820 Naval Air Squadron recently embarked onboard HMS Queen Elizabeth, underscoring a clear message to unfriendly submarines: the flagship will be closely guarded.

As communicated through a recent tweet, their main charge during the UK Carrier Strike Group 23 (UKCSG23) mission is crystal clear.

Their task? To ensure that during pivotal moments, any unfriendly submarines are kept at a safe distance from HMS Queen Elizabeth.

The Royal Navy say that the aircraft carrier, crewed by up to 900 sailors, with her F-35 Lightning II stealth fighters and Merlin helicopters, will lead a mixed group of warships from various nations as they head to the Norwegian Sea and waters of northern Europe.

British carrier sails to lead powerful strike group

Defence Secretary Grant Shapps said:

“The UK leadership of this international strike group shows the strength of our commitment to working with Allies to promote security in Europe and demonstrate our resolve against any threat from potential adversaries. With both HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales deployed simultaneously, the Royal Navy sends a strong message that the UK’s capability for carrier operations is among the strongest in the world.”

The first phase of the deployment will see the carrier’s F35 fighter jets taking part in Exercise Cobra Warrior, the RAF’s largest bi-annual exercise, which will see aircraft from the Australia, Canada, Germany, Italy, Norway, and the UK taking part in joint exercises.

The 18-day exercise will involve RAF Typhoon and F35 jets, A400M and C17 transport aircraft, and Voyager air tankers, developing interoperability alongside allied aircraft and practicing integration between fourth and fifth generation fighter aircraft across air, sea, and land.

Commodore James Blackmore, Commander of the Carrier Strike Group, said:

“It is with much eagerness that the UK Carrier Strike Group is now assembling for deployed operations – the first time the UK CSG will be under my command. This autumn’s deployment showcases the UK’s capability to operate at range from the UK and demonstrates our continued commitment to North Atlantic security.

The Carrier Strike Group is an agile and highly capable force and we are excited to be heading to the North Sea and North Atlantic along with our International Partner Nations to reinforce security across the region.”

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

91 COMMENTS

  1. So that’s 5 Merlin, 2AEW and 3 for ASW. It does highlight the big issue with crowsnest and that is to have reasonable coverage it’s sucking up the airframes needed for ASW…really 4- 5 airframes is sitting around what you want for one of these functions. I don’t have an issue with crowsnest being rotor based but tying up the very expensive and very good but limited Merlin 2 cabs was a big compromise.

    • Evening Jonathan, totally agree.

      In reality, it would have been an order of magnitude cheaper, to send the old Sea King AEW7’s to Sea King specialist, Carson Helicopters in the US for complete structural and component rebuild and upgrades, then just carry out a mild counter obsolescence upgrade of the searchwater radar.

      Running a fleet of rebuilt AEW Sea Kings, under maintenance contract to Carson Helicopters would I am sure, have ended up being far cheaper than the current feasco.

      It could have been a 10 year interim solution to replacing AEW with a next generation platform and radar.

      The Crowsnest programme has been an expensive bloody nightmare, far from the simple solution it was once sold as. The fact that there is now a full on effort to move AEW onto a drone platform asap, shows there are issues with Crowsnest that simply can’t be fixed.

      Let’s hope this can be accomplished soon and the Merlin’s returned to their core task….

      • It would not have been cheaper to operate a small fleet of Sea Kings, with all the additional training costs for aircrews and engineers. Along with the engineering support for an additional aircraft type. It would just have sucked funds away from the Merlin fleet. Though I agree. Drones are probably the future of AEW. Cheaper, can operate closer to the enemy. And networked together could provide huge coverage.

        • Evening Robert, considering it was already in service, negating the training requirements.

          A rebuild of the existing fleet and return to service wouldn’t have cost more than the dreadful waste of money and airframes ( giving an already overworked fleet of 30 airframes a role they certainly didn’t need).

          Carson Helicopters know each and every rivet of the venerable Sea King, I would guarantee that back in 2008, they could have re-lifed the airframes and systems, plus fitted glass cockpits ( plus contractor searchwater system updates ) and given the RN back a refurbished and updated system, that quite frankly worked and was thoroughly understood.

          It turns out that mounting heavy equipment to the side of a composite helicopter is a decidedly bad idea! Astonishing that no-one worked that little issue out before project go-ahead…

          The cost of trying to bang a round peg though a square hole has been enormous….

          It’s interesting today that back in 2004, when AEW options for the Carrier were being considered, the Searchwater/ Merlin integration always depicted a HC3 type airframe, with the radar being hydraulically lowered and raised out of the rear….

          So someone initially certainly had a good handle on the potential issue, with a sensible solution, obviously that was forgotten!

          • Morning John. I don’t think the physical integration of the Search water 2000 system onto the Merlin airframe has been the cause of the delays. More the lack of Ada software coding experienced personnel, and the updated UK certification requirements for the UK military aviation authority. Crownsnest has to achieve 10:000 flight test points compared to the Merlins HM1’s original 4000 test points. Also a change in the requirements for what the RN wants the system to do mid project hasn’t helped. The system also had a lot of software instability issue’s that have now been resolved according to a recent Flight Global article. 👍

          • Cheers Robert, good to know things are finally getting there….

            I just find it incredible that what was supposed to be the safe, straight forward solution of migrating the capability from Sea King to Merlin, turned into an absolute nightmare and must have gone way over budget…

            It’s hard to see how these things get so thoroughly cocked up….

          • Italian was a cheap wack job that just made the radar antenna in the belly larger but not in height since there is no ground clearance, result vertical discrimination was not very good and the program was cancelled. There is no Italian Merlin AEW.

          • https://www.carsonhelicopters.com/

            Well, I’m not Sherlock Holmes, but I would probably pick up the phone and talk to Carson!

            Obviously, if I was working for the MOD, I would procrastinate over the issue, then have a couple of weeks jolly in the States, then procrastinate a bit more…..

            At this point I would obviously give the job to ( but what of the poor workers)Wastelands, who would sub contract the work to Carson Helicopters and tripple the bill….

            I think that’s how it works in the MOD anyway Alex, though to be fair, I may have missed out a few more foreign fact finding jollies along the way!

        • Personally I think they could have just increased the Merlin fleet..maybe rebuilding those unused MK1s or even a new build…but in the long run a good drone option is the way forward for AEW..after all what is king in AEW is persistence and loiter time.

          • Hi mate. Yes, those mk1’s would have been very handy. But not to be. Drones are the future of AEW. Stealthy, long endurance, networked together, along with the F35’s ISTAR capability, all forming a data cloud. That’s a huge area, and vast amounts of data could be hoovered up and shared across the task group.

    • Totally agree. Of all the roles AEW should in theory be best suited to using a UAV. You don’t need to flex between roles or prosecute targets, just get up very high and loiter on a racetrack plot feeding all the info back to the carrier and other aircraft.

      Just needs something fixed wing that can carry a weighty radar whilst also achieving decent endurance. You’d think launch and recovery, whist obviously requiring procedures to be worked out and the training, wouldn’t be too difficult with such a lovely long flight-deck!

      Getting all 30 Merlin HM2 back to being ASW focused would be a great improvement.

      And if I’m being greedy integrating Sea Venom / Martlet on the Merlin and getting some dipping sonar kits for Wildcat wouldn’t be a terrible idea either!

      • Bingo on the Wildcats. Though it reduces the time on station they really should buy the sane dipping sonar gear as South Korea use on theirs.

      • Another big issue with unmanned is power for the radar, they suck up a lot electrical power. Whatever powerplant carries the weight also needs to generate power. Its going to be a sizeable system. The MOD really don’t seem to have a plan for this and are waiting on tech that doesn’t exist yet.

    • The F-35 is supposed to be 360 deg EW system itself. Thats what the one lost after transitting the Suez canal in Eastern Med was being launched for . Give the Ops Room a big picture of what the air activity was like way ahead of the carrier

      • indeed but what they cannot really do is persistence, you don’t want to be burning through your high performance jet hours and flight crews health and well-being doing persistent AEW. If you look at fuel load and likely fuel burn rate your f35 is only going to be having a 2 hour loiter ability, that’s not adequate for general persistent ops…Merlin has a loiter time of 5 hours…the bell V247 can loiter for 17 hours…the loiter rate for a AEW platform is incredibly important.

      • What you talking about? most combat aircraft have 360º EW to detect emissions but certainly not have 360º ECM’s.

        EW is not radar.

        • He’s happy enough Alex, let him dream ….

          I replied to the Sea King parts question, its waiting moderation as I used Carson’s website. It appears they can and still do completely rebuild and upgrade SeaKings ..

          Obviously Wastelands would have had a fainting fit over that idea 🤯🤯😬and needed smelling salts, but all quite doable…

          Obviously far too simple a solution and it wouldn’t throw anywhere near enough money into a hole in the ground in Yeovil, so it was a non starter….

          • back to the sheds my friend and take your boots off

            this what Im talking about not your fathers EW
            https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/an-asq-239-f-35-ew-countermeasure-system
            ‘Our AN/ASQ-239 system is a next-generation electronic warfare suite providing offensive and defensive options for the pilot and aircraft to counter current and emerging threats. Its advanced technology optimizes situational awareness while helping to identify, monitor, analyze, and respond to threats. Advanced avionics and sensors provide a real-time, 360º view of the battlespace, maximizing detection ranges and giving pilots evasion, engagement, countermeasure, and jamming options.’

          • You dreaming too. Sea King has much less power than a Merlin. With all capability that AEW needs : radar, complex ESM/Elint/Comint system to complement the radar, data links for Link 16 etc, plus self protection the thing will not take off.

          • The AEW7 seemed to manage to pootle about just fine Alex, or was it all done with mirrors and fishing line🤔🤔

  2. Does anyone know if the carriers themselves have any sonar ASW suite on board or are they totally reliant on escorting ships or their helos? Question I’ve asked before, so sorry, it’s a bit of a rant, do these carriers have any anti torpedo decoys (cannister or rocket type) onboard or any decoy systems besides ECM?

      • I’m going to assume the carrier has ECM kit onboard which is something the navy puts a lot of effort into.
        Also the ship surface torpedo defence sstd is probably fitted. Can’t seem to get a straight answer from sources.
        The carrier will never be in hot zone alone with no aircraft and escorts.
        As overhauls get done more items maybe added. The navy doesn’t have the cash just now with the ships it’s building and the costs of keeping the old ones going. Defence needs to be funded properly instead of constantly being reduced

        • Hi MS,

          Just wondering if you have an opinion as to why the 30mm cannons were never fitted to the carriers? The mounts are clearly visible but I could never find any open source information as to why. It can’t be their too expensive to fit – can it??

          Thank you.

          • Perhaps a lack of need with the .50cal on board is perhaps the thinking. Unless it’s something structural concerning the ships and a refit is needed just to be on the safe side. Wouldnt have thought so as they were planned.
            I think having the 30mm on board with sensor turrets etc would be a good addition as they can be remote controlled.
            Perhaps in an upcoming refit we may see them. There should be spare sets around.
            When we think the gun load in WW2 and that happened due to there can never be enough guns. The longer the war went on the more guns were added/upgraded.
            Perhaps the 40mm will get fitted with programmable shells once they see how good they are on the 31. As they will only be used in a life or death situation not a lot of expensive ammo is needed.
            If a small boat has made it to the carrier something bad has happened.
            To sum up I think it’s probably penny pinching and too many other things to get working right first.

          • Surely a missile based AA defence system is paramount. I think the escorts will do an excellent job of protecting the carrier but the simple fact is what if an escort gets disabled or sunk? We (Brits) should be more aware of that than anyone. I wonder how much defence we would put on our Carriers if that Argentine Exocet had ignored the Atlantic Conveyor and hit that other big ship in the vicinity?

        • Hi monkey no they have not put torpedo decoys or EW/countermeasures suite on the carriers….not having them seems a massive hole. That’s according the all the open source data…and every other RN ship with soft kill/EW packages is open source information so assuming the carriers don’t have the same soft kill packages as the escorts…barmy really…

          • Well that’s disappointing. I would have assumed that seeing as they are capital ships they would have the same defences as other major surface ships.
            The costs aren’t even that big in the scale of carrier, aircraft, people’s value.
            ECM and torpedo defence is basic stuff. It’s a shame and I’m not sure where the blame would fall.
            Guaranteed if the Carrier gets damaged the questions will come think and fast.

          • Yes I just don’t understand, it’s not big money and none of this impacts at all on its air ops. I understand that the RN does not not want AAW missiles on the carrier…but not having the basics is bonkers.

        • I differ as to the hot zone. The carrier will always be in a hot zone. With the reach of the F35 being what it is for strike missions it means that enemy aircraft with stand office missiles will be able to reach it, and if our aircraft aren’t there? Take out the T45 and what is left? Not even the Americans close to the sort of distances we are looking at.

    • I don’t know of any modern carrier that has a sonar it’s just not something anyone fits to carriers…..your not going to have a carrier actively pinging and hunting a sub..it will be spending its whole time actively avoiding them..

      The thing that it is missing that most now put on carriers is some for of torpedo decoy or torpedo defence…this is a bit of a hole…but the US sailed around for a very long time in carriers without torpedo decoys ( Forrestals and enterprise did not have them)….also electronic countermeasures and decoys….

      most people go on about the Elizabeth’s not having SAM systems for my the lack is torpedoes decoy and ECM/decoys…o don’t know why the hell the RN has not put soft kill on the carriers….it’s not even huge amounts of money.

      • With you on that. Such a huge expensive asset and target. You’d think there would be some anti torpedo and decoy systems in place. RFA ships are also vulnerable. DSEI showed the SEA Ancila trainable decoy system which I think could also launch LMM, looked very useful, ready to go and British. All this and other good stuff, you have to wonder what their thinking is. If no Dragonfire yet why not get some of these systems onboard so it can be seen, demonstrated and you might get some sales…

        Weren’t the Invincible class considered as ASW carriers/through deck cruisers? Did they have sonar?

        • The Invincible class didn’t have sonar or missiles. Only Phalanx. We took Sea Dart off the Invincible class to extend the flight deck so it could carry more of it’s primary weapon systems. Aircraft. The escorts are the experts at Fleet defence. So the carrier can do its primary job of being a floating airfield. The investment is being made in upgrading the T45 weapons load out (24 additional CAMM)

        • Hi Quentin, yes indeed they did, but in reality they were designed as ASW cruisers not carriers, their point was to be the centrepiece of an ASW group…them becoming a sea sea harrier carrier was in reality a mix of happy accident and RN plotting to keep some form of expeditionary fleet air arm in the face of the MOD, RAF and politicians telling then they were a NATO only ASW force….they only became carriers the early 1980s when they were developed ( mid to late sixties) and built 1970s they were designed as ASW cruisers.

  3. Modern submarines equipped with cruise missiles will not need to get anywhere near an opposing enemy fleet of surface ships. They will be hundreds of miles away. Once they fire their missiles what’s the point of trying to find them in the huge expanse of the oceans – too late. It’s sophisticated anti-missile defences that are urgently needed – not ASW.

    • What you don’t defend from is a weak point an enemy can exploit. Defending using multiple off ship systems is better as you can loose one and still keep a defense. A small fleet of smaller vessels is much better than trying to build an all in one supper vessel.

      • We should build more nuclear submarines, not huge ships like aircraft carriers – all eggs in one basket. Still, aircraft carriers look good and impressive on the world stage and submarines don’t impress because they cannot be seen. I have just finished a very interesting book about the sinking of the Belgrano in the Falklands war. Once the cruiser was sunk the Argentinan fleet all scuttled back to port. They knew the nuclear submarines were there but where?

        • A submarine cannot do what an aircraft carrier can, a submarine cannot escort other ships, keep sea lanes open, police sea lanes, deliver troops or supplies, they cannot do air ops, they cannot be a visual deterrent….nuclear submarines are killers of ships and sudden strike platforms…

    • Very unlikely, modern submarines like modern warships get close to their enemy….keeping a kill chain over hundreds of miles is simply Tom Clancy land, it’s not how navies operate. Why to you think the RN submarine force spends so much time training their submariners to get in close..why do you think the phone from the periscope is so important….it’s to prove that you got into position to kill the enemy.

      As for sophisticated anti missile defences, a carrier lives inside the most complex integrated air defence system in the world..even the U.S. carriers only have what is effectively a limited local defence capability…it’s the escorts that proved the sophisticated air defence.

      • Sorry – disagree. The Belgrano was easy meat, no sophisticated AS defences. The Royal Navy might practice getting in close but what sub commander is going to risk his boat when he can do it miles away with cruise missiles. Agree on the need for sophisticated anti-missile defences.

        • Sub commanders have to follow rules of engagement and that is almost inevitably going to be confirmation of the target and a confirmed and solid kill chain…and the long range kill via a sub has never happened ever….conquer was close to the Belgrano when it attacked for the very reason it needed a kill chain. The reason it attacked at that time was the risk of losing contacting and losing a firing solution…a submarine getting a firm firing solution and complying with its rules of engagement from hundreds of miles away..is I’m sorry just science fiction. Submarines use missiles to attack fixed structures hundreds of miles away not moving surface vessels doing their best to hide.

          • Spy satellites know exactly where ships are. The sea skimming Exocets that struck the Atlantic Conveyor and the Sheffield could very well have been launched from a sub miles away. Would the Russians subscribe to rules of engagement – I doubt it.

          • Sorry that’s really not true, first no one has that level of satellite coverage. The Russians have exactly 7 marine surveillance satellites. One of these satellites can monitor a strip around 100km wide..and goes around the globe once every 12 hours…so yes Russia can monitor a 700mile wide strip once a day…and at any one time each of those 7 satellites is looking at 1000 square miles of ocean…there are 139 million square miles of ocean on this planet…also everyone knows where those satellites are as they are in the sky and easy to track so ships just have to stay out of their predicable swath of detection….so no spy satellite’s don’t know where ships are and looking for a ship on the ocean is like looking for a needle in a haystack..that’s why carriers are so powerful…it’s an airfield you cannot find.

            Next even if the satellite can find the ship…that is not a fire solution that is where the ship was at one moment in time…the ship will be moving at say 30 miles an hour in a random direction…a fire solution has to be exact….a missile can only see what is directly in front of it when it pops up for its terminal attack if the ships moved the missile misses simple as. You fire a 600 mile an hour missile 100 miles from a target ship that’s doing 26knots it takes ten minutes to arrive…in that time the ship has moved 5 miles away..your missile will miss that target. 200 miles and the target has moved 10 miles….this is why kill chain is the limiting factor you have to have a constantly updated course and speed for the the target updating the firing platform as well as updating the missile in flight…with a secure high speed data link between each, that is not detectable or easy to jam….

            Now lets take your sub…you cannot provide a data link with the bandwidth needed to a sub from a satellite…so even if you had a satellite that could stay over the target ( you cannot as they will fly over the horizon in no time) and the ship was so stupid as to just sit waiting for your satellite to find it ( when the ship knows in Advance where it will be), how does Your satellite data link the fire solution to your sub ( it’s cannot as we don’t have the technology and even if we did satellite don’t have the capability to generate firing solutions). So satellites are out……same with aircraft infact all submarines have to generate firing solutions are their passive sensors, active sensors and the attack periscope, the submarine is not going to use its active sensors because it would be dead the moment it did. So it’s passive sensors and attack periscope….basically the the passive sensors can find stuff but actually getting a firing solution from just passive sensors would be a long difficult job again getting in close….but generally the sub would need to use its attack periscope….that’s how it works.

            It’s similar with surface ships…yes a lot of modern Anti ship missiles have a range of 100+ miles but for a surface vessel to be able to attack at that range….you need a lot of stuff to come together, because:

            1) ships are blind to each other unless they are emitting with sensors and even then a radar will only see to its horizon ( remember the ocean is not flat) that means ships with their radars on can only see other ships around 22-24 nautical miles away…but if your emitting you can be seen from farther away….the enemy will hear your emissions from a longer distance than your radar can see…this means ships at war don’t tend to emit…so the chances of finding each other is slim unless they are with about 20 miles of each other…

            2) so to find a ship at distance you need something in the air looking for it again when you are looking for something in hundred of thousands of square miles it’s a needle in a haystack..as if that air asset emits it will be discovered and. Shot down before it can find the enemy…if that asset finds the enemy it needs to the get the data needed for a fire solution without being detected..that asset in the air needs to then data link that to the firing ship without being detected or without its data link being jammed..it need to know where that distant ship is to link and send the data ( a challenge in itself as even the friendly ship will be hiding and moving) to updating it with a fire solution…then when that ship fires the air asset needs to stay undetected while it keeps the fire solution updated and provides mid course correct…..it’s a profoundly difficult task with so many moving parts that the enemy just has to interfere with once to stop it working….getting a kill chain beyond your organic sensors is profoundly difficult and organic sensors will at best work out to around 20nm.

            Im sorry the idea of submarines launching missile attacks against hiding and manoeuvre surface warships from hundreds of miles away is just fantasy at present.

            RN submarines don’t event bother with anti ship missiles as getting the firing solution at distance as well as the fact launching the things give away your position makes them less than idea and heavy weight torpedoes are better anti shipping and ASW weapons than anything else.

            a final point about Russia not using ROI…yes they will Russia would never risk sinking an unknown civilian vessel…it could be a cruise ship jam packed with Chinese tourists…a Chinese vessel or any other neutral nation…thats not a great move for Russian…. Firing heavyweight anti ship missiles into neutral or friendly shipping is a bad idea and most anti ship missiles are very stupid.

          • Jonathan. Many thanks for your learned and very interesting reply – as a layman more complicated than I thought. I stand corrected. Obviously, from what you say the Americans are not too worried about Chinese carrier busters. Kind regards.

          • hi billy, I would say not worried is probably to strong, as technology and capabilities are always improving…so keeping a good eye on the capabilities is probably a more true statement…but those Chinese carrier busters are ballistic missiles and in reality no nation has shown the ability to make a very accurate mid course correction ballistic missile that can hit a moving target …what these missiles really threaten is larger stationary targets…if you look at the Russian bombarments of Ukraine, that is using the same sort of ballistic missiles,

        • No missile our astute subs have is going to get past a coordinated air defence. They might sink a lone ship but only if the enemy is stupid enough to leave the ship alone.

    • Fine if you just want to fire half-a-dozen Tomahawks. What if you need more? So you drop down, reload, pop up, fire half a dozen more. But after you’ve fired thirty or so you have to go home to replenish. See you again next month.

      How many Paveway IVs can a single sortie of say six F-35s drop? 36, 48? Roughly as many as an Astute can carry Tomahawks. By the second sortie that day, the carrier will have already delivered more firepower than the Astute can, and it’s just getting warmed up. It’s there for two sorties a day, every day, for months on end.

      • Not talking about land warfare. Do F35’s chase submarines? I think the Russians have more than one submarine equipped with cruise missiles.

        • I may have responded to the wrong one of your posts. Sorry for that.

          I agree, nothing can hunt a sub like a sub. Even the ASW frigates and all the ASW Merlins in a carrier strike group will find that difficult. There remains a different job for the carriers. We need both.

  4. So thinking about this here is my wish list for the carriers:

    1) EW and countermeasures ( soft kill)
    2) torpedo decoys/anti torpedo systems
    3) 40mm cannons ( Mk4s)

    Personally I think all of those are no brainers and cost almost nothing for 2 ships vs the cost of losing a carrier even if it’s a mission kill from a stray torpedo or small boat getting through.

    In regards to AAW missile systems I’m a bit more ambivalent..yes the US and French have them, but these will interfere with air opps and potentially clash/compromise function….but CAMM is so very good and the cold launch so low impact I leave it as a maybe…

    from the air group…AEW away from the Merlin 2 and some form of air to air refuelling for the F35.

    I think the bell V247 would provide a great AEW, ISTAR, ASW and strike asset for the Carrier…that’s the autonomous vehicle we should be looking at.

      • That is funny….the big picture is the geopolitical reality of the modern world..that’s why we own the carrier..now would you like me to discuss that, because what I was commenting on was small improvements in the carriers inner defensive ring not geopolitical realities and the need for a carrier..that’s not navel gazing…everyone big is made up of many small things if you spend all your time looking at the macro ( the large thing) you fail to improve or understand the small components, if you only look at the micro ( small components) you fail to see the big picture….I my friend at that point was looking at the the small components for a reason…..the article was about the ships rotor components and ASW/AEW defence…..

    • Good list Jonathan. 1-3, should be affordable and doable and you’d think essential prior to any CSG type deployment in the SCS. With SAM, if not CAMM why not a RAM style launcher with a UK missile? ER version of Starstreak, LMM or even the BVRAAM/ASRAAM that they’ve putting on the back of a Supacat for Ops in Ukraine? Doesn’t have to be over the top. But, they’re reluctant to put the 30mm on so I reckon none of this has got any chance…lol.

      • If the carrier is under serious missile attack it wont be carrying out flight ops they will get as many frames in the air to reduce fire hazard. any AAW missiles would only be used as last resort.

        • Hi Steve, planes can’t stay in the air indefinitely, especially carrier based. Ideally enemy aircraft, ships, subs, drones, missiles and torpedoes shouldn’t get too close but if they do a big fat asset like a carrier should be able to adequately and defensively defend itself several times over. Okay to rely on specialist escorts for cover but they too can be vulnerable and even run out of missiles if under a “serious missile attack”. I’m not aware that any RN ship can reload any missile types at sea and maybe it’s not an actual requirement. It will be interesting to hear if this is being looked at by the RN (with the new FSS ships) as I believe it is currently by the USN and the reloading of Mk41s at sea.

          • That’s right if escorts over wellem or systems go down etc ,big assets like Carriers need to be seriously armed not just machine guns and CIWS .Said it many times before the cost of a carrier for the sake of missile system ,really 🤔

          • I don’t get it. All those lessons we learned the hard way in the Falklands. Escorts can be lost and Carriers are vulnerable (Exocet Atlantic Conveyor). Other nations have reaped the benefits of that experience…have we forgotten?

          • Hopefully if a high level conflict does arise that extra defensive armaments will suddenly appear and be added on. The powers that be surely are aware of what they haven’t got but should have if needed. It’s not the same beast but the armament upgrades of the T31s is encouraging, as are the T45s upgrades and the T26 is pretty decently kitted out. So don’t give up hope!

          • Interestingly the lesson we learn about carrier ops in the Falklands was remove the AAW missile system and focus the carrier on maximising sorties.

          • Invincible class had a medium to long range medium to high altitude missile Sea Dart not a self protection missile to defend against other missiles. For that i agree it did not make sense to have it. It is quite different to have Aster 15 or CAMM.

          • Not saying it’s not a good idea, but the RN seem to be a bit anti putting AAW missiles on their carriers…personally I think having a few CAMM may be a good idea…so for me it depends on why they don’t have them….RN assessment it could impact on air ops so no…then we go with the experts….no because treasury would not fund…different issue.

    • I’m not sure why you pick the single-engine V-247, which is just a concept, over the optionally manned, twin-engine V-280 which at least has had a prototype tested and is expected to be produced in quantity for the US Army before the end of this decade. Perhaps the V-247 will be good, but I think it’s a higher risk option for the 2040s, significantly after we want to replace Crowsnest.

      40mm for CIWS? Bold choice. I like it.

      • hi Jon, to be honest I don’t think the MOD will ever go for a manned tilt rotor as well as a traditional rotor and unfortunately what the Bell v-280 cannot do is land on the back of a frigate..so you would still need traditional rotor as a small ship flight….but the V-247 is going to be designed to land on a frigate/destroyer so in theory could replace the traditional small ship flight role….it will also do ASW so it could work as a small ship flight for an ASW frigate.. I would love the RN to get a manned tilt rotor…I just don’t think it will ever happen without answering the question of what about the small ship flights.

        • I didn’t realize the V-280 couldn’t land on an escort. I’m not sure why not when V-22s do. V-280 is not as long as a Merlin or as heavy as a Chinook. Is it a stability thing, do you think?

          • Hi Jon, at present it’s not available in a maritime version ( although that could be developed If the US marines ordered it) ..one of the biggest issues will be landing with an engine failure, a Merlin for instance can land on a frigate with an engine failure, as far as I’m aware the v-280 would need a rolling landing ( it would not be able to maintain a hover with an engine failure). I may be wrong but that’s a big issue.

          • Ah. The engines have been replaced to a higher spec. I think they will be using the Osprey ones in the future, so you might be worrying about a obsolete problem. The maritime version of the V-280 was designed-ish, but not built (except as little models). It has folding rotors and an inverted tail, so I’m wondering if the entire wings rotate into the direction of the plane, which is why they inverted the tail. All those are carrier hangar mods through and probably wouldn’t affect frigate landing.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here