HMS Prince of Wales has successfully completed the first week of its Operational Sea Training, according to an official tweet from the ship’s account.

During this initial phase, the crew exercised their response to a variety of peacetime emergencies at sea while maintaining routine aviation operations.

Operational Sea Training (OST) is a rigorous process designed to prepare Royal Navy vessels and their crews for a range of operational scenarios, ensuring they are mission-ready for any situation they may encounter.

The mention of both peacetime emergency drills and aviation operations underlines the versatility required of the ship’s crew, balancing their duties in high-stakes emergency scenarios with the routine demands of operating one of the Royal Navy’s key aviation assets.

The Queen Elizabeth-Class Carriers

The Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers measure 284 metres in length and have a standard displacement of approximately 65,000 tonnes. The design allows for this displacement to increase to over 70,000 tonnes as the ships undergo upgrades throughout their operational lifespan.

These carriers are manned by a core crew of about 679 personnel, which can expand to around 1,600 when including aircrew. The ships are equipped to carry up to 40 aircraft, predominantly featuring the advanced F-35B Lightning II stealth fighters.

The air wing typically comprises a combination of F-35B fighters and various rotary-wing aircraft, such as the Merlin HM2 and Wildcat. Additionally, the Royal Navy is exploring the integration of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to enhance operational flexibility. Trials are underway for systems like the General Atomics Mojave, which aims to support roles including strike operations and airborne early warning, reflecting the Royal Navy’s commitment to modernising its air capabilities.

In terms of propulsion, the Queen Elizabeth-class carriers utilise an Integrated Electric Propulsion system, consisting of two Rolls-Royce Marine Trent MT30 gas turbines and several Wärtsilä diesel generator sets. This configuration grants the vessels a range of approximately 10,000 nautical miles.

The flight deck of these carriers is designed to support a variety of rotary and fixed-wing aircraft. The hangar deck measures 155 by 33.5 metres, providing ample space to accommodate up to 20 aircraft. To facilitate quick transfers from the hangar to the flight deck, each carrier is equipped with two large lifts capable of moving aircraft efficiently.

For self-defence, the carriers employ the Phalanx Close-In Weapon System (CIWS) to counter potential airborne threats. In addition, the ships feature sophisticated radar systems, including the BAE Systems/Thales S1850M for long-range detection and the Artisan 3D radar system.

Finally, the Queen Elizabeth-class carriers are fitted with a highly mechanised weapons handling system, which streamlines the management of munitions on board. This system allows for efficient movement of palletised munitions from storage areas to the flight deck, minimising the need for manual handling and optimising operational readiness.

Avatar photo
Lisa has a degree in Media & Communication from Glasgow Caledonian University and works with industry news, sifting through press releases in addition to moderating website comments.
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

33 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF (@guest_854641)
2 days ago

Question: The QE class are FFBBW three or four 30mm mounts, which could presumably be installed relatively quickly in the event of hostilities. Alternatively, technically feasible to substitute w/ new 40mm’ Bofors of the model being urilized on T-31? Potentially, the 57mm?

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_854651)
2 days ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

Those will be much heavier with “deck” penetration.

NorthernAlly
NorthernAlly (@guest_854654)
2 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

I thought the 40mm was non dec penetrative if you went for the option of just having the magazine that’s stored in the turret?

SailorBoy
SailorBoy (@guest_854788)
2 days ago
Reply to  NorthernAlly

You also get a little bit stored flat inside the turret ring, but yes, there is a deck mount for the 40 MK4.

RB
RB (@guest_854741)
2 days ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

My recollection is that MSI had delivered all eight 30mm DS30M Mark 2 ASCGs ordered for the QEC by 2017. They went straight in storage pending fitting to the carriers as part of capability upgrades. However it was decided in 2019 not to proceed with this due to their manpower intensive maintenance requirements, combined with the fact that the upgraded Phalanx 1B mount has a decent surface warfare capability – so the critical defensive requirement could be met without them fitted. As far as I know, the DS30M is not deck penetrating – hence its suitability for use on sponsons. It just… Read more »

SailorBoy
SailorBoy (@guest_854782)
2 days ago
Reply to  RB

Even the 57mm has a non deck penetrating option, where roughly 100 rounds are stored radially inside the turret ring.
It might still be too large or too heavy for the space available but there is no inherent reason why a 57mm could not be used on the QEs.

Frank62
Frank62 (@guest_855014)
1 day ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

40mm Bofors/BAE would be far more capable than these one horse 30mm.

Nevis
Nevis (@guest_854677)
2 days ago

Slightly off topic but Harland & Wolff have gone into administration. What does that mean for the 3 FSS ships that were supposedly being built there?

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_854682)
2 days ago
Reply to  Nevis

These ships should have been built in Korea years ago. Stuff home build on this occasion, we needed them yesterday.

Nevis
Nevis (@guest_854693)
2 days ago

I understand people’s frustration at lack of escorts for a CSG but at least there’s light at the end of that tunnel. At this rate the only ship we will have to supply a CSG will be the other carrier.

DB
DB (@guest_854735)
2 days ago
Reply to  Nevis

I think you meant light at the end of that funnel.

I’ll get mi coat.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_854736)
2 days ago

I tend to agree – problem has been too fast a ramp up of demand.

It would have been much better to focus on T26, T31 and the Barrow ramp up without trying to stretch people to also ramp up H&W.

That said the Tides were not problem free.

Doug S
Doug S (@guest_854794)
2 days ago

If the RN and MoD went this route again, they would be hard pressed to even find a Korean yard that could do this. Most Korean yards are full for the next 3-4 years with commercial builds and Korean Navy obligations. Indeed, the only Korean yard and company that has this capability is Hanwha Ocean (part of Hanwha Group) who were the preferred (and sole) bidder for the KN logistics support ship – AOE-II. The other yards did not bid due to the complexities of the build. So, to cut a long story short, we’ve lost that opportunity and route… Read more »

DRS
DRS (@guest_854688)
2 days ago
Reply to  Nevis

is this an opportunity to nationalise H&W? I do hope so.

Andrew D
Andrew D (@guest_854696)
2 days ago
Reply to  DRS

I hope it is saved some how 🛳 🇬🇧

Nevis
Nevis (@guest_854699)
2 days ago
Reply to  DRS

Who knows but you can bet the vultures are circling. And no mention of the 3 FSS ships.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_854739)
2 days ago
Reply to  DRS

Best avoided TBH.

What are you nationalising?

A ship repair facility with a massive dry dock?

You are not nationalising a working ship builder with expertise building big ships.

Maybe there is a future for ship repair in Belfast and grow it organically.

It is very very hard to go back to ship building when there isn’t the management or the trades with continuous expertise.

I wish it had worked, I really do, but RN can’t be held hostage to this for another round of argument while it last remaining slid stores ship falls apart.

Iain
Iain (@guest_854796)
2 days ago

To make a very simple point, having a second dry dock that could host a QE class carrier is actually not a bad idea at all. After all there will be times that Rosyth is out of commission for updates and repairs. The last thing we want is a carrier sat alongside for years waiting for a dock to do her upkeep and capability insertions.
The dock crunch will become even more pronounced when the FSSs are completed and the demand on the large dock increases.
You only need look at Devonport to see this in action.

RB
RB (@guest_854734)
2 days ago
Reply to  Nevis

It’s sadly been expected ever since the government decided that it was too risky to justify £200 million loan guarantee. I assume that H&W’s FSS contract with Navantia UK is now voided, this being a standard clause when the supplier goes in to administration. However the H&W shipyards are continuing to operate “as normal” for the moment. If Navantia UK – or even BAE or Babcock – move quickly they can pick up the H&W Group for peanuts and it will then probably be allowed to retain the FSS work. But a more likely solution is that the MOD will… Read more »

Jon
Jon (@guest_854825)
2 days ago
Reply to  Nevis

We will have to wait and see. It will depend on the wording of the Navantia contract, and it will depend on the Treasury, who it seems are happy to waste taxpayers money so long as it appears in someone else’s budget column. The best solution would be the yard is run as a separate entity on the taxpayer’s expense until it is stable enough to be sold off as a going concern. If the Treasury wasn’t even going to underwrite a loan, I can’t see them going for that. As this has long since got beyond a joke, I… Read more »

Jonno
Jonno (@guest_854912)
1 day ago
Reply to  Jon

Can’t see H & W being a viable route unless Navantia lease it. What about Cammel Laird? Surely this is what is needed; a big yard in England. I’d say its about time. UK runs on English money, so maybe its time for a dividend.

Nevis
Nevis (@guest_855004)
1 day ago
Reply to  Jon

Article on forces news says the 3 FSS will continue to be built at H&W quoting Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn. Make of that what you will.

Frank62
Frank62 (@guest_855013)
1 day ago
Reply to  Nevis

That’s worrying, 2nd time in 5 years, but wiki says, “The company is expected to continue operations normally, while its non-core operations will wind down.”
So hopefully a blip & the RFA Victoria replacements will not be delayed or placed elsewhere.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_854694)
2 days ago

No doubt there will be some folk who will moan that the carrier does not have 20, 30 or 40 F-35Bs on board as they are doing these evolutions!

DB
DB (@guest_854737)
2 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Moan. Should be 90! Moan. Show them damn Sceptics. Moan. Show the Chinese. Moan.

Evening Sir!

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_854740)
2 days ago
Reply to  DB

Perfect! 😂

RB
RB (@guest_854700)
2 days ago

The ramp up to CSG25 begins! The CSG seems likely to sail as early as Feb 2026. It was confirmed today that the Italian Navy (and Army!) will participate, hopefully contributing a destroyer. At the moment the only T45 that seems to be lined up for the deployment is Dauntless, surely not enough AAW fire power to make a freedom of navigation passage through the South China Sea.

Last edited 2 days ago by RB
Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke (@guest_854733)
2 days ago
Reply to  RB

Depends if another AAW Destroyer is on task in CSG?

DB
DB (@guest_854738)
2 days ago
Reply to  RB

Did the last one make a FONOPS, seem to remember they bottled it and did a runner.

Jon
Jon (@guest_854802)
2 days ago
Reply to  DB

They did one as a group in SCS, including submarine tracking (which must have really pissed off the Chinese as it was rumoured that’s where their SSBNs were). They also split up and I think, from memory, one of the frigates may have done something alone as well, but I’m a little hazy on that.

Paul T
Paul T (@guest_854822)
2 days ago
Reply to  RB

CSG21 did sail with two T45’s, admittedly Diamond dipped out due to technical issues, that should be the benchmark, but with PIP ongoing and the CAAM upgrades started one might suffice with Allies making up the numbers.

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_854978)
1 day ago
Reply to  RB

It will the Italian Airforce not the Italian Army – I bet a F-35B of the air force.

Frank62
Frank62 (@guest_855016)
1 day ago
Reply to  RB

I’d expect if we were short USN/RAN/JDF would lend an AAW DDG. Shame on us being so threadbare.