British aircraft carrier heads to the United States

It doesnt compare to the PoW either than as neither does that…

Not sure what PoW is. You can’t be talking about PWLS because that spent the last year working as the NATO flagship in the Arctic while the Fords did nothing.

You know that Ford has been operating real aircraft for several years now.? And will very soon be deploying very soon on the other side of the world with a real actual air group. It seems to be able to steam wherever the hell it wants to under nuclear propulsion whereas the mighty Prince of Wales can’t seem to clear Portsmouth without hurting itself. And it has no air group… Ever.

“Soon”
Meanwhile Prince of Wales has already been deployed operationally. Oh dear.

Chip still sizzling away nicely I see? Why the comparisons with the USN, is it the “whose best” competition again? Only 1 winner there.

Team America, f**k yeah!!! 😀

Pretty much. No one aspires to match the US military save the Chinese. Some whom we think are US posters love to put down other nations efforts non the less.

There are always exceptions to that of course, we’ve had a few decent yanks here over the years and Former USAF now seems one.

Thanks Danielle, some of us practice refraining from being the Ugly Americans. 😁 Never understood the value of critical critiques of true allies exerting best effort. Totally counter productive.

Absolutely Daniele – it’s getting really old. Both classes – Ford and QE – are awesome ships in their own right and let everyone just leave it at that!

Your right Ford can steam right around the world on her nuclear propulsion. Pity she doesn’t have nuclear meals for the crew and nuclear jet fuel. Even a nuclear aircraft carrier can only carry enough jet fuel for a week of busy flying.

Firstly, I want to be clear. I am in no way knocking the USN. Ford has had teething problems and it is hardly surprising when you think of the sea change in capabilities it represents and all the new technologies it introduces. As I understand it the main problem has been with the EMALS. Which incidentally we wanted for the QE and PoW and would have happily installed if it had been ready in time and no serious observer would suggest that both the British Carriers would not be even better with EMALS. It was actually one of the reasons we selected the conventional power option over the nuclear one as we would have no need of unlimited steam. Sadly EMALS a brand new technology which Will undoubtedly become the standard launch mechanism globally for naval aviation over the coming years has taken time to perfect I am just glad that the professionals in both the USN and the RN do not engage in this silly one upmanship between two countries that are about as closely allied as any two countries have ever been and instead maintain a strong respect for each others professionalism and abilities. As for the current issue with PoW it was a propeller coupling issue and nothing to do with the conventional power train and the decision to select conventional power was a good one believe it or not it is cheaper allows the vessel to go many places American carriers cannot and is far easier to maintain without specialist nuclear expertise. We are quite capable of building nuclear powered vessels we just chose not to in this case. I think it was probably the right decision. But in regards to the issue that occurred aboard PoW the same thing could happen to a US nuclear carrier with exactly the same result. Also the fact that they have worked up the QE to step in for the PoW so quickly is laudable and also shows that the two carrier dynamic is working. We built two so that we could attempt to ensure one was always available for deployment… I call that success.

Believe the RN has pursued an entirely rational course in deferring decision re EMALS until a stable system design (i e., reliable, maintainable, etc.) has been demonstrated by USN. The RN simply does not have the budget available for numerous and diverse large scale R&D efforts. Reality dictates selectivity. “Value for money.” Simples! There will come an appropriate time in the future to consider retrofitting QE class w/ EMALS. Believe the US expends significant amounts on R&D principally out of concern over ChiCom rate of development.

The engineering spaces for EMALS are all still reserved within both HMS PoW and HMS QE. It has been a hard time for the UK with BREXIT and the pandemic all at the same time and we have had to make some very hard decisions.

Perhaps the most galling was retiring Tornado without a replacement. It was always intended to replace Tornado with a smaller number of F-35’s. Instead we have been forced to employ the increasing capabilities of the later tranche Eurofighter Typhoons as the single fast jet platform in the RAF for both the ground support/strike and air superiority roles.

In a perfect future scenario we would incorporate EMALS into the QE class carriers. There is no doubt they would be superior with EMALS and the more capable F-35C. The airframes extended range (often the key to “everything” in carrier ops) and much greater payload would dramatically increase the combat power of the two carriers and they would also be able to launch proper AWACS platforms rather than the less effective (but still innovative and ingenious) Crows Nest helo’s.

However, perhaps the important effect of this upgrade would be the 4 plus squadrons of F-35B’s that would be released from carrier duty. These aircraft would obviously be transferred to the RAF Strike Command as the long promised replacement for Tornado in the ground support and attack mission. The best feature of F-35B is its V/STOL capabilities which is somewhat redundant on carriers as even the F-35B cannot land on water!!! However, over the modern battlefield it could prove absolutely invaluable. In an age of ultra accurate munitions any quiet stretch of motorway or even “A” road can become an airbase… It could transform the Navy and the RAF in one upgrade for 2 carriers.

It would of course be expensive, another 80 or so F-35C at least but that would only take us too around the number of F-35’s we originally planned to buy which was the justification for being the one and only Tier I partner in the F-35 program? What was the point if we are only ever going to equip two carrier air wings with F-35?

I doubt this upgrade will even happen but the world is becoming more dangerous by the day. I am convinced the Chinese are going to support Russia with weapons. They have decided that a forever war/long term conflict in Ukraine is in their best interests. Their two greatest rivals striving against each other while they prepare to do too Taiwan what we are preventing Russia from doing to Ukraine.

They want the west already suffering from war fatigue and hardship when they present us with the invasion of Taiwan as a “fait accompli” They will hope that we will have had enough of war and hardship by then. Have no doubt economic war with China is a game that will hurt us (at least in the short term) a lot more than all this with Russia has and all this with Russia has hurt, we all know it. If Putin is allowed to win in Ukraine we will be back to the bad old days of aggressive wars of conquest over night. All the progress we have made towards a world where you cannot just take what your neighbour has because you can will be gone and the 21st Century will most likely be doomed to repeat all the mistakes of the 20th century! Would humanity even survive that now?

The world is on the brink and I never before felt this concerned not even during the Cold War (except once or twice and anybody who lived thru the Cold War will know when those occasions were) Now is not the time for faint hearts and timidity we MUST be strong and our enemies must be in “NO DOUBT” of our resolve. That is the only way to guarantee peace.

SD,

Thanks for the extended, obviously thought-provoking reply. Did not immediately recognize the referenced
article from September, appreciate the UKDJ cueing provided w/in their email alert of your response.

There have been at least two very sporting, near-run, potentially apocalyptic episodes post WW II: 1.) Cuban Missile Crisis, and 2.) Soviet interpretation of a NATO nuclear exercise (believe to have occurred in ’83). Fortunately, rational minds prevailed. No longer convinced all the players/leaders share that trait. The best course that can probably be hoped for is that a majority of the publics in the principal democracies are beginning to apprehend the potential gathering storm(s). For the UK, one could wish for an expedited acquisition of a robust GBAD system and Aster 30, Block (NT?) (already in progress) for RN Daring class destroyers. Additionally, any acceleration of rhe build/deployment schedule of Dreadnaught class SSBNs and an increase in nuclear warhead production at Aldermaston would be viewed positively by UK’s principal allies. Although useful in most conventional war scenarios, not certain whether any aircraft carriers and associated aircraft complements would survive long-term in a worst case future conflict. Believe there are some parallels to be drawn to mid-1930’s, and an apprehension that while history seldom repeats, it often rhymes. 🤔😳

You know what I meant PoW PWLS, PMSL all the same thing.
I was merely being facetious-not tetchy, we need to accept when kit fails – not try and spin it or deflect it.
Im all for a bit of yank bashing but come on the Ford class will be an awsome carrier one that I for one wish we could afford.

I find it interesting that you’re having a go at me for Yank Bashing when the yank bashing was a reply to some pretty egregious RN bashing, instead of targeting the instigator.

Prince of Wales, the carrier with the broken propeller

Please see:

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/british-aircraft-carrier-heads-to-the-united-states/#comment-670050

Not a great introduction Mike.

Commentary raises an interesting question. What would be an appropriate grouping of capital ships in a combined taskforce? USN CVN w/ RN CV(F?)? RN CVF see w/ one (or more) US LHAs? Obviously, threat level would be a significant criterion.

…delete “see”…🙄

BTW, HMS Richmond is the escort for the residual operation, whatever currently titled. Believe HMS Richmond has completed LIFEX and has received Sea Ceptor mod and PGMU. Has the Sea Ceptor mod to enable ASuW (presumably software?) been implemented? Probably a very useful feature to have at this point.

The issue is US Marines have deployed on one UK aircraft carrier. And that’s because the UK can’t deploy their own aircraft on their wonderful carrier. The capability does not exist. Ask yourself why the Prince of Wales was supposed to go to the US to operate American aircraft. These are not difficult questions to answer.. The appear to be fantastic ships when they work. The problem is they don’t have anywhere near a deployable air group. F-35s or helicopters. And then there’s that teensy little AEW issue. There is a reason you spend billions of whatever the hell sort of money you have there to build an aircraft carrier. It is to project power. Evidently no one in the UK got the memo on that. And then The fact that it really can’t defend itself is another minor issue. But yes I’m sure we are going to operate as a coalition and everyone else will have to pick up the slack.

*Operate the British Trials Aircraft that are still in the US.

If you want to be taken seriously please at least get your facts right.

Don’t you mean… yet? You pompous… The UK was out of the carrier game for 20 years. We are just rebuilding the capability and I agree we need more jets but we are getting more jets. there will be over 50 by Xmas this year (there is a limit to how fast we can train pilots) and another 36 next year. The reason we have invited USMC pilots and aircraft aboard is because we are relying on them to help us train our guys. Most F-35 customers from wherever do their initial training in the States are they all incompetent too? Luckily as allies our services have a great deal more respect for each other than we seem to have here. As for the UK not being able to defend itself and others taking up the slack. Do me a favour bruv!!! We are the only other nation to contribute real combat power to all these American led coalitions. We were responsible for the entire Southern flank of the Iraq invasion 1/3rd of the theatre. We sent an Armoured Brigade for the invasion of Kuwait around 10 times what anybody else in the coalition contributed except of course the US and then there was Afghanistan. We fought side by side with our American friends and allies from day one to the bitter end. All so that the Americans could avenge themselves for 9/11 but we were offended by 9/11 too…. that is a sign of the friendship we feel towards America that we are willing to get into a 20 year occupation when we feel our friends and allies have been subjected to a cowardly and evil attack. I personally believe that a majority, indeed “most” Americans feel the same way about the UK. It is called the “special relationship” and still plays a large role in how we see the world. You have no cause to complain about OUR commitment to our joint defence. I think you are misdirecting your anger in the wrong direction we have never skimped on defence we exceed our NATO floor of 2% every year and according to my memory it is you guys that have need us a lot more than we have needed you for the last 50 years… Have a nice day

Bravo.

He’s a Troll. You’ll notice there are a few on this site. But well said anyway.

RN carrier task force/strike group (CSG) operational capability will mature over the remainder of this decade, and most deficiencies will be addressed/resolved. Remember, it would be a formidable task to reconstitute carrier capability after allowing it to lapse for a number of years, for any navy, including our own. “Rome was not built in a day.”* Quote or approximation thereof.*

Yes, we all do it.

Jim, Lee, Paul.
Thank you Gentlemen. I’ll have a read.

Also for SSN’s there’s the cost of decommissioning which is fairly eye watering. That always seems to be left as a problem for the next generation to deal with.

MOD projected costs to dismantle 27 boats is £3 billion or £111 each. That’s not that bad and much of the costs won’t increase with unit numbers. 1 tonne of nuclear waste is basically just as big a problem as ten tonnes of nuclear waste to store.

There is no real reason why the UK can’t have a much larger SSN fleet it just has to choose to do it.

£111 each to decomission reactors. That’s a good deal! Shame edit button goes after 30 mins Jim.

The defence budget is £50 billion which over a 30 year build cycle is £1.5 Trillion. Why don’t you think we can buy one submarine a year for at £1.5 billion each? Astutely don’t need refuelled ever and the total manning for 24 SSN’s is 2352 out of a total armed forces of 158,000.

People like Wallace are starting to wake up to the fact that SSN’s are incredibly cheap to operate relative to the capability they produce.

With modern A2AD capability it’s unlikely that any surface ship would survive for more than a few hours in a real conflict.

Radar satellites mean there will literally be no where to hide on the surface of the water.

I think there is a bit more to the cost cycle than that.

Balance is always the key.

Otherwise we are back to another Duncan Sandys moment.

Subs are important but a balanced fleet is even more important.

– How do you carry out littoral conflict with a sub?
– How do you deliver FIRES without giving away you location?
– How do you launch aircraft from a sub – I appreciate the Russian have tried this with their carrier…..

You could go on and on.

Yes, you can deny oceans to other powers with a few subs BUT if your subs become detectable due to advances in tech it is game over. Where do you go then?

There is always an ebb and a flow in these things. To say surface fleet is dead is far from true.

Warships generally launch missiles, it’s the missiles that do the work. You don’t need a CAP to protect a fleet from an enemy airbase if you take the enemy airbase out with missiles from a sub.

I’m not arguing for an unbalanced fleet, my position is that a fleet of 19 Frigates and destroyers 2 Carriers, 6 amphibs, 8 OPV’s and 12 MCM but just 5 SSN is unbalanced.

We will have 7 SSN’s

Actually mate we will should have 8 for a few years depending on when Triumph comes out of refit and how long they keep her in commission for!

Would be nice to stay at 8. But I guess 7 Astutes is a big chunk of capability. Very pleased Ben Wallace is staying on as defense secretary.

Yes, ditto BW staying on.

No
Triumph is completely clapped out. And it will never go to sea again….. It will hang close to the dock and that’s about it. This is what history shows.

I don’t think 5 is enough and neither does MOD which is why they ordered 7.

I don’t think 7 is enough and would suggest that 12 was closer to the needed number as subs can carry out a wide range of discreet tasks.

That assumes that T32 is ordered and the surface fleet is

6 x T45
8 x T26
5 x T31
5 x T32

So back to 24 warships and ignoring OPV’s which are not warships.

Currently I think we are down to 17 or 18 surface combatants given the early paying off of T23’s?

I don’t really agree that simply slotting an airfield with sub launched missiles will guarantee that no planes are launched. Airfields are quite big and with dispersal around the airfield it could take a lot of missile shots to put all the aircraft and facilities out of action. What happens when a few planes survive with pilots and ground crew?

CAP is essential for a large carrier based fleet. It may well be CAP that is QRA launched to deal with incoming rather than patrolling aimlessly. But you can also argue that an F35B on CAP is massively adding to the radar (and other) picture of the fleet just because of the elevated horizon and excellent sensors.

I think 12 ssn would be spot on a realistic increase of 5. Add some small cheap hydrogen subs like the type 212 because they can be virtually untraceable at slow speeds ideal for sitting in the giuk gap.

Yes, and as our current adversaries already have large sub numbers maybe it’s the right time for a few more P-8s, and helos, Merlin and upgraded Wildcats and why can’t the surface fleet also be increased further, closer to 30 instead of this “24”? 1-2 more each of T26/31/32 and all the “bells and missiles” to go with all this? Not asking for too much are we?
We mustn’t forget the very deserving airforce and Army in all this too.

We need more subs, no question about that, but do they all have to be SSNs? Should we be looking at a few SSKs, possibly utilising proven off the shelf designs from countries like Germany etc built in the UK with RN specific kit?

I don’t think we need 12, Russia hasn’t the numbers it used to have and with Australia joining the club you don’t really need to deploy to the Pacific. So 8 or 10 SSN but add 4 AIPSSK, but not the U212. I think they are just a little too tailored for the Baltic and Med, the true ocean going AIPs are French, Japanese and Swedish. If it was me I’d talk to the Swedes about us building 4 Blekinge and also see if the RAN would like to add some interim SSKs as well to tied them over till they get their SSNs. I just do not see how the Collins class can be safely kept in service till the AUKUS SSNs arrive.

A modern SSK comes in at around £500 million a pop, depending on whats fitted. Not really what you might call cheap if you consider the base price for a T31 at £250ish million?

They are also not really that suitable for patrolling the GIUK gap, its to large an area for a SSK to patrol by itself, you would need 5 or 6 of them to cover the entire gap, which could be covered by 2 SSN’s, 1 at a push.

Off topic, slightly, but there’s an informative piece here about the AUKUS deal and where both UK and Australia see themselves going in near future.

https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/minister/rmarles/transcripts/joint-press-conference-uk-secretary-state-defence-ben-wallace

Did a television series entitled “Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea” ever make it across the Pond in syndication? Sci-fi adventures of specially equipped USN sub sub (circa late ’60’s early “70’s) equipped w/ an independent manned aerial vehicle. Total fantasy at the time, but life may approximate art in terms of future tech (50+ yrs. on). 🤔

Oh, yeh I remember that. The sub had really cool horizontal fins on the bow and windows… I can’t really remember the storylines any more but I always thought the sub looked awsome.

Cheers CR

Yes, for storylines think Jules Verne’s “Twenty Thousand Leagues Under The Sea,” but the thought occurred to me to send a DVD to the concept design teams for SSN(X) and SSN(R) w/ a note requesting a similar design. 😁

Oh yes, Was on Chanel 4 Saturday mornings when I was a kid. Maybe it’s time to fit the windows to SSN (R) 😀

If the future yields a common design, especially mission equipment, wonder whether a system for creating multinational crews could be implemented as necessary (trade you two sonar techs for a reactor operator and a draft choice to be named later 😁). NATO has some multinational aircrews.

We had to do that a few years ago getting engineers from US coast guard on our frigates.

Maybe ask Elon Musk to solve the propulsion problem and cost of subs and surface ships he’s done it with rockets and shown NASA how to get thing done more efficiently and cheaper. Just a thought.

Maybe not, if my Tesla is anything to go by.

3 front suspensions and a front motor in 14k miles. PWLS is better than that….

Sure but a limited number of shots and gives away the position of the sub.

Not such an issue when firing from 1000 miles away. In modern warfare I don’t think anyone will be taking a surface combatant with in gun range of any enemy coats line. Russians have found that out.

The Russian discovered that if you don’t have weapons system that work you can’t defend yourself.

As well as discovering that if you have the whole of the topside covered in missiles they start to cook off when they are hit.

They also discovered that if you have poor damage control ships sink.

Basically they discovered that if they are so stupid as to try to use knackered Cold War ships with knackered systems that don’t work they are sitting ducks to any semi decent weapons.

Poor damage control can be an issue with lean manned ships. One thing that really helps with controlling fires for instance is lots of well trained sailors.

Sure lean manning could be an issue where well trained muscle is required.

But well trained is the key for all eventualities.

TLAMs, deadly but expensive.

Not really the same mission I was referring to, I meant gunfire support as seen in the Falklands or supporting any potential future landing. Tomahawk would be an horrifically expensive way of carrying that out. Sometimes cheaper and less complex is the way to go.

Before anyone says we won’t be carrying out any landings needing gunfire support, I’d argue that for as long as we have the Royal Marines there remains the potential they will need the support.

Quite

Multiple calibers of Vulcano rounds? Potentially MadFires?

We need 5 additional Astutes preferably a ‘flight2’ with additional VLS, like was done with Los Angeles SSN’s taking off torps for TLAM reduces them too much from hunter killer role

Liz Truss did an interview on Radio 4 on 30th Jun:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1633308/Liz-Truss-BBC-Radio-4-Today-UK-defence-cuts-Russia-NATO-threat-Ukraine-war-latest-vn

and said that she supported reduction of the army to 73,000 and then made a fool of herself for suggesting that the army should expect reductions from 100 or 200 years ago – what was that about? Specifically:
“Sounds to me like there is some internal discussions taking place about the precise deployment of forces but I think we all need to recognise that warfare now is different to warfare as it was 100 years ago, or, or 200 years ago,”

She now, as PM, says that cuts to the army can be reviewed.

TBH Graham, she just seem to be saying anything that would go down well with the conservative party membership to get there vote. Lets see what happens in the emergency budget.