Aggressor aircraft launched a simulated air attack against HMS Queen Elizabeth and her Carrier Strike Group in the Scottish islands, the purpose of this training is for the vessels to practice defending against air attack.

Hawk jets and other aircraft, some operated by Draken International, have been simulating air attacks against the Carrier Strike Group.

https://twitter.com/geoallison/status/1392041233766363137

Typically, Hawk jets support Dassault Falcon 20DC aircraft acting as long-range anti-ship bombers. The Falcons are flown by Draken International.

HMS Queen Elizabeth and her Carrier Strike Group are currently exercising alongside allied nations in and around the Scottish islands as part of the massive Strike Warrior exercise.

When they transmit their position, the Carrier Strike Group warships can be found on tracking services such as martinetraffic.com

The Royal Navy say that Exercise Strike Warrior will involve more than 20 warships, three submarines and 150 aircraft from 11 nations and is a final test for the Carrier Strike Group ahead of its first operational deployment to the Mediterranean, Indian Ocean and Asia Pacific.

“The exercise, which will run for two weeks, will see the task group pitted against warships from NATO’s Standing Maritime Group 1 in waters off north-west Scotland to prove it is capable of undertaking high intensity operations against the most demanding adversaries. The culmination of Strike Warrior will see the Carrier Strike Group certified ready for deployment, at which point operational command will pass from the Royal Navy’s Fleet Commander, Vice Admiral Jerry Kyd, to the Chief of Joint Operations, Vice Admiral Sir Ben Key.”

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

37 COMMENTS

  1. Thank goodness the fire on RFA Fort Victoria didnt end up being serious, could have caused problems for the deployment!

        • With solid supplies yes, for fuel we have the Tide class. The Fort Austin/Rosalie are not compatible with the carriers and are I think in extended readiness (one stage before scrapping).

          • Goodness knowing we had 2 carriers coming getting rid of Fort George back when we did looks like one of the most ridiculous decisions to date.

          • Agreed, Fort George was scrapped when she was only 17 years old. This was three years after the instructions were given to design and develop two carriers. It seems that Tony Blair thought that we would have only one carrier at sea at any one time. Even worse, RFA Fort Vic was damaged by an IRA bomb which almost sunk her, Fort George was a younger ship and never damaged. Tony Blair seemed to not think about refit repair damage or time of station.
            I like the Fort Vic design, 4 helcopters, Sea Wolf capability and the ability to operate as a flagship for a Anti Submarine frigate squadron. It is a pity that her full capability was never installed.

          • Simon, your right, my mistake, Fort G was scrapped under the 2010 Con/Lib review after Labour left the infamous no money left note. I still don’t understand why Fort George could not have been laid up or for that matter the 4 T22s III, Illustrious to be put in reserve. Yes it would have cost some money, but I could bet my house that the RNR would have loved to babysit them. The quick fix is not always the best idea.

      • In theory as we only have the one ship capable of this its technically not possible to launch 2 carrier groups to totally different locations?

        I know have two groups is borderline fantasy fleets anyways but to be strangled of the capability by a class of ships like this is a really bad position to be in.

  5. It’s shocking that there is one solid support ship operational only ! Ff true the entire Royal Navy command is incompetent! I won’t blame the defence ministry even because it’s the responsibility of the admirals not put the navy at harm’s way and not sugar coat such serious gaps in the navy . They should fight their corner and say the gaps that exist and it’s dangers for deployments.

    I’m glad this is all happening under training circumstances and not under war.

      • Rosalie and Austin should have been retired, with Largs Bay and Fort George retained.

        (Though I fear if that were the case, we might have been looking at a two-ship build, rather than a three-ship build for replacements).

        Part of the argument for George’s retirement were the costs of a refit, the yearly running cost, and the fact that the older Forts offered a higher dry-stores capacity. Of course, the trade-off is a single poitn of failure for the CSG, two ships without Merlin certified decks, and the lack of additional tanking facilities. Despite being retained, the older Forts have spent much of the past decade adding to the skyline in Birkenhead.

        I know what option I would have chosen.

        • Thanks Lusty, I was not aware of the reasoning, I was too busy burying my head in despair in 2010!

          4 Bay and 2 useable Forts, how useful those extra assets would be. What an own goal and how cheap we sold Largs for a paltry yearly saving.

          • You’re welcome.

            You and me both. The cuts from back then bit us on the behind all those years ago, and they continue to do so to this day. The good news is that we have a fleet of six modern fleet tankers (four of which have been designed to directly support the CSG), as well as plans for three solid support ships which will also be designed to support the group. Though fewer in number, the ships are significantly larger, and will offer the fleet a massive capability upgrade. I would honestly take three modern support ships over four from two classes. Of course, four modern supports ships would have been great, but there’s arguements against that too. The only crime about the whole thing is the ungodly amount of time it has taken to order the darn things.

            I’m suprised it isn’t used as a political football, as both sides would have great fun in using it as part of a political spin. Boris could claim his party are ‘rebuilding capabilities’ – the Support Ships, T22 (replaced by T32), carrier strike and Bay, while Sir Keir could still use it as more evidence of cuts. Then again, I’m suprised Boris isn’t using Labours’ slashing of the escort feet as the main reason why the drive for shipbuilding is needed.

          • “Then again, I’m surprised Boris isn’t using Labours’ slashing of the escort feet as the main reason why the drive for shipbuilding is needed.”

            Bang on. Too often here it is the Tory cuts that are lamented. People have short memories of 97-2010.

            As I recall all too well –

            35 at 1997 SDSR.
            32 – 3 T22 paid off.
            31 – 1 more T22 paid off, 1SL Saying no change in capability so 1 more no worry, I still picture him stating it. Sheffield was it?
            25 – 2004 “New Chapter” 3 T23 and T45 buy reduced to 8 as T42’s start to go.
            23 – T45 buy down to 6.

            And so to 19 today with the 4 T22B3’s.

            I’ve forgotten the timeline for the SSN but recall we had 12 when Blair came in and reduced to 10, then Hoon vowed 8 so we end up with 7.

            Deary me.

          • ‘Escort Feet’ – deary me, what a typo by myself! Haha.

            Yes, I believe it was. One does wonder what would have happened if we had replaced Type 22 with a new class of frigate leading on from T23 (maybe 6-8 hulls), coupled with the intended number of 45. I can imagine it might have been tight on the carrier build, but then again, more yards would have remained open (or with increased capacities).

            Ultimately, the cuts were a betrayal to the navy, as well as the working-class communities employed to build and maintain the vessels. That last bit is crucial. Cuts to defence have consequences that reach far beyond denying the military access to a few additional platforms.

            I can only hope that with contracts signed and names announced, the upcoming ‘frigate gap’ will be short-lived. Honestly, if there’s any ambition in ship-building, T31/32 should be build in greater numbers, particularly if the Hunts and Sandowns are on their way out. What a way of calming Wee Cranky up north? MORE frigates than initially promised.

          • But still no T31 names yet? Named t26s promptly enough. Political no doubt.

            I once read a Navy News mag article ( would have been early 2000s when i was a subscriber) on the workings of the Ships Naming Committee at the Admiralty.

          • Extremely political.

            I would have expected the first three names. Not all eight.

            Yes, still no names for T31, which is most interesting. I think we can all agree they’re likely to take a letter, county, or general theme as inspiration (Leander style), but the timing’s the interesting part. I can only assume they’re waiting for the first steel being cut.

            Then again, the names of the new Gibraltar boats were announced quite late as well. One of them has come a long way since the project began.

          • Canceling T45’s 7 & 8 was the biggest mistake. Especially with new aircraft carriers in the planing at that stage.

  7. To think at the moment if an adversary was to target the fort victoria ship, that would put the brakes on potential deployment of our carrier ship or atleast limit the reach capability of the carrier. Such a precarious position to be in.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here