-39 can be made even smaller, more accurate or less noticeable. But there is no way to increase the range to the level of a full-fledged cruise missile.
Is it worth the announced £ 6 billion? The question is, to say the least, difficult. Actually, the F-35B itself is not a bad car. It was created for the American amphibious assault ships with their small space on the deck, where there really is no alternative for the "B" version. Therefore, as some experts have rightly noted earlier, the F-35B is worth every cent spent on it, even if the aircraft can only be used as an attack aircraft with limited self-defense capabilities.
However, the dimensions of Queen Elizabeth could be suitable for "catapult" fighters, in particular, the already mentioned F-35C. Perhaps the most surprising thing in this story is that the far from new French aircraft carrier, which is incomparably smaller than the Queen Elizabeth, has two C-13F steam catapults, manufactured in France under an American license. A carrier-based fighter Dassault Rafale boasts a combat radius of 1400 kilometers, even with the use of PTB.
It is worth adding another feature of the British ship - a very symbolic defensive armament. According to previously reported data, Queen Elizabeth was equipped with three Phalanx CIWS anti-aircraft artillery systems, consisting of a radar and a six-barreled 20-mm cannon for firing at low-flying targets. To repel attacks from the sea, the ship was equipped with four 30-mm DS30M automatic cannons, as well as various machine guns. In this sense, compared to the Queen Elizabeth, even the Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov looks like an incredibly protected ship. The use of two superstructures on the deck raises questions: such a solution, at least, increases the chance of accidents during takeoffs, landings, as well as maneuvering on the deck, and besides, this scheme clearly does not make the ship cheaper (however, as already said, this is not at all the same the case where you need to save). But these difficulties pale against the backdrop of the limited capacity of the Queen Elizabeth air group. Taking them into account, the new British aircraft carriers look like they have a prosthesis instead of the notorious "long arm". And there is no need to count on its replacement.
