HMS Prince of Wales is once again back at sea having departed Portsmouth, joining sister ship HMS Queen Elizabeth in waters around the UK.

HMS Queen Elizabeth returned to Portsmouth on Friday, 1st November 2024, after completing a 10-day period of training. Following a quick turnaround, the carrier set sail again on 4th November for further operational training and defence engagement.

This marks a big focus on readiness after the ship underwent critical repairs earlier this year at Rosyth, which included work on the starboard propeller shaft coupling following a technical issue that had previously caused the vessel to withdraw from the NATO exercise Steadfast Defender. During that time, HMS Prince of Wales took on operational responsibilities.

Powerful British Carrier Strike Group assembles off Scotland

HMS Prince of Wales, which also recently set sail for training and operational exercises after having returned briefly after exercise Strike Warrior, joins HMS Queen Elizabeth in a busy period of activity with both carriers at sea.

Currently, HMS Queen Elizabeth is focused on routine operational training and defence engagement, with a planned visit to a European city. Her expected return is slated for before Christmas.

The carriers

The Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers are the largest and most advanced warships in the Royal Navy, designed to serve as the primary components of the UK’s Carrier Strike Group. This class includes two vessels: HMS Queen Elizabeth, commissioned in December 2017, and HMS Prince of Wales, commissioned in December 2019. Built by the Aircraft Carrier Alliance, these carriers were developed at a total cost of approximately £7.6 billion. They replace the earlier Invincible-class carriers and are built to support a variety of maritime operations.

Each Queen Elizabeth-class carrier has a displacement of 65,000 tonnes and a length of 284 metres. Their propulsion is provided by integrated electric systems combining Rolls-Royce Marine Trent MT30 gas turbines with Wärtsilä diesel engines, producing a total power of 158,800 horsepower. These vessels are capable of speeds over 25 knots and can travel up to 10,000 nautical miles on a single mission. They have berths to accommodate up to 1,600 personnel, including crew and air support units.

The carriers can house an air wing of up to 40 aircraft, including F-35B Lightning II jets and Merlin helicopters for roles such as anti-submarine warfare and airborne early warning. The flight deck, equipped with a 12º ski jump, is optimised for short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) operations, enabling the launch and recovery of F-35B aircraft. The hangar deck provides additional space for the maintenance and storage of these aircraft, with dimensions of 155 m x 34 m x 7 m.

For defence and situational awareness, each carrier is outfitted with a Phalanx Close-In Weapons System (CIWS), 30 mm DS30M Mk2 guns, and heavy machine guns. The radar and sensor systems include the S1850M long-range radar and Type 997 Artisan 3D radar, providing extensive tracking and detection capabilities to support the carrier’s operations.

At the UK Defence Journal, we aim to deliver accurate and timely news on defence matters. We rely on the support of readers like you to maintain our independence and high-quality journalism. Please consider making a one-off donation to help us continue our work. Click here to donate. Thank you for your support!

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

46 COMMENTS

  2. If we needed to deploy both of them, they would get one T45 escort each. Like France, we can only afford to equip, resupply and escort one carrier.
    The RN is a shambles.

    • For what to do what?

      If it is a part of a NATO deployment then there would be a multinational force involved anyway.

      There was never a plan to be able to put a full complement of F35B on two carriers at the same time.

      • 100% agree and QE will soon be going into refit/reserve as POW has the modern fit so only one available as was always the plans. Simply we don’t have or likely to have the aircraft to even fit out one CAG for years to come. Should have 4 x frontline F35B Squadrons of 10/12 airframes with at least 2 ready for sea at any time with the others as back up to fill her out and of course the Helo’s too which are also in short supply. Thank the Gov not the service for shortfall. Those sailors need drafting to other surface units so some more can get to sea. Sad times really.

      • Yes there was. Most of the argument around the carrier decision was concern that we were replacing 3 Invincibles with 2 QEs. The vast increase in size was to be able to generate sortie levels similar to a USN super carrier. Evidence given by Adm West to the defence select committee in 2004. We didn’t order 2 carriers to have one sit on a the subs bench.
        My point was rather that given the state of the surface fleet , even if both carriers had a full aircraft load, we couldn’t provide an effective escort for both. On current plans, the RN will have just 6 AAW and 8 ASW ships.( The T31s as presently armed shouldn’t really be used in this role). If the rule of 3 applies, 2 destroyers and 3 ASW frigates will normally be available.
        And an LSG going in harms way will also need escorts. So to make full use of 2 carriers, we need not only more F35s, a future purchase is funded, but also more escorts, which aren’t and couldn’t be in service for years.

    • One of the carriers of the picture has 17 fixed wing supersonic jets on its deck (by my count). We haven’t had that capability since Ark Royal in the 1970s. Our NATO and European allies have plenty of escorts to make up the numbers required for a major all out war. However, we still have enough frigates and destroyers (albeit the readiness levels should be higher) for medium scale confrontations (e.g. something like the Falklands). France is the only European nation with anything close to this blue water capability.

      • Still fighting the last war then. They’re useless in a NATO context. We will never have sufficient F-35s to support two aircraft carriers that are also highly vulnerable to hypersonic missiles.

        • They move and have assets to defend them whilst your land bases are well and truly fixed with nothing to defend them, so which is the more vulnerable?

      • Oh be serious, read the date May 2021 ! QE had a photo op with POW whilst working up for CSG21. There were 18 F35B on board but 10 were USMC, so no we don’t have a full CAG and probably will not have until tier 2 buy starts to arrive (if ever).

      • I was going to point this out, I too counted 17.
        When was this photo taken? The reports the other week spoke of 4.
        17 is a good number.

      • Don’t discount the Marina Militare,they currently have a good Blue Water Capability and it will get significantly better in the next 10 years.

  4. I was recently in Portsmouth when both were in harbour and unless someone had had a Eureka moment neither has DS30 30mm guns fitted. And as far as I am aware they never have had.

    • I was recently (end of September) on the deck of QE in Portsmouth and neither she nor PoW had DS30s then, either.
      Got a nice close-up photo of a Phalanx, though, and several of a Wildcat complete with Martlet.

      • Afternoon SB, that sounds like a nice visit. It must have felt pretty grand? I know a lot of us want those 4x30mm installed but I was wondering now if that’ll be too much with the 3xPhalanx’s. An extra Phalanx for overlap and backup or couple of 40mm plus a RAM style launcher – Thales have just built (see in Janes) a multi-purpose launcher that could take Martlet, maybe Starstreak as well as rockets. I find it odd that there doesn’t appear to be any mention of Ancilia decoy mounts for the carriers or any anti-torpedo decoys? Sure hope they upgrade some of these if these carriers go through the Suez, Persian Gulf and SCS next year. Talking of Ancilia, looks like Safran have already built (see in Janes) combination Mistral decoy launcher like we were speculating on with the Ancilia launcher taking LMM and HVM. It’s doable!

        • Morning Quentin
          Yes, it did feel grand. Best bit was walking across the aircraft lift into the hangar, looking left and right, and realising quite how big the insides of the ship are.
          My personal favourite for the carrier is taking everything else out and installing 4x Bofors guns, whichever calibre we can afford. It’s unlikely that the carrier could take out missiles in quantity anyway without CAMM so you might as well go all in on drones and small boats (albeit still with arguably more CIWS capability than Phalanx).
          How do you access Jane’s? Do you have a login or just browse the news articles?

          • Yes 4x40mm would be nice and neat, even economical, similar to the French PA-NG carrier. And a bit of CAMM- MR forward starboard. Good on you, I’m enjoying your posts.

  5. Anyone else noticed that the MODs PR machine has recently dropped using the prefix “new” whenever referring to the carriers? Someone finally decided that it was inappropriate 5 and 7 years after commissioning!

    Clearly the RN is trying hard to prove that the QEC are no longer problem plagued, giant white elephants with no aircraft, and a total waste of £billions of taxpayers money that would have been better spent on XYZ. Hardly a surprise in the midst of a strategic defence review where it has been leaked that the sale of POW is one of the “nothing is safe” (except Dreadnought, AUKUS, Tempest?!) options being considered. In practice I would be quite happy to see one of the carriers at a lowered state of readiness if that freed enough personnel to crew Bulwark.

    • With highten geopolitical tensions, it’s going to be necessary for the next year at least, for two active carriers, because of PoW is assigned to CSG25, QE will need to be in a higher state of readiness, available for home water/North Atlantic deployment, and should utilise 207Squ, with more F-35B’s arriving in the next yea for deployment. If necessary in an emergency, French or German Navy ASW or SAR helos could embark?

      • Someone will probably correct me but I’m fairly sure that some of the F35’s are only trainer capable and not operationally capable, I think this refers to the new TR-3 models that have got software patches until they sort out the on going issues and the very early models based in the US? But yes in war time and as a last result may be 207Squ could help out?

        • If POW actually deploys on CSG25 in March 2025 with 24 F-35B’s, that will probably include every operational aircraft in the UKs inventory. The remaining 13 or so will be trials aircraft with 17(R) sqd in the USA (all but 1 of its 4 aircraft nearing obsolescence), about 7 early tranche aircraft assigned to training and OCU duties with 207 sqd; plus a final few aircraft under repair, deep maintenance or being upgraded.

          • Yeah exactly the cupboard will be bear. Time will tell but personally I doubt there will be any more than 18 British F35’s on CSG25? Hopefully I’m proven wrong

    • Don’t forget that these two ships were a Blair vanity project. He’s now very much in vogue with our new government, and sources say F35 will be prioritised over Typhoon replacements

  6. QNLZ and PWLS have sailed in formation before for a photo op. Have they ever conducted joint trials or exercises? When encountering aerial bandits, it is always preferable to have a wingman. Presume the concept transfers to the ocean surface? Practice how one intends to fight. 🤔😳

    • Surely the best strategy for having two carriers is two carrier groups, unless cursed with a serious shortage of escorts?
      By all accounts the hardest bit of fighting a carrier is actually locating the thing in the wide ol’ ocean and the ability to strike from unexpected directions.
      Multiply that effect by two (split the carriers up but have them operate to a joint plan) and you create a nasty pickle for your opponents.

  8. Oh look we are billy big balls, 2 redundant ships that crippled the country financially to build and are too vulnerable to actually use.

    • Yes, they are that vulnerable to use, that’s why we sail them half way round the world to the most likely flashpoint in the South China Sea….

    • I expect you’ll want to get rid of all RAF Airfields too?
      They’re undefended, and fixed so easy to find.
      The QEC are neither.
      By extension also, you’re in effect saying Air Power itself is redundant? As these assets enable air Power projection.

  9. We need the two carriers, in many ways they are good value for the money spent in building them. Think about it, a US carrier cost to build about 15 billion if not more with cost overruns etc. Many also forget that the two carriers are designed to take up to 72 aircraft at surge. Yes we have an issue at the moment with aircrat numbers, but in a NATO shooting war I bet the USMC would love the extra flight decks.

    Maybe its for many a stupid question, but what other aircraft can take of from our carriers on a one way trip say to be used as a ferry to Norway? Can a F15, F18, Typhoon use a ski jump in light load with defensive missiles take of from our carriers? I am thinking about Northern Norway we might need to land a couple squadrons to support our Scandinavian allies but the use of air to air tankers is not possible. Before someone says but how do they land on the carrier, they dont, they get a lift onto the carrier and flown off to an airfield.

    In the mean time until the F35B Blk4 comes along with possible cost reductions I do think buying limited numbers now with a later surge in numbers is not such a bad finacial concept (yeep I hated that concept of money). We are still relearning how to operate fleet carriers and fast jets from ship decks. Yet, it is my opinion that the UK Goverment should have at least 48 F35Bs, 24 Mojaves/MQ-9B STOL with interchangable sea and sky guardian capability, 8 Apache helicopters, 12 ASW Merlins and 6 Merlins Oh and 2-4 Wildcats (for staff to get around the fleet), at the disposal of the FAA for both carriers. This would mean that 50% of the aircraft would be at sea with the duty carrier the rest in the UK in training or refit.

    I must admit that sometimes I wish we did not scrap the Sea Harrier and the GR9s. Sea Harrier for CAP, GR9s developed into 10s or 11s for low level anti ship strike (Buccaneer replacement). With modern radar, modern missiles the Harrier could fly in just below the horizon, pop up, have a look see and launch 2x 600 kg surface skimming anti ship missiles. Or take its targeting from other resources. As for CAP the Sea Harrier can do one thing the F35B cannot; dogfight!

    We as a nation need to think in diffrent ways that includes the use of our armed forces. The RAF for example can operate aircraft from bases upto about 400 miles or with tanker support 600 miles. The moment you have tankers up that is asking for trouble. so you keep the tankers away from the combat zone, this leaves the distance of safe operating areas of the tankers and then the safe return of the strike force, possibly without the tanker; it’s been shot down. Ok so that covers the UK, Europe and some of our overseas locations. The Royal Navy with the carriers can operate anywhere in the world 100 miles of shore and strike 150 miles inland, get back to the carrier move and do it again.

    The RAF no longer has strategic bombers such as the V force, but the UK has in the FAA carriers the capability to strike almost anywhere it needs to.

    With three European fleet carriers NATO need only one more from the US as the UK and France could take care of the Atlantic need for carrier power. With the US carrier group that means four carriers for the NATO area on six month deployments. One on duty, one on standby, one in refit and one in long term maintanance. If the Yanks could give two that makes it much better. It also means that the US could have eight for the Pacific.

    As for the Med, we really do not need carriers, we have Italy. However, if we decide that carriers are needed then the baby carriers from Italy,it’s a finger of land that covers most of the Med, it’s an unsinkable carrier; with Spain and Turkey they are more than capable to do the task. So fleet carriers are not required.

    So the RN QE class carriers are mobile airfields, able to deliver airpower wherever the UK needs to have them. Able to move 600 miles a day, protected by her escorts, attack anything she needs to up to 150 miles inshore and protect a landing force of possibly Brigade strength if we had the LHDs. What else in the British military could do that? The RAF! Look what happened to the old PoW when the RAF said they would be there if needed.

    The only real complaint that you will get from me about our carriers are two points. Point one, I would like to see a crash barrier and possibly arrestor gear on the carriers. Reason, if a F35B needs to land with a damaged engine a crash barrier would be useful. Or is a NATO naval aircraft has to land due to damage or technical issue then the arrastor gear will come in useful. Second point is I would like to see the 30mm better yet the BAE 40 mm mounts installed and four blocks of six Sea Ceptor missiles. The reason for the Sea Ceptor missile is that it does not leave a mess on the flight deck, the T45 will be about 30-40km ahead of the carrier and the T26s will be about 15-20km on each beam. So if there is a leaker the carrier can take care of them herself.

    Now for my conclusions. The RN does not have enough ships or the right ships. So lets start with the carriers. We are now in the concept stage for the T83, and yes I have seen people asking for six, eight 12 etc. Yet with the size about 12,000 tons, command and control; Admiral plus staff, carrier escort flagship command centre; and up to 128 missile cells we can afford possibly 4 of these ships. That is however ok on the condition that we build 8 T46s. These could be possibly an AAW version of the T26, keeping the ASW suite but replacing all Sea Ceptor VLS with MK41s and upgrading the Artisan radar. We also need LHD ships, my thinking is of 4 such shps, able to carry an Armoured Battle Group. One to be with the Carrier group, one to be on notice, one in refit and one in maintaince. That is peace time, in war it could mean three armoured battle groups being landed where needed.

    This would make up the UK Strike ability. Now for UK diplomacy, the T31 is a good concept, with the 32 cell Mk41 these ships should not be taken lightly. However can they be improved. Possibly with a containerisd CAPTAS2-4 and one more ship to make them a class of six. Now comes the T32 and the future RMs tasks and roles! Babcock presented a stretched T31 with a mission deck like the T26. I like the design but is it the best? Not really. I keep coming back to the Damen Crossover Combatant. A frigate weapons load with the ability to land 120 RMs. So my thinking is in times of conflict, and that is what we must design of armed forces for 8 of these ships to work with the 4 LHDs. So capability with limited investment would or could mean 2 LHDs with 2 armoured battle groups, 4 Crossovers each with a 120 RMs and a Carrier Strike Group. This gives airpower where needed, landing forces on mass where needed, and political power when needed. Political power in some ways stops wars because the potetial enemy know you have the ability.

    Sorry for the long post, just doing my PhD in naval history and learning not to speak how I think.

    • I can’t see any point in ferrying a jet to Norway, when there are plenty of places to refuel even if not in mid-air. Lossiemouth to Orland air base is about 600 miles and to Bodø is about 860.The ferry range of an F-15E for example is about 1600 miles and that’s without extra fuel tanks. Typhoon is similar, maybe more. For F-35C it’s about 1500 miles.

      The answer is twofold. Most modern CATOBAR fighter jets could theoretically make use of the ramp on a carrier to take off lightly loaded. We’ve seen Rafale-Ms and F/A-18s doing this in the competition for sales to India. I’d expect few issues with an F-35C. A non-carrier plane like an F-15 might well have undercarriage issues due to the upward pressure from the ramp. It’s worth looking at how the Soviets modified the Mig-29K or Su-33 from their land variants for STOBAR. Many of the changes are for landing, but things like increased engine power make a big difference on ramp take-off.

      However, which ship’s captain, indeed which air force is going to let untrained pilots try it from a real carrier without even conducting previous proving flights for the plane on land? Similarly, I doubt a captain is going to want to risk the utility of a carrier in landing a damaged plane that needs crash barriers, especially an F-35B. It would be told to ditch and the pilot would be picked up by helicopter. If you did want to ferry those jets, why not unload at a port just as you loaded?

      Let me add, the F-35B can dogfight. Its situational awareness is so good that it tends to close in a highly advantageous position relative to a fourth gen fighter. It would make mincemeat of a Harrier.

      • Hi Jon, thanks for the reply, first I would only like to say I used Northern Norway as an example. There has been times when a carrier has been used to ferry aircraft to combat zones. I am not sure on the air miles before service, but i can imagine that after a 1000 miles the aircraft needs some time in the garage.

        The range of a F35B is about 1000 miles, however they might need to fight their way in, so for N.Norway a tanker might be needed over the North Sea. Again a tanker is a strategic asset and would make a good target.

        Can the B version dogfight? Not really, its g limit is less than most combat fighters, its speed is lower. It is a long range shoot down aircraft, to get close is possibly not a good idea. In fact if an F35B pilot gets up close to an enemy aircraft the pilot has screwed up.

        As for emergancy landings, I was not thinking about aircraft designed for runways, but carrier aircraft such as the F35C, F18, Growler, Rafale etc, Carrier aircraft that operate at sea and possibly in a combined NATO Strike Group.

        As for the Harrier, I am not thinking of a Harrier going up against a F35, I am/was looking at the Harrier and the cost as a Hi Lo Lo as a anti ship strike platform and the Sea Harrier as CAP. All I am saying is that it could have been a good cost effective addition to the F35B. Operating in the 100-150 mile zone from the carrier for enemy bombers that leaked through the air defence of the carrier group.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here