British aircraft carriers HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales will both deploy next year.

The Ministry of Defence tweeted that the UK Carrier Strike Group will again be deployed in 2022 “with HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Queen Elizabeth deploying with our NATO and international partners”. 

When we have more on the 2022 deployment, you’ll be able to read it here. Stay tuned!

Elements from the most recent UK Carrier Strike Group deployment, CSG21, have been returning home this week.

British aircraft carrier returns home

The Carrier Strike Group (pictured above) sailed across three oceans and five seas, cumulatively covering around 500,000 nautical miles. The group has engaged with 44 countries, strengthening partnerships with allies including Australia, Canada, New Zealand, France, Greece, Israel, India, Italy, Japan, Oman and the Republic of Korea.

Chief of the Defence Staff Admiral Sir Tony Radakin said:

“Throughout the past seven months HMS Queen Elizabeth and her Strike Group have been furthering the UK’s interests and strengthening our partnerships around the globe. With involvement from across the Armed Forces, and our allies integrated throughout, this deployment has been a truly joint, truly international endeavour, which represents the very best of Global Britain.

I thank everyone involved for their efforts to make this deployment such a resounding success, and I wish our returning sailors, aviators, soldiers and marines a very happy reunion with their families this Christmas.”

The Ministry of Defence said:

“The most significant peacetime deployment in a quarter of a century, Carrier Strike Group 21 has been more than just a military endeavour, bringing together elements of defence, diplomacy and prosperity and flying the flag for Global Britain.”

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

175 COMMENTS

  1. Really! That seems like a departure from everything that has been stated up until now i.e. one fully equipped carrier and the second one doing other stuff.

    I wonder if the PoW will be operating in a (semi) LPH role, similar to the way USN America Class do?

    Or may be more USMC want to enjoy the delights of the NAAFI 🙂

    Whatever the rationale it will look pretty impressive to have two carriers operating together (even with relatively small air wings at this stage) and will be a great testament to the RN.

    Cheers CR

    • Both have a full crew.

      USMC and other F35B operators will almost certainly be playing such as Italy?

      Might be quite a full house with all other nations literally onboard both?

      Best empty(ish) when developing tactics with allies who may not have fully worked up skills.

      • Hi Supportive Bloke,

        Having three nations on board last month takes on more significance under these circumstances and I take your point about the operating with fewer aircraft when working up with other allies for the first time.

        It would be good to see the Italians operating from our carriers for a few days at least, although I think that there will be issues with regards to fully integrating them into the air wing. The ships were designed from the start with USMC requirements taken into account so I guess they had quite a lot of access to the project all of the way through. The Italians have not had that level of involvement so I recon they might cross deck and may be ‘sleep over’ for a couple of days before heading home but I doubt that they would be able to integrate into the air wing.

        Cheers CR

        • One of them could be kept pretty bare to allow say the Italian, Japanese and South Koran’s(?) to practice.

          How did it work with invincibles when other harriers came visiting? I seem to recall OK?

          The purpose of having two huge NATO F35B carriers must be to project NATO force. USA will be delighted to help push that out as it takes a lot of pressure off them.

          • Hi Supportive Bloke,

            Keeping one “pretty bare” could be one way forward, who knows? As for the Harriers I think the key word here is “visiting”. I think we could see quite a few nations keen to visit our carriers and gain valuable insights into how a large “harrier carrier” works…

            As for the US attitude to the QE’s, yes I agree totally with you. Indeed my reading of comments from some in the US and the huge amount of support they have given the RN over the years of regenerating the capability they are very keen on us stepping up to the plate. (So am I frankly.)

            The spread of small / medium STOVL carriers into other middle tier navies (Japan, Korea, Italy) is a clear sign that we are not the only country to realise that the USN cannot be expected to shoulder the load alone – it is long over due.

            Cheers CR

          • Agreed we are potentially getting into the nightmare scenarios where Russia and China coordinate their expansionist adventures even the US would struggle to deal adequately with that scenario. Two years ago when they had a breakdown and return to port they did not actually have an operative carrier force in the Atlantic for a short period. This must be a big relief to them especially being able to operate their planes from them as necessary.

          • Nowhere does it say it would be simultaneous operations. Nice if it was ..but.

            QE is due for some yard maintenance. Can readily imagine that POW steps up to plate on deployment with some real fixed wing capability, uk only, in the first half of 2022. QE comes out of maintenance ..works up.. and then heads off on deployment in 2nd half of year.

          • QE, is under her tents again, POWs Tent work is complete, and the word coming out of Pompey they are working flat out over the Xmas period under the tents, ready to deploy early 2022. so its a guess when they go again.

          • Agree Johan. Its guesswork… people read a headline and swallow the hook and assume it’s simultaneous operations. Time will tell.

          • I suspect you are right, I think this is going to be a message, around what can be generated. So I’m betting one carrier gets filled with U.K. and US F35s ( as a this. Is what we will have to take on your air defences) and the second gets to play with other nations ect so show the further potential.

            This is looking like it may be hard ball geopolitics by NATO.

        • I don’t see why you doubt that Italians would be able to integrate into the British air wing. Are their F-35Bs different? Does Trieste carrier lack a ski ramp? So is that the problem? How are Italian Navy requirements so different from UK/USMC requirements ?

          • Hi Graham,

            There is no fundemental reason why the Italians could not integrate into the UK carrier air wing. However, you don’t just turn up land and magically integrate into an strange environment.

            Logistics, training, maintenance proceedures and of course operational command and control issues e.g. access to national secrets.

            The US, for example, do their maintenance in a very different way to the UK. We have undercarriage maintainers. The US have nose gear, left main gear and right main gear maintainers – at least they did a few years ago. That matters because reach country has their own Military Airworthiness Authourity and associated standards. This type of thing is why US maintainers joined the CSG21.

            Command and control is probably the biggest issue even in NATO. Different countries have different political sensitivities and whilst everyone will likely come together if the poo really hit the fan, divergence is entirely possible in peacetime. So C2 quickly gets political.

            These are just two areas I can think of as I write, but I suspect that there are others on here who could give far better reasons as to why it is not possible to just turn up and integrate a complicated system of systems that is a F35 “squadron” from a different nation, even a NATO nation.

            So yes I agree with you and Tams below that technically the Italians could fully integrate into a UK air wing but there would have to be a lot of planning prior to deployment and it would likely involve the US as they would be keen not to loose their “position”.

            The UK and US have been working on this level of integration since the beginning of the programme as witnessed by the fact that the QE Class were designed from the get go to host the USMC in an integrated air wing. (I bet the USMC were really miffed when we threatened to go from the B variant to the C variant!)

            I could see an Italian squadron operating for a few days from a UK carrier, but they would likely be specially prepared aircraft e.g. they’d be given a very detailed once over by the maintainers to limit the possibility of any issues arising. In effect they would have plenty of hours remaining before any detailed checks were required.

            Cheers CR

          • As Far as i am aware the Maintenace are all trained the same way, with their plug-and-play computers. Ground handlers are very different. but crew numbers would be an issue, could have 3 crew chiefs rather than one

        • There’s nothing special about the USMC or Italian F35Bs. Most stuff will be to NATO standards.

          The USMC pilots do need experience doing ramp take-offs, but now they already have some pilots with that and CSG21 clearly shows that it hasn’t been an obstacle.

          • Hi Tams,

            I have given a more detailed reason to your points in my response to Graham above as you both effectively raised the same basic points. Basically, integration goes way beyond the technology. The F35 is indeed designed to limit the impact of technology on interoperability, but full integration of the kind we have seen with the USMC goes way beyond that – politics is a big part for starters.

            I am also aware that different nations even with in NATO do things differently, including training and maintenance processes. The latter impacts on airworthiness certifications as well. Sounds like red tape, but it matters especially in peacetime. NATO sets minimum standards, but each country has the right to do things differently to meet their own operational needs. It is a strength and a weekness…

            I agree that integration of an Italian squadron is possible, but only after lots of detailed planning. The UK and US have been planning the integration of USMC aircraft into the UK carriers since the start of the programme – so decades of work…

            Cheers CR

          • Very true.

            Hence why I was suggesting that one of the carriers would be used more as a training platform.

            This limits the range and intensity of the interactions.

    • Surely it would be the PoW’s turn to focus on operating F-35s, so would it not be HMS QE that would be more likely to operate in a (semi) LPH role?

      • Hi Graham,

        PoW has design differences to enhance her capabilities in the LPH role e.g. wider passageways to facilitate movement of fully equipped marines move around the ship. Hence my suggestion that PoW would fill that role, possibly with a small number of F35 on board to provide training and experience in operating the aircraft.

        Cheers CR

    • I think we are going to be looking at a very significant message to Russia by NATO. The geopolitics has changed significantly with the Russian build up on the board of Ukraine as well as subversive activities on the NATO boarder regions.

      I think the US may be waking up to to the threat to NATO. Biden said some very strong words ( for him, as he’s not a firebrand speaker).

      Im betting this deployment will be a work up across the pond, then a very serious display of NATOs ability to dominate its Northern flank and Eastern med, based around the UKs two carriers, possibly with a US carrier and other NATO carriers and amphibious. I would not be surprised if at some point they don’t exercise with one of the Elizabeth’s having a very large airwing, just to show how many 5th generation strike aircraft NATO could put in play as a first day suppression of air defences.

      This announcement is timed and I suspect purposeful geopolitically.

    • I would lay a bet, it’s going to be on the northern flank and eastern med and I’m betting it’s going to have very significant NATO input.

      • Don’t underestimate the common spud.

        With a precision delivery mechanism to project it up the exhaust pipes of the enemy, no end of havoc can be wreaked.

    • Yeah, but, have the USMC given chef their compliments on his/her… chow? 🙂

      We need to know!

      Were they phissed at a lack of T-Bone steak everyday? Will they embark some Italian chefs to produce their pasta, pizza and spagetti?

      We need to know!

      Will the Japanese cross deck some sushi chefs?

      We need to know!

      ffs, is Master Chef(Naval) going to be filmed from on board with a bonus walk the plank on being eliminated from the competition?

      We need to know! Will I get rotalties for such a fantastic idea?

      I need to know!

  5. Pretty much just posturing, the entire uk f35 fleet could fit on one, still leave space for the helicopters in the air wing and still leave empty space.

    • To be fair Marked peacetime operations are a lot about posturing, but yeh we’ll need NATO allies (US / Italy) to chip in with a few, but as I suggested above the PoW may deploy with a few extra RM on board and perhaps some Commando Merlins…

      Nevertheless, getting two big carriers to sea even with limited fixed wing assets is a heck of a big improvement over nothing and a great testament to the RN and everyone involved in the carrier programme. Despite all of political faffing around during the design and build phase they delivered an impressive capability which is still in the build up phase.

      Cheers CR

    • POW needs the deployment to work up properly, so makes sense. Also Radakin was quite clear that we would have both carriers operational simultaneously in his evidence to the defence committee. Two sqaudrons of 8 could be generated without trouble from the current 31 (after all we sent every single Sea Harrier we owned to the Falklands in 1982). Then if USMC come along again, and we perhaps deploy some Apaches and a squadron of HC4 Merlins to support LRG(N), would be a useful group.

      QNLZ with 16 F-35 and 7 Merlin HM2
      POW with 10 USMC F-35, 6 Merlin HC4, 4 Apache and 2 RM Wildcat.

      • Apaches would always be a welcome addition, they’d make short work of any swarm of small boats. Trouble is we have so few it leaves the army light on anti tank firepower if the navy nick them.

        • I understand that Boeing is to rework 50 of our current Apaches to the ‘E’ standard, so many of them will be in transit to the US for that? So you are right about limited availability.

    • True, although we’re meant to be getting another half-dozen next year, so we might be able to put 12-18 jets on one carrier. Say if we could put 18 into action, that would be 8 on one and 10 on the other, with US or Italian F35s adding to the numbers.

      I feel the point of it is to work up the ability to operate both together, as well as showing potential enemies that we can operate both together if need be.

      Otherwise, what are we to do: not bothering with sailing them out and exercises until we have all F35s in place? We’re operating and exercising with them now to shake off the cobwebs of 10 years not operating carriers. Starting with small numbers of aircraft. Guaranteed by 2025 we’ll be operating a carrier with 24 UK jets off of it.

      • I expect 18 might be an optimistic upper limit for wartime deployment (i.e. Falklands deploying every available airframe) so maybe 12 total. That would be okay for now on one carrier, with the US matching it, it would a reasonable force on each (although probably still few enough for one carrier). Italian jets probably won’t come into it since they only have 3 so far and are busy with trials on Cavour.

        • France had 30 jets last year on its Lome carrier . 12 you think advanced enemies will be impressed by that? Sometimes I’m amused by how some think foes tech wise and capabilities are a century behind. Don’t fool yourself.

          • Yeah, so better to go quality over quantity.

            France is at a completely different place in its carrier development, it’s not a great comparison.

      • I think 6 New F35’s will be delivered to the UK next year. Currently there are 20 in the UK. They could have 6 to 8 on each carrier plus US F35’s add to that a mix of helicopters. That would leave some F35’s for training back in the UK.

        • Lack of Pilots is the main issue for the UK, as you cannot get a straight answer out of the NAO on numbers, which was calculated to be 14 in the UK 3 in the US. If you take 10-12 went on the QE, it would explain the 2 only on the POWs. and the training program was some 2.5 years behind, prior Covid.

  6. They obviously won’t be deploying as two strike carriers because there aren’t enough planes even with USMC assistance. My guess is they will have QE in the strike carrier role and POW working up as a Commando / Helicopter carrier. They’ll probably have plenty of cross decking going on between both carriers to demonstrate their flexibility. Norway & the Med would seem likely targets.

    • Hi Rob,

      That would seem the most likely set up. Whatever the force structure that big thing I take from this is that the UK intends to maintain two operational carriers. That has got to be a big political vote of confidence in the RN and the carriers after all the faffing around that occured during the build…

      I think this is great news.

      Cheers CR

      • I thought it was decided years ago that the UK would maintain two operational carriers, however it would be rare that they deployed at the same time.

    • Hi Rob, not so sure that POW will work up as you have suggested. MOD quietly dropped the Commando carrier role a while ago, and spent the money earmarked for its transformation elsewhere! As @JF has posted, POW still has to fully work up in her CS role.
      Whatever roles both assume, I’m sure it will be an impressive sight.

      • The POW was never going to operate as a commando carrier, that illusion was put out to justify the sale of HMS Ocean……if we’re going to deploy 2 carriers we better ask the USMC to contribute a couple of squadrons minimum…..plus of course we only have 3 Merlina in the crowsnest role….

        • Yes, it’s going to be interesting to see how we distribute our limited assets between the two carriers.
          We wait to see what the USMC puts into the mix.
          The composition of the escort force will be interesting too, will we see more then 2 X T 23/45 involved? Poor old FT Vic will be working overtime I imagine.

          • Yes FT could well end up being the weakest link? Unless we rent a vessel off the US Navy? I think QE is due a dry docking period prior to another major deployment?

          • I would have thought it was highly unlikely that we could actually support two carriers with just Fort Victoria? A task force this big will require additional escorts which will also need support? Although we can muster 2 tankers, we simply don’t have another Fort Victoria?
            You can only assume we’ll be getting USN support with this?

  7. Maybe ask if USMC want to send 3 squadrons? 1 F-35 to go on QE with ours, and couple of AV-8B squadrons to go on POW? or perhaps some Italian or Spanish? Make it truly a NATO group add mix of escorts to

    • I’m not sure how they would feel about having three times as many foreign aircraft as UK ones, but it would be pretty cool to see a force of 40+ jets on the two carriers in any configuration, and also nice to see UK carriers flying harriers again.

      • Nothing British about this carrier deployment! Imagine the moral of the crew seeing more foreign jets on their ship than British ones? This is desperation that the enemy knows about and they know the US is calling the shots ! This government is useless and humiliating , trying to do things on the cheap and putting lives at risk! No global Britannia its local Britannia with no sovereign carrier strike group!

        • The UK doesn’t need to be a global sovereign empire, it needs to be able to deploy a reasonable independent force to protect its overseas interests, which it can with the current British components of the task force.

          Additionally, it can be scaled up with allied support to support mutual benefits of multiple countries. Providing an airbase for foreign countries isn’t bowing down to serve their interests. When your interests align, though, it’s really only a win-win situation.

    • I’m really offended by how many Brits on here feel comfortable that British made carriers with British tax payers money to protect Britain are seen as tourist attraction for other so called navy allies! This carrier strike group is not sovereign and pointless. It’s one thing to have cross deck exchange with allies but another to have them on permanently . The truth is the Russians and chines both knew the US was calling the shots during HMS Queen Elizabeth deployment! Nothing British about their deployment, that’s the sad reality

      • You’re deluded pal.

        1) By the time QE AND the F35’s achieve FULL OPERATIONAL CAPABILITY in 2023, the UK will be able put 24 F35’s on the deck for a single CSG.

        2) It has previously been stated (and reported on this site) that the carrier strike capability, WILL be a Sovereign capability.

        3) NATO is focusing far more on interoperability and integration between allies, not only at the platform and system level, but all the way to different allies seamlessly integrating with each other. I would suggest having a read of the comments reported in this article, you might get a better idea of the direction of travel:

        https://www.defensenews.com/outlook/2021/12/06/us-air-force-chief-interoperability-is-key-to-winning-future-wars/

      • We will be able to deploy a 100% British sovereign CSG, it will just take a little time to get there. When the F35 numbers are up to their desired level of around 80, we will be able to field both with two squadrons each, more if needs be. We’ll be able to deploy one CSG with 24 to 36 jets much sooner.

        The reasons for it are well documented and have been discussed here many times. In the meantime the RN is getting on with the job of working up the carriers with the help of our allies, I don’t see anything wrong with that personally. The cornerstone of our defence is NATO after all and it’s nice to have friends. Russia and China may agree on some things but they are far from allies.

      • You’re welcome to be in a minority of 1 James. The UK is always happy to have allies on board. While risky & not the wisest of things(capability gaps), the MOD/HMG has been letting allies provide capabilities we’ve allowed to lapse. Personally I think we should’ve kept most of our Harrier force to maintain carrier strike & expeiance, but the treasury wouldn’t have it.

    • That is a pretty damning indictment of the NH90 but i like how the Aussies go about the business of equipping their armed forces.

      • I wasn’t aware that the NH90 was a bad machine. I wonder whether the problems are due to the Taipan being assembled locally. An advert perhaps for buying off the shelf.

        • They have certainly had trouble with the locally assembled Tiger’s which had some Americanised components which the other operators of the Eurocopter havent had. Its also meant that the Mk3 upgrade programme thats about to be undertaken couldnt be applied to the Australian version due to hardware differences.

          • Interesting. Experiences like this must into feed into UK decisions like buying the P8 package with Mk54 torpedo and standard US spec Apaches. I’ll bet the Taipan experience also influenced the Barracuda sub cancellation.

          • The Australians are getting shot of the NH90 and Tiger years early, replacing them with the latest Blackhawk and AH64E, both proven, rugged and reliable designs.

            For the life of me, I don’t know why anyone would buy Tiger over Apache, Apache is cheaper and beats the Tiger in every single way……

            In reality, it’s what the Australian forces wanted in the first place anyway, they just got Eurocopter offerings forced on them for political reasons.

            The Tiger and NH90 have proven to be anything but reliable and rugged …. That’s were European, design by committee gets you…..

            It’s exactly the reason the UK should be buying Blackhawk to replace Puma…..

            Will we, nope, we will chuck money away reinventing the wheel and only be able to afford half the number we need….

          • They have had exemplary service in Europe, its only the Australian built versions which have had problems. Australia will be retiring it in 2025 after it will have been in service with them for 21 years. Tiger is primarily a stealth armed scout helicopter with a secondary anti-armour capability while Apache is the primary US attack helicopter, the Commanche was the US equivalent to the Tiger but it was cancelled, the US has had several programs over the last twenty years to try and fill the niche but none have been successful.

            Tiger remains the only stealth helicopter ever put into service (some of its heat signature reduction features were put in the British Westland version of the Apache and arent featured on the US version), If you want to directly compare Tiger and Apache then Tiger is far cheaper to operate, has 50% more range, is almost half the weight but only has marginally lower payload (1t vs 1.5t), slightly better speed and is more maneuverable. The only feature that Apache wins at is it has been upgraded wit a modern battlefield communication suite, something Tiger will gain with the Mk3 upgrade.

          • Peter Dutton, the Australian Defence minister said “It will be much cheaper to run than the current Taipans, and we’ve found the Taipans to be unreliable.

            “They haven’t lived up to expectations, and if we want the safest possible airframe for the men and women of the Australian Defence Force, then the Black Hawk was the obvious choice,” he says.

            The Tiger is far from Stealthy Watchzero, it has a reduced signature, radar and infrared, but certainly not in a true stealth class..

            Comparing the Tiger to Comanche is like comparing Typhoon to the F35, one has radar and infrared reduction design features and the other full stealth…

            The Apache E and Tiger …. Interesting comparisons, first off, the Apache can carry double the warload, it can carry the same effective punch as two Tigers into battle, or, if you prefer, can carry the same load as Tiger with external tanks over the same (or perhaps longer range) range.

            It’s combat proven, cheaper to buy and support / upgrade because Uncle Sam is footing the bill.

            Same for Blackhawk, combat proven again and again, refined, tough and totally reliable ….

            As for saying the Australian NH90 is unreliable, but the European version is spot on, I don’t buy it.

            As a licenced production aircraft, every change will have high cost implications, so it will be very close to the original.

            In reality, the final word goes down to the Australians, one of the finest fighting forces in the world, they say ‘not up to standard’ and thumbs down to both, it’s hardly a glowing advert for Eurocopter products unfortunately.

          • Simply look at the track record, they seem to struggle to keep submarines and aircraft in service a lot like the Germans.

            As to the Eurocopter not being stealthy, it was specifically designed with a 80% composite body that absorbed radar as well as a shape that reduced RCS returns. When Britain was considering whether to buy Apache they were concerned it wasnt stealthy enough so they formed a working group with Westland and produced an alternative stealth design called the WG 44/47, which funnily enough independently arrived at almost the exact same design appearance as the Tiger, difference being two 45 degree pitched tail rotors to reduce its horizontal RCS.

      • Yes, there’s a new Defence Minister Dutton here in Aus and looks like he’s getting on with it. That’s a lot of hardware to dispose of. Even if not up to Aus spec maybe it will be okay to on sell to other countries.
        I’d be curious to see if NZ might pick up some extra marinised NH90s for their helo forces? Therell need a bit of work on them but could also be a bargain buy. More helos would be very useful regional and SE Asia military and humanitarian Ops. Aus is also buying more Seahawks for the RN, 12-16 I think.
        This has been talked about here before, to see more Wildcats upgraded to high a higher spec and maybe some transferred from the Army to bolster RN numbers.

  9. Dear US Allies, for CSG22 we will have two operational carriers but only a handful of British F-35B’s to deploy on them. Pretty please can we borrow twice as many USMC F-35B’s as we had for CSG21?

    • While my comment was a little tongue in cheek, it’s really simple math. We currently / in the near future don’t have enough aircraft to fully man one of the carriers let alone two, so we need a little help from our friends. Logical and the MOD? can you say oxymoron? Lack of funding = lack of aircraft.

    • As I said “lazy nonsense”, nothing to do with funding. If you bothered to do your research, any professional purchaser of the F-35 would delay as much as possible until the LT production lot deal has been signed & the software upgrade is complete, because you want the best price and you don’t want to pay for software upgrades more than is absolutely necessary. Any idiot can buy as much as possible as soon as possible (tongue-in-cheek).

      • Have you ever considered that it’s a tad rude to denigrate the MOD at every opportunity just because commentators are too lazy to engage their brains and do some research? (and it’s fashionable to insult all politicians/civil servants).

  10. Odds will be another Asian deployment or a neighbouring theatre….
    Embark a Royal Marines brigade and patrol close to the Bosporus strait.

        • Morning, a lot has been written but AIUI although 40, 42 and 45 still exist, the they are tasked means they can not fight as a Bde anymore, hopefully, the grown ups can give you a better heads up.

        • Hi Graham. Just to expand on Barry’s point.

          3 Commando could be seen as a “Golf Bag” like some of our other “Brigades” A golf bag of RM units and army ones, which don’t deploy as a formed unit en masse like the few army brigades that can. Only 2 “green” Commando remain, hardly a brigade, which should have at least 3 manoeuvre units.
          29RA, 24RE, and the CLR do not have the CS/CSS elements to support a 3 unit brigade either.

          However, what 3 Cdo does have which some other “Brigades” lack is a deployable HQ element which accompanies 3 Cdo Bde HQ –
          30 Commando IXG, with some good capabilities in it ranging from Recc to AD to ISTAR to comms to police.

          With the FCF plan of Commando companies forward deployed thousands of miles apart it will be even less cohesive.

          42 is now Maritime Ops Cdo, which involves several non “green” tasks.

          Going off topic, I’d like to see the army form an Arctic dedicated brigade. In 3 Cdo Bde I know 45 and some of the supporting elements still do this.

      • Why not? Big ships have long legs to visit far places. Would you prefer it spin in circles in the gulf for 4 months? It will chow up 500nm a day without breaking a sweat. The escorts on the other hand..

        The fleet really needs the FSS yesterday. Ft vic is the weak link, it’s going to get run ragged.

      • Need to keep up the pressure on China by having forces that could potentially respond to an invasion of Taiwan before its a fait accompli.
        I believe US is planning to increase the number of carrier groups it keeps in the region from one to two.

  11. Interesting and unexpected news!

    It’s been long planned to send PoW to the American East Coast next year for her final work-up and trials with a small number of F35’s and helicopters.

    I expect we’ll see her deployed with a minimal escort of a frigate/destroyer and tanker for a number of months with QE joining for a shorter duration as part of a much larger NATO exercise.

    It won’t be the fully fleshed out CSG we’ve seen this year and USMC jets aside it’ll probably only have a dozen F35’s and as many helicopters, either spread evenly between QE and PoW or perhaps with one acting as the ‘strike’ carrier and the other as the LPH.

    Still a welcome development though!

    • Heavens, the two of them would spice up a RIMPAC next year, add in an Astute (can we have two please?) and 45s sans propulsion problems, and the mighty USN would have an excellent fight on her hands.

  12. Excellent news, and there are still moans.

    The airwings are still growing, which will take years.
    The ships won’t be sitting in port in the meantime. 🙄

  13. Good news but the on going problem remains. Medium to long term we need to be able to deploy both carriers as strike carriers, preferably using all our own aircraft. I suggested some two year ago that an absolute minimum of 60 to 70 aircraft would be necessary, five active squadrons of ten plus an OCU. Two squadrons on each with the fifth providing support and with the OCU able to take both airwings to thirty aircraft.
    Times have moved on. The idea of Lightning/drone combination is now very real and news that we are looking at a second tranche is very welcome. Lightning numbers could therefore be reduced somewhat for the R.N. However, I would like to think that there is a target date for both carriers with full mixed airwings to be deployable independently.
    Personally I don’t believe that using a carrier as a huge LPH is the best use of these ships. At the moment we do not know if 3 Brigade is going to remain in anything like it’s traditional role but if it is a dedicated LPH of some kind would be the best result.

    • See above reply to Graham. I know it is hard to fathom that things (buy rate) are done for a reason and that intelligent diligent people work hard to make these decisions, but it is sometimes the case, I now it’s hard to get your head around the idea.

      • O. I’m sorry that you think I’m a bit thick about things, Probably because I’ve only spent forty years in the defence and foreign affairs arena. Try reading my blog again and then tell me where I have a problem with procurement etc. Also just for good measure I have no problems with the U.S. being involved but I clearly state that we may want to deploy independently.

    • Geoff, your last paragraph. Shows that we should have replaced our LPH (HMS Ocean), but we didn’t, so surely there may be a time when one of the carriers has to double as a LPH out of necessity?

      • Your right about the LPH Graham but now I’m not sure. With the Littoral Response Group concept, probably with their own ships we have moved on again. Maybe we should look at the idea of each carrier having a commando strike group. It would certainly add potency and flexibility.

        • Evening Geoff, we (MOD) shelved that idea a while ago. It’s really a very bad idea to have Ur £3billion SC mascarading as a LPH. Rotary lift ranges would put said asset far too close to the shoreline, never a good idea. The LRGs have basically replaced much of our traditional amphib capabilities, so would question the need for such a dedicated vessel in the current climate! Don’t get me wrong, we still need some form of amphib capability, just happen to think we are moving away from conventional amphib ops.

          • The RN needs the LSS concept to support FCF and SF. Add flight deck and aviation facilities.

            Converting the Bay’s is a poor comparison.

            That does not mean that the “conventional” LPD is not needed. Far from it. Bay’s do not have their C3 or landing craft capability.

          • If wouldn’t disagree with your comments Daniele, just don’t think we will be using a SC as a surrogate LPH anytime soon.
            Yes of course we could use them in a amphibious capacity if push came to shove, but what a huge waste of capabilities that would be, think the MOD have realised what a barking idea that is.
            We must wait to see what eventually comes out of MRSS or indeed replaces both Albion and Bulwark. Not replacing Ocean was a mistake imo, however, FCF is a different beast entirely, and should get dedicated/specialist vessels for their role.

    • I agree Geoff. I’d go further & keep sufficient F35Bs for 4 FAA squadrons plus a training/OCU & let the RAF have theirs seperately. We should build a cheaper LPH for that role rather than hazarding our super-expensive QEs close to shores.

  15. One for f35 one for ah64’s, merlins and drones for testing in the logistics, surveillance and attack and defensive roles.

    We need to get ahead of the game especially with regards drones. I’d love to know how many could be fitted on a platform like the QEC

  19. General Atomics have announced the development of a new UAV called Mojave. It is a STOL version of the Predator and is able to take off and land on rough strips and aircraft carriers. Might be useful for bumping up the flightline on the QEs.

    • Yes, and it doesn’t need arrestor wires or a catapult either. Rolls Royce engines, no RAF aircrew onboard, 25 hours endurance with no external payload. ISR and an AEW variant would be nice.

  20. Originally, I was kinda bumed about the lack of F-35B’s for the UK, but with Korea, Italy, Japan, Marines etc it should be enough allies to join.

  21. Good news. Will be excellent experience & training for the crews & allies. We need to crack on with our news escorts, increasing our F35B pool & get our escorts equipped with decent AShMs asap. Will this be another global FE cruise or just a Atlantic/Med Putin deterrent?
    It feels like 1938 again. I for one will continue to call out under-arming & capability gaps on our warships & aircraft etc. I’d rather be a “moaning Minnie” supporting the effective kit needed for our guys to fight(or better still, deter) the next war than stick my head in the sand applauding all HMG/MODs empty spin.
    Appeasment & isolationism worked so well before WW2-Not.

  22. Excellent news, it’s been decades since the UK could undertake such power projection. Yes we don’t have as many platforms as say the 80s across alls recipes but if you look at all the UOR work that had to be undertaken to get ready for GW1 how much of that period’s kit was actually at high enough readiness to be deployed for combat?

  24. “But we don’t have enough F35’s”
    10 grand new cars, 1 to 3 months from order to delivery.
    100 grand new supercars ,1 to 3 years from order to delivery.
    1 million pound hypercars 3 to 13 years from order to delivery.
    100 million pound F35 cutting edge fighter jets, the hard of thinking bemoaning “why haven’t we got more than 14 of them yet” 🤔 🙄🤣

  26. The MODs twitter post doesnt seem to be a clear cut statement that QNLZ and POW will deploy together as part of a two carrier UK CSG. Given the limited number of UK F-35B’s and the lack of essential support/maintence equipment for more than one carrer – this doesnt make a lot of sense except as a PR opportunity. We know that in 2022 POW will finally head to the US east coast (two years later than planned) for a work-up, and that she will act as a flagship/command ship for NATO naval exercises. QNLZ is surely now going to be alongside in Portsmouth for an assisted maintenance period until the Spring of 2022, thereafter maybe she will meet up with POW on exercises.

  28. We realistically don’t have enough escorts to have them both operating seperately, so a combined task force makes a lot of sense, if they can find partner nations to fill them out a bit, as even with Merlin/Apache/wildcats they are going to look pretty empty

    • If we don’t have enough escorts for both carriers to operate seperately we get NATO or Commonwealth countries to supply. Always have done, always will do.

      • We don’t have enough escorts to operate two CSG with mostly our ships while also maintaining at least frigate deployments elsewhere. Even the destroyers would be stretched.

        And it would be embarrassing and make us look weak if the CSG mostly consisted of other navies.

          • I don’t agree with this, it would be a PR disaster both locally and internationally. Filling gaps of 1 or 2 ships is one thing, but 2 carriers with mostly foreign jets and mostly foreign escorts is a bad image

            Locally it will be negatively reported putting pressure on the government to speed up the expenditure in escorts, which they have no intention of doing, so won’t happen. The MOD/RN is ultimately controlled by policticans.

            Internationally, it highlights our over reliance on the US and weakens our own independent foreign policy objectives. Not by a lot, as i suspect any country we are trying to inflence already knows our capability. But they are polictical just like ours, and it tells a different news story between US backed carrier task force operating to support allies vs UK led task force, admittely unlikely it will make the local news.

            Optics is ultimately key, actual military power only really matters when a war starts.

  30. Why 2 carriers in one strike group? Why not 1 carrier and an amphibious transport ship like HMS Albion in one & the 2nd carrier & Bulwark in the other?

    Much larger projection of power.

    • Excellent thought.

      PoW will surely be taking up the strike role for the first time and working with one of the new LRG’s would be an excellent opportunity to test both.

      When are the LRG’s supposed to be operational?

        • 32 knots for the QE Carriers is a bit optimistic i think,i know the TV Documentary had footage of a Speed Run where one of the Prop Shaft Bearing Mounts gave up the ghost but can’t remember any indication of Speed.

  31. To deploy 2 carriers at once you will need more than just 24(Plus 1 Lost) (23) F35 and with only 19 to 17 escorts for protection were gonna relay on Aircraft on NATO Allies..
    We need a bigger escort fleet of Air Defence and Anti Submarine Escorts and SSN Fleet submarines because you just can’t be relaying on Allies all the time.
    With only 48 F35’s on order and no forth coming announcement for future orders I can only see that one of the carriers will only be a large helicopter platform and act as an larger version of the USA’S America Class LPH Carrier that seems to me as a waste of the true high capability of a £3.3 Billion equipment.

    Is my personal opinion The UK is wrong to be cutting the equipment for Tanks, Ships and Fighter’s because look at the growing number from China and Russia with other rogue nations of the world causing problems.
    Global Britain needs more to help to protect them sea lane’s

  32. 500.000 Nautical miles? Let’s see: 500.000/7 months/31 days/24 hours would have required a continous speed of 96 knots. Non stop. Without any rest. You sure about that?

  33. Yeah had the Tory-Lib Dem coalition not sent RFA Fort Grange to the breakers and had Labour not canned the 4 other Fort Victoria Class ships

    Yeah this is ambitious

  34. I have to say I’m pretty interested in the PoW filling some kind of LPH role. I’m not getting too excited however as much we do at the moment is pretty ‘lite’ but nevertheless the ship bristling with helicopters would be quite a potent force. Great for feasibility studies, training and work-ups too, Posturing perhaps but much of a navy’s peacetime role is posturing with a lot of the nitty gritty stuff down to individual ships operating alone.

  35. The only way this could work without the RN looking stupid would be, use RAF jets also on HMS Queen Elizabeth and Make HMS Prince of Wales strike ship with marines and packed with coptors and drones, least it would be credible..

  37. One in the Med (?), the other elsewhere.. They know what they are doing. We are a the best Navy in the world, not the biggest, fair enough, but we have the two world beating Carriers now with world beating Jets flying from them, with (soon), four Type 45 Destroyers available for operations plus available 23’s and SSN’s. However, the decision to scrap RFA Fort George was nothing short of criminal. She is very very badly missed.

  38. I would suspect this is part of a European pivot in answer to what is happening on Ukraine/Polish boarders. Russia and Belarus are pushing hard at Russia’s near abroad to try and reassert dominance.

    Its not going to make much difference to the present situation in Ukraine but I suspect it will be designed to show that NATO has the will and ability to defend the NATO counties that make up what Russia considers it’s near abroad.

    Im betting this deployment will possibly in involve a work up across the pond, then back for exercises around the northern flank and eastern med.

    I would lay money on it being very heavy in NATO assets, with a real push by the US and U.K. to get a lot of F35s on the decks, I would also lay money on the northern flank exercise have a very heavy amphibious component as well.

    Finally it would not surprise me if we did not see part of the deployment including a more carriers from other nations for a significant part of the time.

    I think we are in a time when NATO needs to be showing Russia that it has the will and ability to utterly dominate all of Russia’s access to the sea and strangle it completely if it crosses the NATO line.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here