this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2025
186 points (98.4% liked)

World News

48456 readers
2351 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 37 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Buying the stupid variant of the F-35 sure was a very wise decision.

[–] FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world 14 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Give the Marines a couple to play with, sure, but ALL of them are the version with reduced fuel capacity and no tail hook? VTOL is cool but not that cool.

[–] Impound4017@sh.itjust.works 29 points 2 days ago (2 children)

The thing to remember is that the UK doesn’t have any CATOBAR capable carriers, so the only F-35 variant they can fly from their carriers is the VTOL capable one.

[–] FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I actually didn’t know that, figured we’d be sharing the electromagnetic one from the Gerald Ford. Certainly wasn’t helped by retiring the Harrier early but seems a wiser strategic move to build a better carrier than keep buying nerfed jets

[–] Impound4017@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You would think, right? They actually originally planned to include CATOBAR capabilities in their new build carriers, but budget cuts due to the cost of it forced them to scrap the idea, and then the rest of the purchase decisions followed as a result.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I believe they can still be retrofitted, right?

Obviously that would mean extensive time in dock.

[–] Impound4017@sh.itjust.works 3 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

I suppose you could but it would be both incredibly time consuming and incredibly expensive, and you’d be more likely to end up with a worse carrier than if you’d just built in those launch capabilities in the first place.

You’d need to rip out the deck, and then retrofit it and the internals to accommodate the rail and launch system. You’d also need to reinforce the deck and remove the ski jump as the jets you’re flying will now be heavier and the jump will just get in the way of the launch system. The system itself could either be electromagnetic (like the EMALS system) but that would require several times the current energy output of a Queen Elizabeth class carrier, so would involve extensive engine upgrades. You could use steam instead, but you have a similar problem in that a whole bunch of infrastructure that you didn’t design space for now has to fit. You’d also probably have to overhaul the fueling, munitions, and maintenance facilities to accommodate the new jets. I’m sure there are other things that would have to be adapted but this is just from the top of my head.

All told, you’d probably be spending a similar amount or more to building a new carrier in order to take one of your own carriers offline for years and at the end of it you’d be left with an incredibly expensive carrier which would likely still be subpar to something custom built for this purpose.

TLDR: You could, but it’d involve a lot of work, a lot of money, a lot of trade offs, and would be unlikely to yield something better than if you’d just put that money into building a new carrier.

[–] wewbull@feddit.uk 2 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

What I meant was I thought I'd read that because the design originally had those elements in place, the QE class carriers had left the design characteristics in place to support the launch systems, in particular the structural load bearing aspects.

Not that they'd need a ground up refit.

Certainly the navy is looking a the possibility of doing this.

https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/cne-2023/2023/06/uk-project-ark-royal-catapult-aircraft-carriers/

https://www.twz.com/royal-navy-wants-to-refit-its-carriers-with-catapults-arresting-wires

[–] Impound4017@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 hour ago

Interesting question! I hadn’t heard about the royal navy looking into this recently! The last I was aware they had discussed retrofitting the QE carriers around 2011-2012, but the project cost estimation at that time was ~£2b, two thirds of the approximate procurement cost of one carrier at ~£3b.

I wasn’t able to find anything definitive about if this more recent proposed retrofit will go forward, but I will say that the UK’s 2025 Strategic Defense Review white paper specifies in section 7.2 they will be using F-35B for their carrier air wings. The full section is as follows:

The Royal Navy must continue to move towards a more powerful but cheaper and simpler fleet, developing a ‘high-low’ mix of equipment and weapons that exploits autonomy and digital integration. Carrier strike is already at the cutting-edge of NATO capability but much more rapid progress is needed in its evolution into ‘hybrid’ carrier airwings, whereby crewed combat aircraft (F-35B) are complemented by autonomous collaborative platforms in the air, and expendable, single-use drones. Plans for the hybrid carrier airwings should also include long-range precision missiles capable of being fired from the carrier deck.”

My guess is that they found similar results to the previous time they looked into retrofitting the carriers. The language here makes me think they’re moving toward more drone integration (manned-unmanned teaming is all the rage right now) in order to offload extra munitions and capabilities to autonomous platforms which compliment and counterbalance the weight limitation weaknesses of F-35B rather than broadening the scope of their available air wing, but it’s hard to say as I didn’t see any mention for or against the retrofits in that whitepaper. Definitely something to keep an eye on, though, as I doubt they would have reconsidered the retrofits in the first place without some reason to make it potentially more viable. Good looking out!

[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

They do look like Really Sweet Ramps™ though. You could probably clear 25-30 garbage cans if you used Jimmy's Diamondback.

[–] elucubra@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Nor the Italians nor the Spanish. The UK, Italy and Spain (And the Turks, Japanese, Australians, and probably others) are SOl, because they are forced to replace their Harriers with F35s, which are the only modern VTOL/STOVL, but have the whole "The US has you by the balls" thing.

[–] Impound4017@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I mean, they’re not forced to, it’s just a problem that requires tradeoffs. For example, France operates the CATOBAR-capable carrier Charles de Gaulle and specifically doesn’t fly F-35, choosing instead to fly the 4th gen Rafale for the express purpose of maintaining strategic autonomy.

Plus, unless you’re an island nation or doing expeditionary operations (i.e. the power projection game) you probably have little need for a carrier in the first place.

If you’ll only settle for a 5th gen jet that’s carrier capable, though, yeah you’re kinda out of luck. Su-57 is hardly even a 5th gen jet in the first place, and even if the Admiral Kuznetsov wasn’t continuously catching fire in dry dock, the jet still couldn’t launch from it for a variety of design reasons. Same story with China’s J-20. China IS developing J-35 for carrier operations, though, and the jet has launched from both STOBAR and CATOBAR carriers in tests from what I understand, but I don’t imagine they’ll export those for a VERY long time.

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The whole idea of the F-35B is dumb and has been a huge albatross for the whole program.

[–] cfi@lemmy.world 15 points 2 days ago

The Brits also added an absurd amount of pressure by retiring the Harrier early, leaving the entire Royal Navy with no carrier-capable fixed-wing aircraft until the F-35Bs were delivered

[–] altphoto@lemmy.today 8 points 2 days ago

Please do announce this louder. I'm getting used to being in public places, going to work and having family members. Reality is that I need a Chinese murder drone chasing me all day long.