American Harrier jets, launched from assault ship USS Iwo Jima, acted as adversary strike aircraft against British aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth and her strike group.

The engagement is part of Exercise Strike Warrior, Queen Elizabeth’s certification exercise prior to her global deployment.

The U.S. say that U.S. Marine Corps AV-8B Harriers of the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) participated in the training with HMS Queen Elizabeth off the coast of Scotland on May 10th, 2021.

“The division of Harriers acted as adversary strike aircraft in order to facilitate sustainment training for the Queen Elizabeth’s detection and defense capabilities. The engagement is part of Exercise Strike Warrior, Queen Elizabeth’s certification exercise. 

The AV-8Bs, which launched from the USS Iwo Jima, are attached to Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron (VMM) 162 Reinforced, the aviation combat element of 24th MEU. Harriers provide the MEU with strike capabilities through deep- and close- air support.”

The USS Iwo Jima.

According to a U.S. Navy press release:

“The Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group (IWOARG) and 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit have roughly 4,300 Sailors and Marines. The ARG-MEU is deployed to Sixth Fleet in support of regional NATO Allies and partners as well as U.S. national security interests in Europe and Africa.

U.S. Forces are also integrated as part of the Queen Elizabeth Strike Group.  Arleigh Burke class guided-missile destroyer USS The Sullivans (DDG 68) and U.S. Marine Corps F-35Bs will deploy with the Strike Group on her inaugural deployment.”

The USS Iwo Jima and amphibious assault ship HMS Albion also conducted a replenishment-at-sea recently as well as landing troops on a Scottish beach as part of another exercise, you can read more about this here.

What is the Carrier Strike Group doing?

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.

HMS Queen Elizabeth at sea with a mix of British and American jets.

The Royal Navy say that Exercise Strike Warrior involves 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

89 COMMENTS

    • Seems to be a commom problem in ths USN for the last few years. A lot of thier ships have been looking quite scruffy.

      • Corrosion is something to worry about.
        I have fixed doubler plates on vessels because the paint scheme failed and corrosion wasn’t dealt with. A 15 mm waterline steel plate now only being 6mm thick is an issue.

        Recently I oversaw changing out 300sqM of flight deck that had eroded and corroded away to less than a third of its original thickness.

        • Just out of curiosity; what is the steel used and do they use any form of corrosion protection other than paint?

          • In Ye Olde Days they used mild steel coated with Red lead. Hull longevity was and still is largely a function of steel guage and quality which allows for corrosion loss to an acceptable minimum over time after which the ship is due to be taken out of service Red lead was a brilliant primer especially in inhibiting corossion but was banned due to its toxicity. My comment is from experience in the construction industry so happy to be corrected by Gunbuster who is sweating in 40 degree heat at present!

          • ps even stainless steel and galvanised iron must take a hammering in such a harsh marine environment so from day one a ship must start an ongoing fight against the elements. It’s worth recalling that the Type 21’s use of Aluminium in much of the superstructure gave them a huge power to weight advantage and thus speed(1) but the downside was the material was much more flammable and probably contributed to their losses in the Falklands War.

          • Sorry don’t know how to edit so last ps-coatings have come a long way over the years. The trend is to replace solvent based with water based including in twin pack materials such as epoxies. Also I should imagine that RN decks receive some pretty high build abrasion resistance materials to increase protection longevity, but(and this is a big but) the weak points are around weld points and mechanical damage -once the metal is exposed the rust can creep beneath even the best coatings.(Gunbuster)
            Cheers and i will now shut up.

          • Metal corrosion resistance can be enhanced with a conversion coating that is put onto metal after it has been cleaned of grease, oil and dirt. The conversion coating (metal pre treatment), which is mostly based on phosphating compounds is sprayed on, or parts are immersed in tanks, and allowed to dry before primer and top coats are applied. This technology is used in the automotive, and fabricating industries. In my last job, I tested thousand of corrosion test panels in salt spray cabinets for steel, aluminium and galvanised steel.

          • The Type 21’s use of aluminium contributed not one jot to their loss. The detonation of 500lb and 1,000lb bombs in their steel hulls were the reason, the superstructure made no difference whatsoever.

          • But I’m shocked that a deck could degrade so badly, We’re talking two thirds lost, makes me wonder what the rest of the ship is like, what ship is it ? I’d love to learn more.

          • Morning Cap’n! Must be an old ship to have lost that much. If the metal is corroding, depending on the method-sandblasting, mechanical grinding and occasionally chemical, then first prize is to get to bright metal. In order to do this you have to remove many microns of old coating and metal. Also to avoid feathered edges you need to do a big overlap to find a sound surface in the substrate steel. Some primers will tolerate a light coating of rust but even so with regular recoating it doesnt take long to get through 10 or even 20 mm and bearing in mind you only have to get down to the minimum on part of the surface to render a hull vulnerable. A deck would I imagine need to be pretty uniform so you either have to take the whole lot down to a bare even surface or if treating the bad spots only, you would need to build them back up to approximately the mean level by spot primimg several times. Gunbuster! Out of bed mate and tell us how the RN does it!

          • Crikey geoff (geoff and geoff) 😄 there’s more Steel on the Titanic than this particular Ship !

          • If you don’t correct damage coatings then the steel eats away really quickly. On a deck it’s an issue as they are flat so salt water gets under it and evaporates to brine which is massively acidic , causing the situation to rapidly spiral out of control.

            Red lead was the best preservative , then Yellow Chromate paint…however due to H&S issues both are banned. Finding either of those coatings on a vessel causes a huge issue in trying to remove it.
            Modern paints are multi coat, 4 or 5 layers thick with each coat having specific properties with each paint coat having a minimum thickness of a number of mils

            Ally whilst it does not need painting due to surface oxidation ( See USN EFT Cats as an example) has its own structural issues. It cracks easily and the brine issue is even worse on Ally. Where steel corrodes and blisters Ally dissolves and leaves pits.

            For those who want to know its 43 degs today….toasty!

          • 43 Degrees! Enough to fry eggs in a black pan! Ya, even non ferrous and so called non corrosive metals also take a pounding from UV and salt spray. white rust is almost as bad as red. We had good results with strontium chromate twin pack primers on areas of rust particularly on the underside of Petrol Station canopies. Not sure how it would perform in a marine environment. the standard in previous years on yachts was Glatex 8 twin pack Polyurethanes.Rudeboy above says I am talking kak(Afrikaans for s*it) when I suggested the aluminium on the Type one contributed to their demise as it was very flammable. like to know your take. Obviously a major explosion would be a prime cause but i read that subsequent fires on these ships were much worse and made fighting them far more problematic-hence fire spreading and causing secondary explosions. What you think. I won’t be offended if you side with him 😄

          • Ally doesn’t burn.
            Bulkheads made of Ally need to be cooled when a fire is on the other side of them. If they are not cooled the bulkhead sags and structurally fails just before it melts into a puddle before your eyes.
            That’s how the fires spread. The use of firemain ring mains and pumps that where not supplying specific areas did not help. Lose a single pump or a section of pipe and you needed to breach to get the capability back.

            Post Falklands all of those lessons, not using ally for internal bulkheads, decentralising pump and compressor locations, better isolations, less flammable material, better training and equipment etc have all be implemented to great effect.
            Southampton, Brazen, Nottingham, Invincible, Broadsword all had major fires or floods and it was the training and equipment post Falklands that was a major contributor to saving them. Note that very few new builds such as T23 or T45 that have had Falkland lessons applied in build have had major incidents where the loss of the vessel was a serious possibility.

          • Thank you for putting me right! At the time I am sure I read that it was a problem with fire or maybe I got my info from the Daily Mail!
            There was a lovely video of the Task force on their way south next to the RN vessel filming a Type 21 about 100 metres alongside. The Captain must have seen the camera and ordered full steam ahead-yikes that thing had acceleration!

          • ps was trying to think of the right polite word to describe the acceleration-yikes,crikey,gosh,crumbs. My Afrikaans friends here would have just said “😂Vok!!”

          • I’m still a bit confused though regarding the Vessel you refer to having lost two thirds of it’s original thickness and having to replace 300 square metres of flight deck, what was the rest of the ship like ?

          • The rest of the ship was OK. UT shots confirmed the hull and deck thickness was OK. It was just the flight deck that had the issue due to poor corrosion management over the years and the issue being ignored and deferred

        • That’s not something that happens in a few months, must have been left for some time. Out of interest what was the timeframe ?

  2. Love to know how they got on… one day.

    George will laugh, but I still say we could do with a few “retired” SHARs ourselves per carrier to range low, beyond visuals, as an interim Cheap fix..

    • Fix of what?

      The radar on the F35B is so far in advance of Blue Fox on the SHAR that one F35 would do the job of a full carrier load of SHAR and more.

      SHAR was great 40 years ago. It is totally eclipsed by F35.

      Running an ancient airframe will never be cheap and post Haddon Cave getting any Harrier re-certified would close to impossible.

      RN now have something much much better to work with.

      • It’s also a question of numbers and having something small and agile that can use the QE and PoW.

        Also, not sure you are correct. The B52s are clocking up 100-years in service for starters ’cause they do the job. The whole Nimrod debacle, apart from refueling probe fits, is also about the basic materials used in construction which makes any extended service life a non-starter too. My understanding is that de Havilland used a magnesium-aluminium alloy. Have a look at the Comet in the dH museum. It is de-laminating and crumbling to dust. I believe the SHARs had/have life left in them.

        • The problem was, post Haddon Cave, that a new regime came in to certify things.

          Yes, OK there were lots of Comet issues and we have been over that loads of times on here. It was case of a bad case making hard law – OK I have flipped the bon mot round but you get the sense.

        • Not quite 100 years yet but 70 ish as a design and most of the earlier production runs are ancient History now but yes, I see exactly what you are saying.

        • Numbers wise buy more F35s, far cheaper than trying to resurrect or sustain SHAR.

          B52s have had a fairly easy life, they are not comparable to fighters in terms of airframe strength and fatigue. The US rotates its aircraft and doesnt fly them as hard individually as the UK, hence the age of some of them. Brings its own problems of parts obseolesence but cold war era they had large stocks – something now becoming a real problem.

          They had life, subject to constant maintenance which they’ve not had and the people who knew how to do it are gone.

          There was an argument for keeping them longer than they did, but that argument was in 2004. It lost because they didnt do enough of value to justify their ongoing costs, in particular their air to ground capability with smart weapons was very limited and the Harrier GR7s were far more suited to that (already integrated with the weapons wanted) and were available in greater numbers.

          Ps. The Nimrod debacle was dont try and extensively modify an ancient aircraft with a mechanical flight control system as you cannot get it to fly right.

      • Not with just four internal missiles and no gun it wouldn’t, and in the real world not all those missiles would hit the targets , remember it took a us navy hornet 2 shots to take out an su24 a couple of years back

        • True SHAR2 did have Sea Vixen.

          I had responded assuming the comment re SHAR was SHAR1 – my bad for not being specific and not thinking before I hit post!

          Should have differentiated between SHAR1 and SHAR2.

    • Completely agree. F35 is brilliant but very expensive. Don’t need swarms of F35s to drop bombs on terrorists with no air defence do you and maybe, if we do get some kind of LHD to replace Albion & Bulwark, we could put a few Harriers on these to give organic support to the RMs just like the US do with their MEUs.

    • SHAR?

      Gone a decade now. The cost of keeping a few aircraft would be huge given the need for a full project team to sit behind them. Then the cost of the spares and contracts to have those repaired and replaced.

      Not to mention the training pipeline for air and ground crews, which already is at max chat to keep enough flow to the existing fast jet force.

      For what benefit exactly? Less range than F35, zero survivability, post landing have to throw half the weapons away due to VL hot gasses effect on them. No LO, sensors not even fit to describe in the same paragraph as F-35s.

      Massive cost for no benefit, literally why? Should we have a few EE Lightnings to back up Typhoons? Some Javelines? Hunters?

      If we’d the billions for that why not just buy more F-35s?

      • …but the F35 is a huge beast and I see it more as an air-superiority sensor platform. Grabbing a few SHAR or AV8Bs as they come available might give a low-cost short-term extra capability to the carriers? I thought in the end the USMC developed an excellent night attack suite that was also fitted to some the later UK Harriers?

        Drones aside, unless Tempest is going to be able to T/O and land on the QE and PoW, then the only fixed wing aircraft they can carry for their lifespans will be F35s. Maybe there is an argument to develop a new low-cost Harrier/SHAR III using one or more upgraded Pegasus combined with some modern technologies – but not overly re-invent the wheel? Just a concept to consider…

        • The cost footprint of operating a type is vast – 100s and 1000s of people supporting its existence directly and indirectly. Before you even get to the actual squadrons.

          This is why Harrier was chopped in 2010, (and Herc in 2020) cuttting airframes saves pennies, cutting the type saves billions (think 500million just for a 10 year airframe depth maintenance commitment, 300million for integration of a new weapon – this is just about scratching the surface of the costs).

          To do that for an old aircraft when we have a brand new, vastly superior one that we are struggling to resource, would be madness. SHAR really added nothing a F35 can’t do much, much better (F35 is more attack than air superiority – noting it is basically both given sensors, weapons and agility). If we had spare money, which we dont, just invest it in more of what we do have to benefit from scales of efficiency.

          The long term replacement for F35B is I agree a question mark, but the ships are large and the US will need/want to do something also. But it isnt really a question we need to answer now 🙂

    • HMS Invincible TV programme 1992 – Bing video

      For those that want to resurrect the SHAR, take a look at this documentary from 1992. Navy talk very candidly about its limitations, and those of the ship and the Sea King (both as ASW and ASaC). In short, 30 year old design (in 1992), very limited range and payload and really hard to maintain. They talk about the incoming FA2 (really we’re just improving the pilot experience and the range of weapons so we can deal with a fighter escort) but does nothing to improve the other factors.

      The biggest issue with SHAR according to this; some maintenance required the engine to be removed. A full engine change in optimal conditions they claim is 2 days! In an airwing with 8 A/C that is horrific.

      The senior pilot says that they are desperately lacking a visual IFF system to aid them in engaging targets at long range. Fascinating watch and really lays out why the QEC are so big and what went into the design.

      • Thanks for the link BobA. I will view when I get a min.

        However, I was just asking if there is an opportunity here to grab some late model SHARs/AV8Bs that are much improved, to quickly help bolster the QE/PoW’s capabilities.

        AND / OR is there a need to develop now a low-cost RN/FAA “Soooooper-Harrier III” to go alongside the F35s and Tempest, as the issue of using the QE-class of carrier for fixed wing ops is not trivial?

  3. Those Ospreys look seriously big on that ship, you have admire the pilots who land them there endlessly. Do they land them behind/in front of the superstructure or do they actually do so next to it too. Probably not quite as tight as it looks mind.

    • They can land on any of the spots.

      One of the design requirements for the Osprey, was that it had to be capable of taxying past the island of a Wasp class LHD, with 6ft clearance, as well as 6ft of distance between the undercarriage and the edge of the deck. This constraint compromised the aircraft’s lift, as it meant the prop-rotors and main wing had to be shorter than desired, hence the higher disc loading. Bell mitigated this by speeding up the prop-rotors, but in doing so also increased the downdraught.

  4. Still life in the Harrier AV8B in the USMC
    I wonder if the RAF and FAA Harriers would have been still capable if hadn’t been scrapped so soon

    • Unfortunately, the Sea Harrier reached the end of its development. Based on the GR3 airframe. It could only take a smaller Pegasus, unlike the AV8B (Harrier 2), which could take a much larger diameter and powerful Pegasus.

    • Until F-35 entered service yes of course they could have run on, but with budgets declining the UK had to make choices and Tornado was a far more capable aircraft for what was expected to be needed. and which was needed.

      A horrible choice but the right one.

      • Gambles in peacetime are one thing but not having Aircraft Carriers and Aircraft, together with the scrapping of Nimrod’s for a decade, would have been criminal if things got nasty. IMHO.

        • Things have been nasty !?!

          Libya 2011.
          Afghan until 2014 and still today.
          SHADER 2015 and still going strong.

          Sometimes you have to fight the war you are fighting and not the one you would prefer to prep for.

          Harrier/carriers/Nimrod weren’t needed for either of those. Tornado both in capability and fleet/force size was fundamental.

          Nimrod would never have been cancelled had the MoD even a basic comptency at buying something and not making a complete fist out of it. Either (a) fit a Typhoon derived FBW FCS to it as part of “Nimrod 2000” in which case it could have flown properly and safely, or (b) start an A320 derived product. Either would be cheaper than what we did.

  5. I’m wondering if USMC Harriers and their pilots will also be eventually qualified to operate from the UK carriers.

    After all, the USMC have already got their shoes under the bed…

    • I’d be surprised if it happened given the political sensitivities over the scrapping of Harrier in the UK.

      Although it might happen on the AV8’s goodbye tour in a few years time. Coming home to mamma – kind of thing.

    • I’d have thought having to stock a complete range of spares, parts software etc would make that not worth the bother.

    • I can’t see that ever happening to be honest….. Just think of all the “I told you so’s” on sites like this.

    • Hi geoff. Please could you change your user name. I am the original geoff(with a small g) and been commenting on this site for some years. Two ‘geoffs’ will cause confusion. Absolutely no aggro in this request but am sure you can see why we need to do this. Kind Regards geoff
      ps. We also have an upper case Geoff

  7. Slightly off kilter , but continuing with the theme of attacking HMS QE is this story:
    Will the UK block the Chinese fighter offer to Argentina?

    On May 12, 2021, a Chinese delegation met with the Argentinian authorities to discuss the potential sale of 12 FC-1 fighter jets. A joint development between Pakistan Aeronautical Complex and Chengdu Aerospace Corporation, the FC-1 Xiaolong (or JF-17 Thunder in Pakistan) is not in service within the Chinese Air Force. However, China has been attempting to sell the aircraft to several emerging air forces around the world. The Fuerza Aérea Argentina, the Argentinian Air Force, has been attempting to acquire affordable supersonic combat aircraft for years now. Its last attempt was infructuous. In 2019, Argentina announced it had entered negotiations with Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) to acquire a dozen FA-50 jets, the combat variant of the T-50 trainer. But on November 3, 2020, the Argentinian Defence Minister shared a letter from KAI, where the sale of the FA-50 was described as impossible due to six major components being manufactured in the United Kingdom. Since the war that opposed the United Kingdom and Argentina over the Falkland islands in 1982, the former has imposed an arms embargo on the South American country. For the same reason, the five second-hand Dassault-Breguet Super Etendard Modernisés acquired in January 2018 from France for the Argentinian Navy are currently unable to fly. Due to the embargo, they could not be delivered with their MK6 ejection seat manufactured by the British group Martin Baker. Argentina needs to find an aircraft free of British components. But history could repeat itself once more. Indeed, to equip its the FC-1 Xiaolong, Chengdu chose the PK16LE ejection seat, another product of Martin Baker. It is not yet known if the United Kingdom will once again block the transaction.

    The last chance for the Argentina Air Force could reside, like for many other emerging nations, in Russia. Buenos Aires reportedly sent a request for information to Moscow for the acquisition of 12 Russian-made Su-35 Flanker-E fighter jets.

    https://www.aerotime.aero/27945-will-the-uk-block-the-chinese-fighter-offer-to-argentina

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here