French carrier Charles Gaulle and British carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth will take part in a joint exercise.

The exercise, referred to as Gallic Strike, has started. It will involve 15 ships and 57 aircraft.

According to a Government news release:

“Working alongside another key NATO ally, the Carrier Strike Group will be joined by French Aircraft Carrier Charles De Gaulle for a period of dual carrier operations in the Mediterranean.”

What is the UK Carrier Strike Group doing?

HMS Queen Elizabeth is the deployed flag ship for Carrier Strike Group 21 (CSG21), a deployment that will see the ship and her escorts sail to the Asia-Pacific and back. CSG21 will see the ship along with the Strike Group work with over 40 countries from around the world. The Strike Group will operate and exercise with other countries Navies and Air Forces during the 7 month deployment.

The Carrier Strike Group includes ships from the United States Navy, the Dutch Navy, and Marines from the US Marine Corps. As well as British frigates, destroyers, a submarine, two RFA supply ships and air assets from 617 Sqn, 820 NAS, 815 NAS and 845 NAS. This is the largest deployment of Fifth Generation Fighter Jets at sea in history.

What is the French Carrier Strike Group doing?

The primary mission of the task force’s five-month deployment in the East Mediterranean, the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean is to assist Operation Inherent Resolve, a U.S.-led mission of forces from several countries tasked with eradicating Islamic State remnants following its three-year occupation of large swaths of Syrian and Iraqi territory. You can read more about the French carrier group here.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
86 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ChariotRider
ChariotRider
15 days ago

Nice to see the RN and FN carriers working together. Few outside of the defence community (I include those of us to take an interest in defence matters in this instance) realise just how closely we work with the French military as the operations in Mali rarely hit the head lines, for example. Hopefully there’ll be some nice photos that make it into the wider media. Everytime I read that the CSG21 is going to work with 40 countries in 7 months I can’t help but think how busy everyone in the Strike Group is going to be. Shame they… Read more »

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
15 days ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

The old recruiting slogans have come back with avengence.

” See the World…Differently”…

Differently being from your covid secure bubble in a fenced off area of a jetty whilst berthed next to a cement factory….(Old RN joke…everywhere you berth on a deployment seems to be next to a cement factory even when you are nowhere near a cement factory…)

Andy P
Andy P
15 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

Yeah, you’d be threaders eh ? A hoofing big trip halfway round the world with the ‘old and bold’ spinning dits about their ‘old runs’ and you end up with a bbq on the jetty. Probably not great for retention but what can the Navy do.

Dern
Dern
14 days ago
Reply to  Andy P

Well it’s on a scale isn’t it. Blokes are getting to see considerably more of the world in the Navy that they would cooped up in their flats at home in lockdown, so swings and roundabouts.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
13 days ago
Reply to  Dern

Blokes!

The RN is a caring sharing multi everything pink and fluffy organisation.

2SL’s Thought Regies’s will be after you for saying “Blokes”

Not that anyone really cares that much onboard ….one of the Gunners who worked for me described herself thus
” I aint a WREN Im a matelot with tits”

the_marquis
the_marquis
14 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

Could be worse, foreign military vessels pulling into Hong Kong (mainly Arleigh Burkes, as the larger USN stuff stays out at anchor, but there has been the odd French frigate) tend to tie up at China Merchants Wharf in Kennedy Town, which is behind a mortuary!

nice bars and restaurants in K-Town though, so it’s not all bad if you venture out, and the allure of Wanchai is only a tram ride or MTR journey away…

CAM
CAM
13 days ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

Same here, good to be supporting allies and our allies to be closely supporting us. Hope all goes well as the strike groups continues further on its deployment.

Johan
Johan
13 days ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

yes the Free inflation service and look the other way, for all those rubber boats is so helpful. and the free testing for french lorry drivers delivering horsehite. wouldnt piss petrol on the french if they were on fire, let them smoulder

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
15 days ago

Cant wait to see the inevitable side by side overhead profile of the 2 carriers. These 2 ships bring a lot of firepower to bear and represent the majority of Europes conventional maritime power.

Dern
Dern
14 days ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

Pretty sure George already posted that picture a few weeks ago, didn’t you George XD

Lordtemplar
Lordtemplar
14 days ago
Reply to  Dern

You mean this picture? 😉

E2d_XYbXMAM7erG.jpeg
Dern
Dern
13 days ago
Reply to  Lordtemplar

No it was of Frances actual carrier, not some paper project that won’t hit the water until 2040.  😀 

captain p wash
captain p wash
13 days ago
Reply to  Dern

If at all……

Dern
Dern
13 days ago
Reply to  captain p wash

True.
I hope they pull it off, but it wouldn’t be the first time a nation announced an ambitious carrier project and then let it slowly die.
It wouldn’t even be the first time France did it.
It wouldn’t even be the first time France did it in the last 20 years.

I do hope they get it, better to have allied carriers than not, though. Better yet I hope it’s conventionally powered and they build 2 of them.

captain p wash
captain p wash
13 days ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

Well, yes and no really ……… One can only sail about 30% of the time, ( no, it’s true ! ) the other can only sail with about 30% of the intended Aircraft ( No. It’s true too ) ….. despite being about 30% bigger…… and another thing, the other one is pretty much empty at the moment …. until the return of the SCS Cruise …….  🙁 

LongTime
LongTime
15 days ago

I really hope the French navy reconsider their propulsion options on the CDG replacement, I personally believe if they went conventional power over nuclear they could afford to have 2 carriers with only a small increase in project costs, opposed to a single Nuclear carrier with the same issue as CDG during refit periods.

Last edited 15 days ago by LongTime
James H
James H
15 days ago
Reply to  LongTime

Is there any idea about operating costs between conventional and nuclear over the life if a ship?

LongTime
LongTime
15 days ago
Reply to  James H

Would mostly come down to core life and reactor maintenance requirements. Sure the USN done a paper on it for the America class, if my memory is correct the requested early tenders for both conventional and nuclear then chose conventional.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
14 days ago
Reply to  LongTime

Been thinking about this. The Americas are designed to run all their integrated parts off of the same fuel, don’t know if they have achieved that as yet. I would guess there are a lot of factors determining the best choice of propulsion that’s beyond my pay grade. But I would presume (ignoring relative build/running costs) a lot depends on size and thus volume and how often a said ship/size will need to replenish general supplies for crew, other needs and fuel for its aircraft (other vehicles in the case of the Americas). If you have to do that anyway… Read more »

dan
dan
14 days ago
Reply to  LongTime

A big advantage to a CVN is a nuke reactor takes up a lot less space than the fuel tanks needed for a conventional CV. That space saving can go towards other things like more fuel storage for aircraft, bombs, ect. Also the CVN doesn’t need to refuel itself, only the gas for the aircraft so the logistics tail is smaller. A CVN can also go at top speed until something basically breaks.

lee1
lee1
14 days ago
Reply to  dan

Yep, however conventional powered ships also have advantages. For a start they are cheaper to repair if something goes wrong. Also Nuclear powered ships are banned from many harbours around the world.

Lordtemplar
Lordtemplar
14 days ago
Reply to  lee1

1.Lol what are these many ports that ban nuclear carriers? Australia and NZ? You got a list or is that a gut feeling.
2. Carriers are safest in open waters whereas vulnerable in ports or too close to the coast
3. France has many overseas teritories and can port in any ocean if need be.

lee1
lee1
14 days ago
Reply to  Lordtemplar

Well you could do your own research… New Zealand bans nuclear powered ships from even entering its territorial waters!

Lordtemplar
Lordtemplar
13 days ago
Reply to  lee1

Maybe you should re-read my comment, because i wrote NZ. Why would France need to port in NZ, when France has many islands across the Pacific 😉 .
So your argument that nuclear is a disadvantage because it can’t port is flat out wrong since almost all countries have no such restrictions.

Last edited 13 days ago by Lordtemplar
lee1
lee1
13 days ago
Reply to  Lordtemplar

You put a question mark after NZ… I also never mentioned Charles De Gaul. I merely said that one of the benefits of conventional power is that they can stop at more ports. Also military strategy is not the only consideration. Charles De Gaul and HMS Queen Elizabeth are more than simply military assets. They are also political tools and often stop in countries to host officials for trade etc. In this case, being able to stop in any large enough port is important. As others have also said on this thread. The cost of stopping in many ports is… Read more »

Lordtemplar
Lordtemplar
13 days ago
Reply to  lee1

Since when are aircraft carrier used for trade? Sorry but this is nonesense. You fly in a delegation of govt officials and businessmen. That is how trade deals are done between states, certainly not with weapons of war. Lastly, even if the CDG was conventionally powered, it would still be banned from going to NZ. It carries nuclear cruise missiles, which is even more problematic. The truth of the matter is that the ability to port in NZ is not a factor when designing a carrier. Both the US and France have operated nuclear carriers, and both see the benefits… Read more »

lee1
lee1
13 days ago
Reply to  Lordtemplar

You clearly know very little about military strategy. It is not all firepower for war. There is a significant diplomatic side to the military. Flagships have long been used for diplomatic purposes. You will find that both the QE and POW spend far more time hosting trade delegations, wining and dining foreign diplomats and other soft power initiatives than they will ever do fighting wars. Why do you think the carrier strike group is visiting so many countries on its current deployment? Do you think they are just practicing war games? They are in fact acting as an advert for… Read more »

lee1
lee1
13 days ago
Reply to  Lordtemplar

On another note. CDG does not carry nuclear armament as routine. These are only carried under certain conditions and probably has not done so for quite some time. So you are wrong that if it were conventionally powered that it would face the same restrictions.

lee1
lee1
13 days ago
Reply to  lee1

Also the UK has only 3 ports with X berths. Plymouth, Faslane and Rosyth. Portsmouth would therefore not be able to host the carriers as their home port if they were Nuclear powered. How many z or x berths do you think other countries have (You know the majority of the world that has neither Nuclear weapons or Nuclear powered vessels)?

Johan
Johan
13 days ago
Reply to  Lordtemplar

USN cannot dock in any UK MOD PORT, there not deep enough due to the risk of overheating its core. and who wants a nuclear meltdown in another country. oh hang on

Johan
Johan
13 days ago
Reply to  Lordtemplar

Most Nato countries or allies will not allow nuclear warships or subs OR Nuclear-armed.

cannot anchor a carrier in the middle of an ocean while the crew are on shore leave.

Frances oversea colonies tend to have harboured for fishing junks, saying that most the FN would be @ home.

Tim
Tim
14 days ago
Reply to  James H

We should think of the whole UK nuclear industry. 8 large Power Stations, 11 Submarines (PWR2/3 design), several test and training reactors, University courses, plus of course the Trident program. Adding 4 more PWR3 reactors for QEC and POW would probably be just a small increase and will make the average cost per reactor come down. Did you know that the QEC carries 5,000 tons of fuel? That’s as much as an entire T23, and that only just about gets her to the SCS. Her entire escort group will use about half of that on this journey. If we are… Read more »

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
14 days ago
Reply to  Tim

Now If I can remember some of the stuff from my Nuclear Incident Monitoring and Management Course… (A fun few weeks spent at INM in Gosport so that I could do the monitoring for Nuclear Vessels in Hong Kong when they visited, in case they had an accident) … On the down side. Restricted or banned port entry into numerous countries. Dedicated Z or X berths needed alongside. With extensive Health monitoring facilities on the jetty and in the larger dockyard. After long hard runs there are issues with the half lives of some of the isotopes that are produced… Read more »

the_marquis
the_marquis
14 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

Hi Gunbuster, not to ask you to reveal your age here, but I take it you’re talking pre-handover – out of interest, where would nuclear powered ships have berthed, in the Tamar basin or at Stonecutters? And what was the largest nuclear vessel that was alongside?

Cheers!

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
14 days ago
Reply to  the_marquis

The family and I left HK in July 96. I was back out there on HMS BEAVER for the Handover. We trialled the new berth outside POW Barracks for Britania to use. Spent a hectic week alongside there partying with LEPs and RN regulars who were singlies and still there till the end. The berth for Subs was off shore. A couple of big barges with Gensets on and a ferry making runs to the Fleet Arcade. Carriers came in and anchored off under their own power as they where to big for Victoria harbour. We were also the standby… Read more »

the_marquis
the_marquis
14 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

Cool, cheers Gunbuster, thanks for the info, it’s interesting to hear! so if you left in July, were you in China Jump the night of the infamous Dentist’s Chair incident??

I saw the Liaoning anchored off Stonecutters a few years back, which was an interesting sight to see…

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
14 days ago
Reply to  the_marquis

No… The Jump wasn’t one of my haunts. Carneigies was outstanding. Also liked the Bull and Bear, and the the Pussycat club… Seedy as anything but a great dive bar to drink in.
I was also a. Member of Club which was right opposite our flat. We overlooked Happy Valley finishing line from the 8th floor. Great BBQ s on race nights on the roof of our tower block. The blocks we lived in are gone now.

James Fennell
James Fennell
13 days ago
Reply to  Tim

It was tough enough for the RN to convince treasury to let them have 2 full-size carriers, going for nukes would have been a deal breaker. Next generation maybe, once we have got used to being a ‘proper’ carrier strike navy again.

Johan
Johan
13 days ago
Reply to  Tim

So ripping one natural resource from the planet, to make fuel is ok, but ripping another one is wrong. guess you don’t understand the science involved. and removing natural resources from the planet.

captain p wash
captain p wash
13 days ago
Reply to  James H

Ermmm Yup, It’s Stupid Expensive really…. And It gets more so after Decom………..

Johan
Johan
13 days ago
Reply to  James H

Ask the USN about true cost, Enterprise is on a 5 year scrapping program, but they cannot afford to continue as the cost is being touted @ $1b per year. without dealing with the core. and was decommissioned 5 years allready. costing more to scrap than build and they have 10 to go….

julian1
julian1
15 days ago
Reply to  LongTime

I always wonder why they have a nuclear powered carrier – the escorts still have to be re-supplied and they don’t really have the auxiliaries like we do so what is the point? Developing nuclear propulsion I guess…

BB85
BB85
15 days ago
Reply to  julian1

It’s hard to see how the cost of fuel can offset the initial cost of nuclear power especially with UK treasury accounting year by year. In theory a nuclear powered carrier can sustain a higher top speed indefinitly but not sure what use that is if the task group can’t keep up.

julian1
julian1
15 days ago
Reply to  BB85

exactly, i read on this i think, that it enabled the French to sustain their maritime/nuclear power capabilities. They were always in the cycle of either designing + building SSNs or carriers which meant they wouldn’t lose the capability with a missed generation. Makes sense in some ways.

Glass Half Full
Glass Half Full
14 days ago
Reply to  julian1

This is what I had understood too, that 4x SSBN + 6x SSN meant a gap in nuclear power plant production. One wonders if going to 7x SSN and 2x conventional carriers wouldn’t produce a better force for the French, while presumably addressing the nuclear power plant production issue. However, with that also comes a need for a significantly larger and more capable auxiliary fleet too. Whereas the nuclear CdG replacement might actually be a source of replenishment for the escorts. The other issue they have is the low numbers of AAW focused high end escorts with just 2x Horizon… Read more »

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
14 days ago
Reply to  BB85

I seem to remember reading the new French carrier to be maxing out at 28 knots in present plans though I suppose as you say can probably sustain that more practically than a non nuclear. But agreed you have to plan for the whole task force not just the nuclear elements in terms of replenishment.

Springer
Springer
15 days ago
Reply to  julian1

The advantage for the French probably being less reliant on the auxilliaries, if the vessel is nuclear powered then I guess you would have more space for additional stores and fuel for aircraft etc.. increasing its endurance slightly. Back in the 60’s the Americans had everything nuclear powered so even the escorts didn’t have to refuel as such (have a look at the odd looking Long Beach class nuclear cruiser).
The French also have a large nuclear industry of course to support it.

LongTime
LongTime
15 days ago
Reply to  Springer

The USN did indeed try nuclear cruisers but look at the inventory now none have been/will be replaced with conventional because initial unit price and operational maintenance was just to high to justify even for the USN. For lone operating units like submarines it makes perfect sense but when 90% of your carrier group needs to refuel what have you gained.

Robert Blay.
Robert Blay.
14 days ago
Reply to  Springer

But you still need aviation fuel, and food and stores. I struggle to see the advantages of nuclear carrier’s. Huge cost, extra maintenance, and even fewer ports you are allowed in. The only place for nuclear is beneath the waves.

dan
dan
14 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay.

Any idea how much fuel it would take to refuel a CV? A lot! Since the support ship doesn’t need to refuel the CVN, just it’s air wing that leaves a lot more space on the refueled for other stuff.

Dern
Dern
14 days ago
Reply to  julian1

Because it’s a combination of national pride (“We have a Supercarrier because it’s Nuclear Powered, even if it is pocket sized, and we are the only nation to operate a CVN vive la France” kind of thing), and it effectively helps subsidize Frances Nuclear Reactor Industry.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
14 days ago
Reply to  Dern

Yes I think the French tend to use this sort of thinking/policy to promote their country and its technology over building a National Yacht even with sumptuous oak veneered stateroom to schmooze guests to do so. Or if they do on occasion want to impress that old fashioned way then go the whole hog and use Versailles.

oryzons
oryzons
13 days ago
Reply to  Dern

You could not be more wrong. French Marine options were by order : 2 CVN 2 CV 1 CVN 1CV Every option has been studied. It will be Nuclear because the reactor that will be developped (225-250 MW) will be used for the next SSBN and because of skills retention they had to start now. French Marine also wanted cats & straps because AWACS were required and the ability to launch drones. CATs will be EMALS and it’s easier to supply them with a Nuclear Reactor and in the same time cruising at 25+ knots. Laser and RailGuns could also… Read more »

Dern
Dern
13 days ago
Reply to  oryzons

So basically: Pride and subsidizing Nuclear industry. Thanks for re-iterating my point. Cats and Traps are not needed for AWACS btw, only if you are determined to have a handfull of E-3’s that can’t provide 24/7 coverage do you need them, so once again, it comes back to symbolic pride, rather than practical necessity. You don’t need Nuclear to generate Power, you just need a large power plant, which most surface warships have. Nuclear is ONE way to generate enough power to operate lasers and rail guns, but it is far from the only way (just like people pretend that… Read more »

Johan
Johan
13 days ago
Reply to  oryzons

please see Ford Class v Queen E Class which one is fully operational, and which one is a laughing stock. ill wait.

Ron
Ron
14 days ago
Reply to  julian1

There are advantagies and disavantagies to both types of propulsion. So I will try to sort it out. A nuclear powered carrier can carry much more aviation fuel and munitions than a conventional powered carrier. Basically she uses the space that a convential carry used for ship fuel. A conventional carrier has more forward presence as they spend less time in maintenance. A nuclear carrier is less dependent on RAS but at the same time cannot dock everywhere a conventional carrier can. Modern warships are dependent on its sensors and weapons which in turn need power, a nuclear carrier has… Read more »

dan
dan
14 days ago
Reply to  julian1

I think part of it is due to France’s competition with America. Also France has always been big on nuclear energy. Also not having to refuel a giant CVN takes a lot of pressure off their refueling ships. Without having to refuel the CVN and just the small escorts that makes the tanker’s fuel go a lot farther.

Frank62
Frank62
14 days ago
Reply to  LongTime

I think nuclear is an insane option for warship propulsion. We’ve already flooded the marine enviroment with plastic waste such that all our seafood is contaminated with it(& hence us also), but we don’t nee to add to that the potential for even more radiation that’s inevitable once a war sinks a few nuke-powered warships. There’s already more than enough radioactive pollution from legacy dumping of waste at sea. Decomissioning is a bitch too. All out retired nuclear subs are sat around awaiting a safe solution last I heard.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
14 days ago
Reply to  Frank62

I agree, read recently how fallout from the 50s Pacific tests is still being detected in seafood being eaten on the West Coast.

dan
dan
14 days ago
Reply to  Frank62

You are mostly referring to the Russians that don’t really care much about the environment. The West has always had many more safely measures in place than them. Also don’t forget about global warming. lol. Did you know that the world’s fleet on cruise ships produces more CO2 than all of the cars in Europe. Yep. So going non nuke isn’t that answer.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
14 days ago
Reply to  Frank62

Don’t swim in the Kara or White sea. Besides freezing to death Soviet Russia dumped a lot of reactors straight to the bottom up there.

dan
dan
14 days ago
Reply to  LongTime

But what about the proposed ban on fossil fuels by the Biden Administration? hah

LongTime
LongTime
13 days ago
Reply to  dan

It will be written like every government document when things are banned and include the line “Except for official use in the interest of national security”

Lordtemplar
Lordtemplar
15 days ago

Nice! Should be fairly impressive fleet of ship. Hope they make some cool video montage of the exercise.

farouk
farouk
15 days ago

Question to those who know. HMS Dragon uses the Astor 15 missile, the new Type 31 will use the CAMM, are they similar or is one better than the other in the short range arena

John Clark
John Clark
15 days ago
Reply to  farouk

I think Astor 15 has longer legs, but, the real advantage of Camm is its compact design and soft launch capability. Any slight advantage Astor 15 has in range is negated by the fact that you can carry 4 Sea Ceptors in the space needed for a single ’15’. And an admitted 15 mile range ( probably closer to 20+) makes the Camm a local area air defence asset for a task group, as opposed to the point defence capability of Seawolf. I and many others would like to see T45 replace Astor 30 with Astor NT and replace Astor… Read more »

farouk
farouk
14 days ago
Reply to  John Clark

John,
Many thanks, I didn’t know that Astor was so much bigger than CAMM

QuentinD63
QuentinD63
14 days ago
Reply to  John Clark

This has got my vote! And if they don’t want to get rid of the Aster 15s, just add two more Camm quad silos 6*4 or 8*4. Plus 8-12 ASMs and a pair of TWSs then you’ve possibly got a T45plus. Invest in these ships over next 10-15years.

stephen ball
stephen ball
14 days ago
Reply to  farouk

Italy use Aster and CAMM too. Better to have depth with 2 system’s then only relying on 1.

Dern
Dern
14 days ago
Reply to  stephen ball

Which Marina Militare Ship uses CAMM? Cavour, GG, PPA, Orizzonte and Beragmini Class are Sylver VLS with Aster 15 and 30 only, the rest use older SAM systems.
Have I missed something?

stephen ball
stephen ball
14 days ago
Reply to  Dern

Looked like they haven’t got CAMM sorry,

It’s the Thaon di Revel light class, Some source’s say fitted for but not with, but can’t find any hard fact’s on it.

BB85
BB85
14 days ago
Reply to  Dern

It hasn’t entered service with Italy yet as they are testing the extender range varient. It will be put on all of their new ships.

QuentinD63
QuentinD63
14 days ago
Reply to  stephen ball

Totally agree with this.

QuentinD63
QuentinD63
14 days ago
Reply to  QuentinD63

… The idea of it anyway… Lol 😁

Paul T
Paul T
14 days ago
Reply to  farouk

Aster 15 has one Advantage over CAAM in that it is more Maneuverable in its Terminal Phase,but as far as costs go CAAM should be cheaper and has been said it can be Quad Packed.

DaveyB
DaveyB
13 days ago
Reply to  farouk

The Aster 15/30 “dart” is regarded as a hyper-maneuverability missile, whereas the SeaCeptor is not! The reason for this is that Aster uses a combination of 4 reaction jets (pif-paf) placed around the middle of the missile’s body to augment the aerodynamic lift generated by the mid-body strakes and large tail control services. Aster also uses thrust vectoring before it burns out its onboard fuel. According to MBDA the missile can do a sustained 60g turn, which gives it a near 90 degree turnability. The missile has both a kinetic and proximity fuze to detonate its 15kg directable warhead. If… Read more »

Farouk
Farouk
13 days ago
Reply to  DaveyB

DaveyB,
Thank you ever so much for your most informative post.

Steve Salt
Steve Salt
15 days ago

I hope you naughty boys arn`t going to use that photoshopped image of the carriers from last week that had the Twitterati in meltdown ?  😂  😂  😂 

OOA
OOA
14 days ago

This is fascinating. I doubt the details will ever be made public but I for one would love to know what the result is if they arranged a carrier vs carrier sea battle. You’d think the stealth jets would have the edge but maybe the lack of stand-off weapons for now balances things up.

Captain P Wash
Captain P Wash
14 days ago

“15 Ships and 57 Aircraft” ? Blimey…….  😎 

chris stocken
chris stocken
14 days ago

Ironically the French government Paid almost 30 million £ to the Uk For an option to use the QE Designed.

Captain P Wash
Captain P Wash
14 days ago
Reply to  chris stocken

Oh, I thought it was Mostly a Thales Design that won the eventual contract …….. That must have hurt a bit !

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
14 days ago
Reply to  Captain P Wash

Yes indeed but no doubt a lot of haggling went on over its design rights passing to the UK govt as they commissioned the work and indeed to allow Bae to take project lead which was well publicised. The French were about to agree to take one modified to their own needs with some entry into building bits of the British ones to sweeten the deal, which would have reduced the overall costs of the project but at the last moment there wasn’t (as reported) the budget to do so and they dropped out. I wonder if that ‘fee’ was… Read more »

Hermes
Hermes
14 days ago
Reply to  chris stocken

200M€ was spend on the PA2 (French QE class version)

Frank62
Frank62
14 days ago

Great experience to work up our CSG & hone the Marine Nationale. Just watched the excellent Netflix series “Pine Gap” which includes incidents in the Chinese illegally annexed SCS.