British F-35B jets launched from aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth have been conducting air combat training in collaboration with the Finnish and Swedish Armed Forces during Exercise #RUSKA23.
F-35Bs conducting Defensive Counter Air, Offensive Counter Air and Close Air Support in collaboration with the Finnish and Swedish Armed Forces during Exercise #RUSKA23
Delivering Strike at range, covering almost the entirety of Finland 🇫🇮#UKCSG23 pic.twitter.com/d4oHTU7Nx1
— UK Carrier Strike Group (@COMUKCSG) September 30, 2023
The UK F-35Bs have been flying missions alongside aircraft from Sweden and Finland, such as the F/A-18 Hornets, Gripens, and Hawks.
We have lift off! ⚡️ Jets launch from @HMSQNLZ to participate in Finnish led Exercise RUSKA 🇫🇮
The UK F-35Bs have been flying missions alongside aircrafts from Sweden and Finland, such as the F/A-18 Hornets, Gripens, and Hawks #JEFtogether #UKCSG23
 pic.twitter.com/BDdvSJlbWD— UK Carrier Strike Group (@COMUKCSG) September 30, 2023
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.”
Best thing to happen to nato is Finland/Sweden joining. They know how to play exercises
Agreed it locks up the soft underbelly of NATOs norther flank and cuts out potential Russian excursions into territories up there in particular Gotland. What depresses me is some in the US who should know better talking about such expansion as some sort of extra pressures on US assets and responsibilities when it in fact takes pressure off of them and indeed us. Despite a small population Finland can field a near million military force into action quite quickly and have the largest artillery stocks on the Continent, Sweden has sophistication, weapons and expertise equal to anyone and in NATO or otherwise would have to be defended to avoid an untenable military and political position for NATO and the EU, Equally the US has more military investments with Sweden than any other European Country and is deeply invested in Swedish tech as is Europe generally. Imagine that expertise falling into Russian hands. Ukraine too in NATO would actually make Europe markedly more self sufficient and again make pressure on US resources and support far less marked. Ukraine and Poland alone by decade’s end would be a match or more for Russia.
And this is exactly the tasking QEC would excel at.
What depresses some in the US who you think should know better is that the European members of NATO have a population of 450 million with a GDP of $16.5 trillion and face the threat from a country of 144 million with a GDP of $2.06 trillion yet require the US to defend them. But then you know better.
True but I think some European countries have somewhat paid for that commitment with blood on the plains and mountains of Afghanistan and Iraq as well as, in several instances, the streets of their cities.
The problem is many European NATO members have slash and burnt their defence capabilities since 1990, many paying in barly more than 1% GDP on defence still, despite a rather low bar of 2% being set by NATO.
If I was a US tax payer, I would be rightly pissed off that I was footing the bill to protect Europe, while they spent their money on infrastructure and social programmes!
It would most certainly boil my piss…..
I would make membership of NATO conditional on 2.5% GDP on defence, no if’s buts or maybe’s……
Russia has proven itself to be a volatile despotic dictatorship, that might on occasion flirt with the idea of democracy, but will always revert to ‘type’.
We must all (European NATO) restore a robust minimum defence structure and never let our defence slide to such low levels again….
Even if Putin’s war fails and Putin and Co end up in the Gulag, it will simply hit the pause button and mother Russia will be back on the rampage in another 20 years…..
Aggression towards their population and neighbours is simply in their DNA.
Fair point 👍
I totally understand but there doesn’t seem to be a strong link between defence, political and economic diplomacy on the part of the US to encourage such behavour. I mean, how many troops would Britain have to supply to an American operation to get to the front of the queue for trade deals? How many submarines and aircraft carriers does Britain need in the Pacific to be looked on somewhat more generously than, say, the Republic of Ireland, who has never and likely will never countenance the use of force on behalf of its friends.
That is sort of true.
But I’d there any realistic talk of cutting US military spending? Nope.
So all US forced would, by that logic, be based in the USA?
How does that help defend the US’ interests? Not at all? Unless you don’t understand global trade? FONOPS etc…..
The one thing The Tangerine Tinted Buffoon was right about as that the rest of the Free World did need to pony up and pay what it takes to have credible defences.
ruZZian Empire needs to be completely broken up! The Rump states no longer a threat to Europe.
I think you miss the fact that Russia is able and potentially willing to use nuclear weapons, which makes them 100% a threat to Europe. This is why NATO have had to be so careful about the aid they give to Ukraine.
Any existential threat to the current Russian regime (be that invasion by NATO or a successful implementation of democracy) could be enough to provoke a response. And that’s even before you consider how well most historical attempts to ‘introduce democracy’ around the world have gone.
No, I have not missed that fact!
I am very well aware of it. Its precisely why U.K. has a nuclear deterrent, to reduce that risk.
Just like the downfall of the USSR, was Not brought about by NATO tanks on the streets of Moscow! The ending of ruZZian Empire Mk 3, will be brought about by ruZZia’s own economic and military collapse!
I worry that there are very few situations where Putin survives being deposed and I am not too keen on anyone in the same hemisphere as me playing nuclear chicken with a man who has nothing to lose and the morality of a high-ranking KGB member.
Well stated – they never seem to learn, but they have taught us well.
European NATO fields a fleet of 216 surface combatants (Carriers, Destroyers, Frigates and Corvettes), has 1.2 million active service personel and nearly 2.5 million reservists, and just under 2,000 fighter aircraft, even after the budget cuts following the end of the cold war.
What the European Part of NATO (and by extension the EU) lacks is a common command structure, unified doctrine, and expeditionary logistics. Europe doesn’t need the US to defend it, but at the moment, militarily, it kind of needs it to lead it.
Careful with that kind of talk – sounds like you are advocating an EU Army.
You’re not French are you ?
No he is not. What he is saying is that, since this is a European war, enough resources are available in the continental Europe to reduce the Russo military to what it is- third world military- this time by doing it through Ukraine. This is a fair assessment.
We defend each other we will stand together against dictators and war criminals if not they will rampage across the world. Its a partnership not all about cash put in
From each according to their means, to each according to their needs?
Sadly, we have McCarthy to curse every time we are forced to pray that American voters don’t recognise that political theory.
Whoops, there goes another one. 🤡 😊
👍👍
To me it’s not as black and white as that, it’s not like the US is providing that security for free, it uses it as a way to boost trade into Europe and influence European politics. They aren’t providing it out of the goodness of their heart, its very much an investment for them.
Ironically if Europe paid it’s way in defence then the US would lose that influence and so would be a negative to the US economy.
If the UK increases defence to 3%, that would make a start. Looks like Poland is taking the lead!
With the economy smaller than New York and smaller than South Korea’s and a diminishing population accelerated by high mortality rates in Ukraine. EU can fully fund the war in Ukraine to hasten its conclusion.
The tweet from COMUKCSG which mentions Swedish aircrafts looks like it was written by a young media ops person, on the Commodore’s behalf, who doesn’t realise that the plural of aircraft is actually…..aircraft!
Alas we see such poor grammar everywhere these days, what’s worse is nobody corrected it before it was released …. I’ve got time to sit and type now, because a flock of sheeps are in my way😂😂🤣
This is beyond embarrassment the amount of jets on those carriers ! Many think that our European counterparts can’t see the deficiencies the UK forces face. That defence minister should just shut before making such grand statements that have nothing to back up with !
Shapes has said he would like to see defence increased to 3%! I would say that it is Sunak is more likely to resist 3%!
Impressive if possible to defend future Finland airspace from single carrier.
As a part of a NATO force it is very possible – it means there is another random attack vector for wherever we decide to sit QEC.
Injecting more and more uncertainty into the decision making of the enemy improves our ability to shape the battle space.
As a guess, it certainly wouldn’t be in the Baltic. Not enough ‘sea room’ to manoeuvre or hide in. Obviously then requires re-fuelling facilities be it Voyager or land based facilities, to get our aircraft there and back.
Nothing we already didnt know, but good to practise all the same.
If the carriers had been equipped with cats and traps they would be more beneficial to NATO. Penny pinching Treasuary dickheads thinking short term again.
261, while I agree in some ways, the RN/RAF haven’t got (apart from F35) carrier airframes, or enough deck/sqdn personel to be able to successfully operate said systems. I’ve worked a fixed wing deck. Logistics and training is huge. Cost, well think about it.
👍 👌
👍
A proper cats and traps carrier would have been more effective. VSTOL would also been accommodated.
Hi WB. How would cats n traps be more effective? What is the tactical and strategical usage of a fixed wing carrier deck?
🤔
The F-35b can land on a road or disused air strip, to refuel.
Seems a stretch of the imagination to defend an entire country with 30 or so jets.
but they are very very good jets dontcha know.
I started my working life in the RAF in 1963 as a Telegraphist/Wireless Opr. First serving at RAF Northwood HQ COASTAL COMMAND 1964-65. Iwas 18 years old. I’m now 76 and the old post WW2 threat is still there but with a much reduced Russian presence and thankfully so. Who knows how long this proxy war will continue Russia could keep it boiling away for years. In a positive way it’s finally strengthened NATO to where it should have been in the first place and its shown the Russians true colours – never to be trusted for the foreseeable future. Where we go from here remains to be seen.