HMS Prince of Wales Carrier Strike Group has showcased its ability to coordinate and direct fighter jets for fleet protection during air defence drills.
The exercise, described as a test of operational readiness, saw the Carrier Strike Group working alongside fighter jets from the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, and private firm Draken.
Eagles attack the fleet! 🦅✈️
Carrier Strike Group proves its ability to direct fighter jets to protect the fleet in Air Defence Exercises.
This included fighter jets from 🇬🇧/🇺🇸/🇨🇦 and Draken.#StrikeWarrior #USAF #WeAreNato pic.twitter.com/zVjUYaYWrh
— UK Carrier Strike Group (@COMUKCSG) October 10, 2024
The scenario, part of Exercise Strike Warrior, tested the CSG’s response to air threats. A key part of the exercise involved Draken Europe, which provided adversary training using its modified Dassault Falcon 20 jets.
These jets are provided to simulate airborne threats, including radar and electronic warfare scenarios, making them an essential part of complex training environments.
The image accompanying the tweets features one of these Falcon 20 jets. These Falcons have been adapted to perform a variety of roles, including simulating enemy aircraft and missile systems, allowing RAF and Royal Navy pilots to hone their skills against a dynamic adversary.
Draken’s involvement highlights its role as a critical aggressor training partner. With its fleet of Falcon 20 jets and other aircraft, Draken Europe say they offer advanced training by simulating realistic enemy tactics. This approach allows the Royal Navy’s CSG and RAF pilots to experience diverse training scenarios, testing their ability to respond to potential real-world threats effectively.
The use of private contractors like Draken can be more economical than maintaining dedicated RAF squadrons for similar roles. Draken’s experienced ex-military pilots provide a level of expertise that ensures training remains challenging and relevant, enabling the UK’s forces to maintain a high standard of operational readiness.
They have Honey Badger too, don’t they?
They do indeed.
I’m not getting reply notifications
Now?
Same for me here
Same for me. I haven’t had any for well over 2 months.
And me…
This sounds like a fun exercise
I was talking to the Air Warfare Officer on QE a couple of weeks ago (shout-out to the only RAF guy in the standard complement of the ship) and he said that his job was basically this; getting F35s where they need to be to do every fight they need to do.
It sounded very demanding in the moment, but a fun tabletop exercise while tucked away in the Ops room.
I don’t understand why a carrier hasn’t been deployed to the middle east. Right now anything that can be done to deter all out war in the region needs to be done, as it would completely destroy our economy if it happened as we are so reliant on middle eastern oil.
How exactly would one of our carriers deter anyone?
Ask the US, they now have 2 carriers and 3 amph assault in the region.
You said “deter” who are we going to deter? We are bombing the Houthi’s from Akrotiri,that is to try to stop attacks on shipping not to deter a major war in the region! The only way to ‘deter’ a war is if we gang up and either destroy Isreal or Iran! What are the US carriers or Amphips doing apart from the bombing of Houthi missile position? Are they going to invade Iran,Yemen or Isreal I very much doubt it!
If it all kicks off tbe houthi along with the various other factions lead by Iran will all get involved in attacks against isreal. The whole area is a hot bed of anti isreal groups.
I feel a little uncomfortable supporting isreal at this point, but self interests of the uk means we need the region to not explode.
The power of a US carrier is bewildering. If you ever see one up close in the flesh it just oozes power. Our contribution would be insignificant in military terms, not sure about politically. Given we have banned some exports to Israel not sure we would be welcomed. Also looking at the state of the RFA we would be logistically challenged.
The uk involvement is always insignificant compared to the US, but there is always a desire by our policticans to be seen to be doing something. We have paid a fortune for the carriers, it seems odd that they are not being deployed for this.
I don’t think the US could take on China alone but that is about it, outside China they only really need allies involved to demonstrate to their own civilians that it’s an international effort and so demonstrating they are on the right side of it.
Your last sentence is rerun of the Gulf War. The only reason the US wanted a coalition was for the reasons you state. Political cover both at home and internationally.
It also served as a wake up call to US defence thinking. In that they saw how we struggled to deploy armour in numbers. Only being achieved by striping out BAOR and the UK.
There’s always Japan, Australia & others in the region starkley aware of the CCP threat, but who’ve never fallen for the “end of the cold war” shrivelling of defences. They’ll likely be part of an alliance dealing with China & personally I think we have a clear interest there too. Remember the CCP acts against us daily & has done a very long while.
Economically we have an interest in a war not happening, as we are an mass importers of Chinese goods. The rest of the region makes up such a marginal part of our gdp that really don’t matter much to the uk.
Not saying we shouldn’t get involved if someone gets attacked, but that comes down to knowing the full story at the time.
Also lets not black/white this, the US and other nations regularly interfer with our policitics and act in their own interests over ours, its just global polictics.
How the Chinese government acts is clearly less competitive than others, and how they treat their own people is questionable, but just because they are a economic 2nd to the US and that concerns the US shouldn’t automatically make it our issue.
The airbase in Cyprus would be the main reason.
Also doubt if we’re ready to send it to the gulf, especially via the red sea.
Cyprus isn’t really a deterence as it’s not seen plus we aren’t sending a load of planes and forced there to make a point.
I wonder what the deal with Cyprus actually states, I doubt it’s fully open use, would guess some limitations but guess will be secret.
No it’s sovereign British territory so we can do as we please.
Never read up on the history before, but looking at Wikipedia it’s not quiet as straight forward. The base itself is sovereign territory but relies on a large number of other facilities that serve it and subject to treaty. I assume therefore Cyprus have some say through the treaties or at least a way to put pressure on the uk.
I think the US has been positioning some of its carriers in the Med and Gulf and using them against the Houthis in Yemen in particular.
Because we have a sovereign air base on Cyprus!
The difference is between deterrence and actual capability. Cyprus isn’t a deterrence.
Would become a target
Using old tech could lead to major damage if the defence systems are not set up for drones and small boats above and below the water, and point and fire rockets
Is there such a thing as a CAP when Carriers are at sea anymore?
If you don’t have an AEW yes. CAP was essential in Falklands.
Which is understandable. I just wondered if phalanx and similar weapon systems were responsible for that ‘role’ now.
By the time Phalanx engages any threat is dangerously close, almost on top of the carrier. Missile debris, if it manages to destroy it, is likely to still hit. If Phalanx alone was sufficient for a carrier, why do the USA & most nations have 2 or 3 other systems of AA fitted, especially when the USN is not short of decent escorts, allies & full air wings? For US carriers it’s usually Evolved Sea Sparrow medium ranged SAMs, RAM close range, then last gasp Phalanx under the last mile.
US carriers do not routinely fly a CAP. It is based on the threat level. So transitioning to theatre they will only go to flying stations for training. If a threat is perceived a Hawkeye would be launched followed by two AC. If the CAP is then sent to investigate a contact usually two more AC would launch to take over CAP duties. Something to also take into account when aircraft land on they are automatically placed unserviceable. In normal operations a US carrier has one Squadron dedicated to the task. Given the availability of F35 at around 50 to 60 percent. We would struggle to maintain a CAP with our present aircraft numbers. Plus Crowsnest is a piece of crap.
Many thanks for that. I (like others no doubt) thought Crowsnest was supposed to be ‘all singing and dancing’, and due to serve it’s purpose for years to come. 😯
Crowsnest never really delivered. With an out of service date late 2029 I can see the SDR taking a closer look. The excuse being the Wedgetails can fill the gap.
She really needs a bit more than a couple of phalanx for self defence. For the threats she could face she really is bereft of defensive capabilities. Penny pinching costs lives
Yes, bit of a bug bear that one. Even an additional Phalanx starboard rear, bring the current starboard one forward onto the deck where the gpmg mount is. Hope the carriers get the Ancilia decoy mounts and maybe Dragonfire if not their 30mm mounts. Especially if they’re going to transit the Suez and Gulf next year.
At the bare minimum it needs the 30mm guns fitted at all times (less maintenance periods). Without trying to sound like an armchair admiral, if I had it my way I’d replace the Phalanx with SeaRAM and (if possible) replace the 30mm guns with the 40mm bofors being fitted to the T31s, neither of those changes would require invasive work. In an ideal world they would have CAMM silos, but that ship has sailed (excuse the pun).
I don’t have any evidence to support this, but I get the feeling that the only reason the QEs and T26s have kept Phalanx and DS30M is because it is cheaper than buying new systems.
No doubt 👍
And yet even without trying…. 😀
Nothing wrong with being an Armchair Admiral. The more the merrier.
I like to think that I applied a reasonable amount of reason and logic, rather than demanding that we have 17 aircraft carriers and arguing that announcing the first steel cutting of a new ship is a national security issue (facebook defence experts are another breed).
LOL. I’m not on most social media platforms and I’ll take your word for it.
Wasn’t until this year, when a Phalanx actually proved its worth. The Houthis attack on the USS Carney. Admittedly this was to shoot down drones rather than cruise or ballistic missiles. But it did its job and that is all that really matters!
True, I’m probably not giving the Phalanx the credit it deserves, it’s still a very capable system. It is surprising though that the USS Carney let a missile get within Phalanx range of the ship. Perhaps they wanted to test the Phalanx in anger, but that is putting a lot of faith in your last line of defence.
I would say that the Carney probably didn’t let a missile get close to test the capabilities of Phalanx. That is a huge risk to take. Better to take out threats as far away as possible, giving you more time to use plan B. It’s likely that the drone was missed by the missile sent to intercept it.
The RN rejected SeaRam. Which I believe was the early passive RF sensor version with the terminal phase IR seeker when it was tested. SeaRam has now matured into a more useable system. However, could we not do better?
The ground launched ASRAAM has proved to be very effective in Ukraine. Could we not have a sovereign capability? A point defence system built around ASRAAM would mean you don’t really need a 3D radar. As a 2D will get it pointing in the initial direction, where the IR sensor then takes over when it’s acquired the target. This can also be backed up with an electro-optical turret. Thereby making the system much cheaper to purchase and integrate.
Having it co-mounted on a Phalanx or replacing the gun. Would make it a self contained package. But unlike Phalanx give it the ability to take out targets more than 2km away (at least up to 15km). You could use the Phalanx’s radar to give targeting information to the ASRAAM.
I don’t believe this would step on or duplicate the CAMM’s capabilities. As this would add an additional layer to CAMM’s capabilities. Crucially it would give a ship a much longer range defence that is independent from the ship’s sensors. Thereby giving the ship some battle redundancy. But also could be light enough to mount on smaller ships or RFAs, that won’t have a 3D radar.
Though you will need to modify the missile slightly (folding fins as per CAMM) to enable it to be canister launched. Thereby giving it environmental protection.
I honestly can’t believe how often this idea comes up between you, me and Quentin.
Does NOBODY from MBDA or the MoD read this site?
JUST DO IT, and make a land based version from Boxer as well.
How much “pork” does it channel to UK industry though.
Cynical head on tonight.
Too true.
Short programme produces reliable product using existing production lines.
We can’t have that, can we?
Even Turkey is developing a PDMS to replace RAM, with an E/O turret for targeting and converted AAMs (I think).
There are so many opportunities for a good, capable system with extensive commonality, that wouldn’t cost the earth at all.
The Phalanx problem is precisely the short range. You shot one drone at 1km and then you don’t have much time/distance to shot other 2-3-4-5-etc in the swarm.
At the very least fit the Bofors 40mm to the Batch 2 Rivers which would free up their D30’s for the QEC’s. With the rising threat from ‘Sea Baby’ type sea drones a no brainer to me. Agree about the trainable decoy mounts too.
I’d far prefer that fit than the virtually useless one they currently have.
QE can still have CAMM silos.
Note for example the Cavour, her Aster silos are in boxes outside the hull form. It also should be possible to do in QE.
That’s me convinced 😂🤣😂🤣
Best of 🤞