HMS Prince of Wales will return home tomorrow after completing a NATO mission in which she operated alongside Spain’s aircraft carrier in the Gulf of Cadiz, say the Royal Navy.

According to this news release, premier naval exercises off their Atlantic coast, boosting security and NATO allies’ ability to operate together in the region.

“The aircraft carrier was involved in a display of force as training began with a Royal Salute from the Spanish Armada to King Felipe VI of Spain, who was aboard aircraft carrier Juan Carlos I, while a flypast of jets – including iconic Harrier jump jets – roared overhead.”

The Juan Carlos I is a multi-purpose amphibious assault ship with a ski jump for STOVL operations and is equipped with the McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II attack aircraft and soon the new Lockheed Martin F-35B fighter aircraft.

Captain Richard Hewitt, Commanding Officer of HMS Prince of Wales, said:

“Being able to formally recognise the Spanish Royal Family, saluting King Filipe VI from the bridge of HMS Prince of Wales was a real honour. Coming only a few weeks after our celebrations for our Queen’s Platinum Jubilee, operating alongside the Spanish flagship represents another milestone in the operational journey of HMS Prince of Wales.”

The NATO task force – made up of 20 ships from six nations – was assembled to show the alliance’s commitment to the region’s prosperity and security ahead of the NATO Madrid summit on Tuesday.

“HMS Prince of Wales was involved in her role as NATO’s command ship, which means she is ready to deploy quickly in response to crises as part of the alliance’s Response Force. The aircraft carrier operated with Spanish flagship Juan Carlos I and worked on commanding and controlling the multinational NATO force, enhancing allies’ ability to operate seamlessly together.”

You can read more here.

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. He also works for the NHS. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
182 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Nicholas
Nicholas
1 month ago

What force was PoW showing?

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Nicholas

That it exists? And that if necessary it could have F35, Apache, Merlin, Wildcat, Chinook embarked on it in short order and used where needed.

Which would be a bit difficult if it didn’t exist and they floated in the ocean.

And as said, it was “involved in a show of force” primarily from the Spanish, not itself apart from its presence.

I understand you’re questioning the headline but I love these “rigged” undercurrent questions to start another moan fest that yes we don’t have 100 F35s for both carriers yet.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago

And if I’ve totally got the wrong end of the stick I humbly apologise. 👍

Nicholas
Nicholas
1 month ago

It was a simple question based on the here and now. I don’t see how, as currently deployed, the PoW can be said to be showing force. Over the next 5 years she will become increasingly more potent, dependant on the weapons the aircraft on it can carry and so on. As a feat of engineering and ambition what we have so far is superb. As a fighting force it has no presence in its current make-up. My comment was aimed at the press release and not at any future utlity. Everyone must know by now how poor the RN… Read more »

Dern
Dern
1 month ago
Reply to  Nicholas

So basically you’re saying that helicopters don’t count as any sort of force or lethality.

Nicholas
Nicholas
1 month ago
Reply to  Dern

I think Saddam’s navy might say otherwise.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
1 month ago
Reply to  Nicholas

Good because in essence you have answered your own question and indeed fundamentally accepted the point I make above. Yes it would be great to have 20 jets on both ships at all times but we know the reasons that can’t happen yet some perfectly acceptable indeed most for practical and logical reasons, a few somewhat disappointingly most of us agree..

The Artist Formerly Known As Los Pollos Chicken
The Artist Formerly Known As Los Pollos Chicken
1 month ago

D don’t backtrack man you nailed it ! , Harry Callaghan never and John Matrix sure as shit never when he was pulling the trigger so neither should you 👊🏼👍🏻call the wee moan moan boys out before they can start the big moan 😁

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🇬🇧

geoff
geoff
1 month ago

Carriers that leak and have no aircraft and that can be sunk by one missile and are white elephants and only built to bolster Gordon Brown and have no cats and traps 😂..and btw I agree with you 100%. Hope you are well my friend

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 month ago
Reply to  geoff

Total nonsense. The minor leak was rapidly fixed. They have a huge number of compartments so would take a large number of hits to sink. Have you looked at the SINKEX videos, online, to see how hard it is to sink a closed up aircraft carrier or frigate? Most carriers don’t have cats’n’traps for a very good reason: eye watering training and running cost. There is good reason why so many other navies have copied RN and bought F35B after RN pioneered ski jumps in the 70’s for Harrier. We love debating things on here but posting silly stuff doesn’t… Read more »

Stu
Stu
1 month ago

Think he was being sarcastic/silly bud. Taking the mickey out of people that always post such things.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago

SB, geoff was being sarcastic!

geoff
geoff
1 month ago

I was being sarky SB! just quoting what the “experts” on the paper i love to hate, the Mail Online, are always saying

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 month ago
Reply to  geoff

Sorry, my Sarcasm antennae were defined for maintenance……!!

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
1 month ago

Tbh I wasn’t completely sure myself esp after reading Nicholas’s totally obscure last post setting the contradictory and confusing scene prior to reading it.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 month ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

It is only a forum….have a relaxing evening….

geoff
geoff
1 month ago

No sweat😄-cheers SB

Sean
Sean
1 month ago
Reply to  geoff

Sounds like you’re describing the Admiral Kuznetsov… I always wondered what Gordy did will all the money…

Last edited 1 month ago by Sean
Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  geoff

Yes mate! As usual using a bucket and failing miserably to stem the endless flood of negativity!

geoff
geoff
1 month ago

We soldier on Daniele! Cheers for now 😎

David
David
1 month ago
Reply to  geoff

the carrier did leak during it’s early days, that’s why it was undergoing sea trials before entering service, you fool!. That’s now resolved, and yes, there will be F-35’s for this ship, but I believe that currently the Americans have only delivered about 28. It’s understood that there will eventually be somewhere between 100 and 148 aircraft, but until they are built and delivered, there’s not an awful lot that we can do!. By the way,any ship can be sunk with only one missile, even American carriers!

Last edited 1 month ago by David
geoff
geoff
1 month ago
Reply to  David

David-you are the fool here. I was being sarcastic. Most on this forum realised that.

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach
1 month ago

So here comes the moan fest then Daniele , my friend. Nobody is going to convince me that having two fully manned carriers with probably only ten 0r fifteen fighters makes any sense.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

😆 Mate, you’re a special case in my eyes, you don’t moan for the sake of it!

We have tried to explain why the numbers are so low at the moment and the circumstances around that, so sorry you don’t get it. 😉

Should we buy lots now even with the extra costs involved in your view?

It is all academic anyway because who knows what Starmer will do when he or the loony left get in. We might only have 1 carrier then your 2 squadrons out if 48 aint so bad!

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach
1 month ago

I can get it. To use a technical term I call it faffing about by HMG. We are the only Tier 1 partner and yet every country bar one with F35’s has more operational aircraft than us and in their case they’re not trying to split them between two services.
Please don’t upset me tea with thoughts of Storming Starmer. A man can only take so much.😟

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

Wouldn’t dream of it my friend.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
1 month ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

This I think most of us can agree with though in some mitigation I think the B version is a little more complex technically and procurement wise to obtain in numbers especially in light of the weapons fit we wish to add to them..

David Barry
David Barry
1 month ago

Oi, less with the loony left OR, I’ll yous for hurting my feelings so much, I’ve got PTSD! That’ll teach Ye, by heck!

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  David Barry

😉

Dern
Dern
1 month ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

You must’ve been livid with having 3 carriers with 12 fighters back in the invincible days then?

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach
1 month ago
Reply to  Dern

Not in the least. The Invincible’s were designed as “through deck cruisers” with the primary role of providing ASW defence for convoys with the bonus of being able to later provide some air cover. However we did send Invincible and Hermes south with around forty Harriers. As I have said many times we cannot now do that. Two of the best carriers we have ever had and virtually no aircraft.

Dern
Dern
1 month ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

Congratulations on entirely missing the point I was making, as Hermes was a much larger ship than the Invicibles and was capable of carrying about 30 harriers.
I’m talking about the 90’s where the RN could never deploy a carrier with more than about 12 Harriers aboard. A capability which at IOC the Queen Elizabeths have already exceeded. But okay, maybe we should just redesignate them as through deck cruisers since you appear more concerned with names than roles.

FWIW The Invicibles where always Carriers, the “through deck cruiser” name was just to stop the treasury from cancelling them.

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach
1 month ago
Reply to  Dern

I always seem to miss the point you make Dern. It’s probably due to the fact that historically on UKDJ you don’t seem to like anything I say. I might say in passing that your derogatory sarcasm adds nothing to a discussion.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
1 month ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

Never really understood that term ‘through deck cruisers’ in what way did they resemble a cruiser or indeed it’s role or size even, or did it just refer to their leisurely cruising around the seas, or was it because calling them ‘carriers’ was just too embarrassing to contemplate at the time after what had gone before. Am I missing something? Either way they proved themselves very worthy in the end shame we couldn’t save one.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

I’d read, unsure of the validity of it, that calling them “through deck cruisers” was a way to get them accepted by HM Treasury, having just got rid of Ark Royal and previously cancelled CVA01 or whatever it was called.

David Barry
David Barry
1 month ago

See my reply Mr D.

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach
1 month ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

The term was to do with trying to slide them through the Labour Party initially as you say. Having said that they were designed as escort vessels with ASW as the principal role, not of course fully fledged strike carriers like QE and POW

David Barry
David Barry
1 month ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Legend has it in Barrow that only one profile was presented to Ministers and Treasury – that of the right hand side showing sea dart and helos but not a look down shot showing flight deck.

Batch 1 T22(?) was only missile armed.

Hence the name.

Gunbuster, another will be along shortly to correct the legend.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  David Barry

I don’t know about the profile story but yes, batches 1 and 2 of the T22s had no main gun.

Topcat
Topcat
1 month ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

They can be used as a platform for other nations aircraft of a similar design in a Nato role.

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach
1 month ago
Reply to  Topcat

I’m sorry Topcat but there is no one else to put a 35 on her, other than the U.S. and even if there were do you not think we should have our own ‘planes?

Paul T
Paul T
1 month ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

Any operator of the F35B can park their Aircraft on the QE Carriers – USMC,Marina Militare,Aeronautica Militare,JASDF, and for the future the ROK Navy and the RSAF.

geoff.Roach
geoff.Roach
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul T

Paul…none of them are operational, although I think the MM has a couple on test runs. Only the U.S. as I said. Ether way do you honestly think it’s sane for us to have a £3 billion multi floor car park with 600 attendants floating about waiting?

geoff.Roach
geoff.Roach
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul T

Hi Paul, Decent video of MM F35 but they still only have a handful to play with. Four now, maybe? For their carrier! The point though is about OUR ships and OUR ‘planes. The world is probably more dangerous now than it has been in years. As I tried to explain to Dern forty years ago we put 40 Harriers into the South Atlantic. Four decades on and we can no longer do that. I’m forever being told to be patient on this blog and wait for F35 mark whatever to come along, or there’s no rush, or we’ll be… Read more »

Steven Alfred Rake
Steven Alfred Rake
1 month ago

I agree that the carriers are 100% good to have but the lack of aircraft is making it hard to justify having both Carriers at sea at the same time if we only have enough aircraft for one then we either have to get more aircraft or put one of the carriers in reserve until there is enough aircraft to have both at sea able to defend them selves and there escorts as well as have a resemblance of offensive capability. I have just finished reading an artical by Commander “Sharkey Ward” in Warship IFR were he is commenting on… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago

Hi Steven. Not read it, though I know of him well enough. Do you not think having 2 both operational is flexible and preferable to only 1 with the other in mothballs? In time I expect both will have an air group of UAV, but people cannt wait and want USN style airwings for both now. The current situation is an improvement over the Invincibles in all areas. Is an improvement over the post 2010 having none. And is an improvement over the up to 2015 plan to have 1 operational, 1 in mothballs/reserve, as both are crewed and usable.… Read more »

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 month ago

I think a lot of people forget that the 2 carriers are: fleet carrier, amphibious ships, command ships, helicopter ships and no doubt a lot of other roles all in one. They are not just to carry F35 for fleet defence/attack only. While it has taken an effort to get them into service they are here for the next 50 years, so more of the ship funding can be put into other ships to fill other roles. The F35B are also the RAF strike planes(harrier replacements) so they also want to use them for what they like to do. In… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by Monkey spanker
Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

Agreed. People want full carriers AND full RAF Squadrons.
I do not think ANY government will provide the money for that.
Hopefully drones come to fruition.

Steven Alfred Rake
Steven Alfred Rake
1 month ago

Yes I would agree it is 100% better to have the carriers and they are 100% improvement on their predecessors but if we are to keep both carriers at sea they need to be able to at least defend them selves and their escorts my mounting a CAP over the fleet that should be the minimum requirement.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
1 month ago

Crews have to be kept at readiness for when both may need to be operationally at sea. If necessary in an emergency even now Marine jets could populate them wouldn’t want to take one out of mothballs and try to rush through a years worth of training or try to share a fully trained crew between them making both a potential liability. Odd also to have someone complains about having too many land based aircraft the opposite to what others have said ie regarding the Typhoon force and wedge tails. I guess his priority is the fleet AirPower but we… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by Spyinthesky
Steven Alfred Rake
Steven Alfred Rake
1 month ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

The PoW is still not cleared to operate F35’s so there is a few months training for the crew to get them up to speed also the crew of the PoW have been operation with a near empty ship for a long time now so apart from seamanship the crew will not be on much of a learning curve. No one is complaining that the RAF have too many aircraft quite the opposite, but the RAF cannot support the fleet like a carrier based aircraft can do. The FAA used to deploy with the carriers no matter what the deployment… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago

These carriers do not just do carrier strike – they have at least 3 other roles – C2 ship, helicopter carrier, HADR vessel. For those last 3 roles, they do not need embarked fast jets.

Steven Alfred Rake
Steven Alfred Rake
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Even when operating in other roles the Carriers still need a flight of F35’s to mount a CAP over the carrier and their escorts but at the moment the PoW is operating with no fixed wing assets and very little anti submarine assets and very little troop transport or troop support assets so she is unable to for fill any of the roles you mentioned above. As Mad Vlad described her “just anouther target” We have bitten the bullet and found the money to build these 1st class ships so we now need the put some 1st class aircraft on… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago

Surely you only need to mount a defence against hostile aircraft when there are hostile aircraft in the area…and surely the T45s and allied equivalents can do that.

Of course you need the CAP when ‘the balloon has gone up’, but not in a peacetime C2 exercise.

Steven Alfred Rake
Steven Alfred Rake
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

I think you will agree the the USN is the most experienced carrier operator in the world today and the only time their carriers deploy without aircraft is when they are under tests like the USS Ford has been for some time but they still have a CAP from land based aircraft. The rest of the time if they are at sea they will have deployed aircraft on board, this is because an aircraft carrier is the focal point of deployed fleet so if you can attack and damage or sink that focal point then it renders the rest of… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago

Steven, the RN is not inexperienced at operating carriers – she deployed the first ever purpose built carrier, HMS Argus at the tail end of WW1. USN carriers are an entirely different beast to the QE carriers and are operated by the world’s only superpower with many being underway in many of the worlds oceans, ready for combat. Their carriers have one role only, carrier strike, and they are the best in the world at doing that. So of course they deploy with a full air wing and can, should and do mount CAPs from a carrier. Unlike the US… Read more »

Steven Alfred Rake
Steven Alfred Rake
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

I accept the fact that the UK carriers are built to for fill several diffrent roles but at the moment they are not filling any of them, with too few fixed wing too few rotary wing we have bitten the bullet and got 2 state of the art carriers so now we need some aircraft to put on them. Do submarines go on deployment with no torpedoes, do Frigates go on deployment with no missiles the answer is of coarse not. When they leave port and are 100 of mile away from a home then they may be called on… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago

Both carriers have deployed with an air wing when heading up a carrier task group, with USMC F-35Bs adding to the UK aircraft. It is a fact of life that the carrier programme was delivered earlier than Britain’s F-35B programme. Our aircraft are being built and being delivered but not in synch with the commissioning dates of the carriers. No point moaning about it. Would you rather we delayed building and commissioning the carriers by 5 years to ensure more aircraft being available? We get by for now with support from USMC when the carriers are in a carrier strike… Read more »

Steven Alfred Rake
Steven Alfred Rake
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Hello Graham only QE has been deployed as a strike carrier with both UK and US F35’s on board that was last year on her maiden deployment since then there has been no deployment of F35’s on either QE or PoW despite both vessels being at sea and in the PoW case has been the centre point of Nato’s maritime strike force in Europe. If either ship was to deploy in the support of an amphibious assault then it would be prudent to have some form of supporting the troops that have been landed ashore. The PoW has just finished… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago

Thanks Steven. My mistake saying that PoW had sailed with F-35 aircraft. How would those planning the reintroduction of carriers (QE class) ensure that F-35Bs were available in quantity as soon as they were commissioned? We have to live in the real world. These were 2 totally different programmes – carriers being UK national projects and F-35 being a multinational US-led project – natuturally running on different timelines. I guess PoW only had 2 ASW Merlins on her latest deployment as her role was to be a command ship and not to attack Russian submarines. In the army you deploy… Read more »

Steven Alfred Rake
Steven Alfred Rake
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Graham You know as well as me that the carrier programme was built around the F35b we had the chance to put Cats and Traps on them but we went for STOLV we only ordered the minimum of aircraft to save money with the MoD dilly-dallying over just how many we actually need. I do believe that the USMC ordered their first F35B about the same time as the UK placed our first order. We have 15 aircraft I believe that the USMC have nearly 100. Some thing is not right at the top of the tree. The PoW is… Read more »

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
1 month ago

Well said some seem to thing training isn’t important unless ships carry the capacity to start WW3. Ships crew have to be kept sharp with ot without their air wing on board otherwise it would be pointless sending an air wing to operate from them. But hey simple logic just doesn’t apply for some whingers.

Ben Coe
Ben Coe
1 month ago

It’s a valid moan – especially as originally we would have done what the Spanish have a d retained Harrier until the replacements were available rather than capability gapping.

Valid point, albeit may be lost on those who aren’t infor Ed enough to recognise what the irony is about.

Jon
Jon
1 month ago
Reply to  Nicholas

The show of force was Spain’s. PoW’s presence showed that Spain has friends.

Stu
Stu
1 month ago

Weren’t our F35’s flying mock attacks against France in the Bay of Biscay just this week?
Wondering why these two things weren’t combined.

SteveP
SteveP
1 month ago
Reply to  Stu

Probably because the last thing the RAF wants to do is demonstrate that our carriers should be the primary way that we project air power

Andrew Thorne
Andrew Thorne
1 month ago
Reply to  SteveP

I often wonder whether we couldn’t make economies from joining up the command structures of the army, navy and air force. I don’t mean merge them just merge the command structures at the top. Maybe this is done already though.

BobA
BobA
1 month ago
Reply to  Andrew Thorne

Depends what you mean by command structures. Navy Command, Army HQ, and Air Command are administrative headquarters – they run the legal entities that are the vehicles to employ service people – otherwise known as ‘the Services’. In addition they hold things like the strategy for each service and are classed as a top level budget (TLB). Under those sit operational HQs – Field Army for example who own things like training, ops and deployments. However, we also have Strategic Command which is also a TLB and owns certain aspects eg Special Forces and Cyber and we have Permanent Joint… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  BobA

Great answer, Bob.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Yes, a far clearer explanation than my effort.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Andrew Thorne

Mmm, not so easy though. Would that be for ops or daily admin and running of each service though? Been done for operations. First there was PJHQ. Then Joint Forces Command. Then Strategic Command. Ops side you also have DCMC at MoD. You can only merge so much, and each service retains its own HQ and command directorates on the admin side, quite rightly. It also depends on what operational side you merge? Merging the command side of DSF and the air defence side of the RAF ( NADOC ) for example would be pointless. The ops side of the… Read more »

Daveyb
Daveyb
1 month ago

Didn’t work for Canada.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Daveyb

And I don’t want our set up changed either.

Stu
Stu
1 month ago
Reply to  SteveP

I personally wouldn’t see it as “primary way”. Just ‘one important way
we can’. But that’s just me & the RAF maybe think differently. Do you think the RAF hold that much sway over such things?

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
1 month ago
Reply to  SteveP

Don’t start me off on that one, pleease. I’ve only just taken my tablets.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  SteveP

Steve,
The RAF is delighted to, for whatever reason, still have a carrier role – as well as to project air power from overseas air bases (NATO air policing missions from various NATO allied air bases; air armament practice deployments from Akrotiri).
I don’t think that half a dozen RAF F-35s on a QE carrier constitutes a primary way of projecting air power.

Angus
Angus
1 month ago

The UK F35B should come under the RN not the RAF as they are primary for then flat tops use. About time we sorted it all out and got it right like all the other naval forces around.
Spain has stated it is not looking at F35B’s so expect then loosing fixed wing in the future unless they change their minds.

Andrew Thorne
Andrew Thorne
1 month ago
Reply to  Angus

I guess it would be easier to sell this to the RAF if we got rid the tranche 1 Typhoons and replaced with new Tranche 4 typhoons. I think this keeps the BAE systems production lines going, makes the RAF happy and also gives us a very capable (and relatively cheap) fighter. I guess the issue is cost but as the Spanish are showing the cost doesn’t seem that high…

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 month ago
Reply to  Andrew Thorne

Found this on key aero website: The remaining 30 tranche 1 are: one of the extra squadrons (No IX Squadron) did concentrate mainly on QRA and aggressor operations, but the second new unit (No 12 Squadron) formed as a joint RAF/Qatari training unit, and the retained Tranche 1 aircraft were assigned mainly to No IX Squadron, No 1435 Flight in the Falklands, and No 29 Squadron, the Typhoon Operational Conversion Unit – though, several frontline units kept a single Tranche 1 aircraft. It was acknowledged that keeping the Tranche 1 aircraft would require some obsolescence issues to be addressed and… Read more »

geoff
geoff
1 month ago
Reply to  Angus

I know i have said this before and I know it had it’s problems but if Harold”Bloody” Wilson hadn’t cancelled the Supersonic harrier, it’s successors would be populating the small and mid sized flat tops of the world in numbers. Not to detract from the F 35B but many of the worlds Navies neither need nor could afford the F35.B
Huge missed opportunity for the UK.
ps Harold Wilson was probably not a bad chap. No offence to any supporters on this forum

Last edited 1 month ago by geoff
Dave Wolfy
Dave Wolfy
1 month ago
Reply to  geoff

Wilson is thought to have been in the Kremlin’s pocket!
Apart from which he got rid of more collieries and miners that Thatcher did.

Stu
Stu
1 month ago
Reply to  Angus

Inclined to agree the FAA should have it’s own dedicated jets. You think it’s just so they can claim the RAF is still around 150 fast jets? Or does the RAF hold that much sway over these things?

Rfn_Weston
Rfn_Weston
1 month ago
Reply to  Angus

RAF should be allowed to replace the 24 T1 Typhoons with T4 airframes with the latest radar etc & allow the full existing compliment of F35B to be under Naval command. Allowing RAF pilots to still cross train & fly from carriers to maintain training and depth. Should be able to secure 24 T4 for circa £1.8 Billion based on the Spanish purchase. Funding could easily be found if Defence was a serious matter in UK politics. Replacing them and upgrading the T2 & T3 airframes would sort the RAF out for the next 25-30 years until Tempest comes online.… Read more »

Rfn_Weston
Rfn_Weston
1 month ago
Reply to  Rfn_Weston

It is so damn obvious that it will never happen.

Stu
Stu
1 month ago
Reply to  Rfn_Weston

Wouldn’t the RAF say they want/need some 5th Gen of their own if/when they need to act without the Navy being available?
F35B to RN & get the RAF 24 x F35A maybe?
You’re quite right when you say, ‘funding could easily be found if Defence was a serious matter in UK politics.’

Rfn_Weston
Rfn_Weston
1 month ago
Reply to  Stu

I think the additional logistics on a third type makes that less likely. The continued training as I suggested would allow the RAF to ‘borrow’ if required, but frankly that would just be the RAF getting pissy about being out-done by the RN in term of generational aircraft. If MOD had balls they’d tell them to get back in their boxes. Truth is T4 Typhoon at this point in time and for the next few years is more potent than F35B. Plus RAF are getting Tempest based on technology tested and matured on Typhoon. Equivalent to Army cap badge mafia.… Read more »

Stu
Stu
1 month ago
Reply to  Rfn_Weston

I don’t doubt you are right & neither will happen but I’m curious; I’ve heard before how introducing the A would be a ‘third type’ & cause logistics issues but how different are they? Everything I read is same radar, flight controls, avionics, weapons systems, engine, coatings etc. There are (obvious) structural differences but these are not ‘maintained’ as such are they? Sure there are parts like the lift fans, doors for these & puffers on the B that the A doesn’t but could the A&B not share 99% of consumable spares? I suppose I’m asking, what do they do… Read more »

Rfn_Weston
Rfn_Weston
1 month ago
Reply to  Stu

A rough arsed comparison is 30% commonality of spares between F35A & F35B.

The fuselage is wider and shorter for the F35B than the F35A as are the wings – to accommodate the lift fan. Fuel storage capacity and avionics due to the controlling of the lift fan etc are also different.

Types of weapons due to smaller internal storage on the F35B also vary.

They really are very different animals.

Stu
Stu
1 month ago
Reply to  Rfn_Weston

30%? Good lord!
Given one of the principles in design was to save costs by sharing parts, that’s a bit of a fail.
I know they’re different beasts in the fuselage etc. but you’d have thought they could do better for the consumable bits. Even Land Rover made the Original Discovery with 30% commonality with the Defender!

Dave Wolfy
Dave Wolfy
1 month ago
Reply to  Rfn_Weston

Tempest will never be cleared to deliver US nuclear weapons for NATO.

Marked
Marked
1 month ago
Reply to  Dave Wolfy

Since the UK no longer uses air delivered nukes its not really relevant. There’s not a chance the US will buy tempest so why would it need to deliver US nukes?

Dave Wolfy
Dave Wolfy
1 month ago
Reply to  Marked

There are still US nukes in Europe some of which are earmarked for UK use, hence why we got rid of our own.
At no point would the thought of the US buying Tempest enter my head, that was your crazy thought.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Dave Wolfy

That’s interesting, some earmarked for UK use? Any links for that for me to look at?
The nuclear free fall bombs at the SSA at Lakenheath were withdrawn, though recently I read they may return.

Which bombs are for the UK, where are they, and which aircraft are to use them? I thought Typhoon was not cleared for free fall nuclear delivery? F35? Very early days.

Dave Wolfy
Dave Wolfy
1 month ago

The US nuclear tactical warheads for UK use were in Germany (Lance, etc).
I have been and am of the opinion that the air deliverable weapons are there also.
The reason we, and most others bought the F35 was to fulfil the NATO requirement to deliver the tactical nukes that the US provides.
This is obviously the only reason that Germany would by the F35, or, if certified the F18.

Last edited 1 month ago by Dave Wolfy
Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Dave Wolfy

Thanks, yes of course Lance but that was BAOR and Cold War and long gone.

There are indeed still FF nukes in Europe but I myself have not thought that those were for RAF use and AFAIK that was not a mission the RAF trained for since the demise of Tornado, and the removal of WE177 many years before that.

Though the vaults at Marham are still available so who knows, you might be correct.

Dave Wolfy
Dave Wolfy
1 month ago

I better had be after gobbing off on here.

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 month ago
Reply to  Dave Wolfy

I don’t think the raf carry USA nukes anymore. there can be some to be used by the USAirforce units based in the U.K. The U.K. doesn’t have a delivery platform for us nuke free fall bombs. Typhoon isn’t cleared and I don’t think F35B is either. The A model was going through the process of integration but I’m not aware it’s been completed. Life as we know it would be over as soon as any nuclear weapons were used. I pray that they never are used by anyone. If they are please may I get killed in the first… Read more »

Dave Wolfy
Dave Wolfy
1 month ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

Well, I seem to stand corrected.
Why does Germany have to buy F35s to deliver US nukes when we don’t have to deliver any?
There is no way that we would use the Trident tactical solution in a Full Monty war with Russia.

I have missed something fundamental here.

Thanks anyway.

Last edited 1 month ago by Dave Wolfy
Dave Wolfy
Dave Wolfy
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul T

Thank you.
We have no tactical nukes for use on mainland Europe, amazing.
We had better buy more tanks.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
1 month ago
Reply to  Stu

With Tempest arriving at some point in the 2030s, I’m sure we can get by with Typhoon and increasing their numbers would help matters in the near term. “However, staying away from threats isn’t always possible, so the second core element of stealth is to make yourself hard to see. Here, the Typhoon EW suite employs a range of electronic countermeasures that allows the aircraft to digitally hide its signature, becoming invisible to radar, or to digitally create a complex and confusing picture (noise) for a threat operator, denying them a clean targeting opportunity and preventing them from launching a… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by Nigel Collins
Stu
Stu
1 month ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

No doubt. Huge fan of the Typhoon! And the ugrades keep on coming making it better & better. Love to see another 24 in the fleet as well as 48 F35A for the RAF. But we can dream.

My worry was – people have suggested the RAF hold a lot of sway over such things & would be (for want of a better word) jealous of the FAA getting ‘stealth’ if they have none.

Last edited 1 month ago by Stu
Daveyb
Daveyb
1 month ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Mate, that’s only up to a point, which the bumpf will never tell you! Radar versus ECM has a distinct burn through value. This is dependent on a number of factors, such as the output power of the jammer and the power of the radar, along with the distance between the two. But also the frequency agility of the jammer and the radar. If the jammer can’t match the frequency hopping of the radar, then the aircraft will quickly become visible. Similarly, as you get closer to the radar, its effective radiated power increases, whereas your jammer’s slightly increases by… Read more »

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
1 month ago
Reply to  Daveyb

It will be interesting to see how well it works later this decade and quite possibly coupled with Radar 2?

Eurofighter ECR will be able to provide passive emitter location as well as active jamming of threats and will offer a variety of modular configurations for electronic attack (EA) and suppression/destruction of enemy air defence (SEAD/DEAD).

Latest national escort jammer technology will ensure national control over features such as mission data and data analysis. The concept also features a new twin-seat cockpit configuration with a multi-function panoramic touch display and a dedicated mission cockpit for the rear seat.

https://www.airbus.com/sites/g/files/jlcbta136/files/059daf86c900ec5412cfa85894308d43_EN-Airbus-MA-Press-Release-Airbus-and-its-partners-unveil-details-of-new-Eurofighter-ECR-concept.pdf 

Eurofighter-ECR.jpg
Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
1 month ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

And I assume far less costly and time-consuming than replacing the RAM coating?

6f6704cc-8fbb-4a69-8ba3-04caea742e54.jpg
Daveyb
Daveyb
1 month ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Leonardo have said that the Praetorian 2 upgrade will give the Typhoon a world leading ECM capability. I believe them. But it is still only a small protective bubble around the individual aircraft. It won’t be able to project the bubble around another aircraft. I would even suggest it will be better than the Gripen E/F’s ECM. The proposed ECR version builds on the foundations of the new Praetorian system. It will be at least comparable to the F18G Growler, perhaps slightly more advanced as its newer. It will be very difficult to say which is the better system as… Read more »

Marked
Marked
1 month ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Chances of it arriving in the 2030’s is practically zero. Nothing ever arrives as planned. When it does arrive, or if, we’ll no doubt buy about 4 of them.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
1 month ago
Reply to  Marked

We’ll have to wait and see.

Jon
Jon
1 month ago
Reply to  Rfn_Weston

Yup. I’m all for 24 more. Tempest should IOC by 2040, and I actually feel good about progress (most unlike me). However, I still think having a solid overlap rather than another capability gap would be a blessed relief. There’s money available for the next tranche of F-35. Raid it! If L-M won’t deliver to UK priorities in a reasonable timeframe (and why would they?) we shouldn’t buy planes that don’t deliver for us. They have already likely lost half the original UK planned purchases. 48 planes won’t enough for the carriers, but there’s no hurry to buy sub-standard F-35s.… Read more »

Andrew D
Andrew D
1 month ago
Reply to  Rfn_Weston

Not a bad idea mate .🤔

Sean
Sean
1 month ago
Reply to  Angus
Last edited 1 month ago by Sean
Jon
Jon
1 month ago
Reply to  Sean

I hadn’t heard about it before either. I thought they were still on the fence. 25As and 25B’s. Nice!

Angus
Angus
1 month ago
Reply to  Sean

Like all things, we will wait and see.

Daveyb
Daveyb
1 month ago
Reply to  Angus

That would be a very bad move. Typhoon is too easily detected by long range radar. At present it can only use Storm Shadow cruise missiles against known fixed targets and the lower ranged Brimstone 2 against moving ones. It does not have a dedicated anti-radar capability. This will change slightly with the introduction of Spear-3. But it still will need to get fairly close to identify and then prosecute a radar for a SEAD mission, which will put it in much greater danger. The F35 was primarily designed as an interdiction aircraft and air superiority fighter second, in US… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Daveyb

Could we ever go sown to say 12 F35 per carrier then the 2nd squadron of Loyal Wingman type?
Or the 2nd carrier with all UCAV?

DaveyB
DaveyB
1 month ago

Yes, probably. It will need baby steps to begin with, so that the integration between the F35’s pilot and the “loyal wingman” can be worked out. It may begin with a UAV being used with a pair of manned aircraft, before going to a UAV per aircraft. This will allow the unpaired manned aircraft to cover any situation, whilst the manned paired aircraft works out what to do with the UAV. I’m pretty sure the coordination will be worked out fairly quickly. This may allow the ship to have a 24 manned jets paired with another 24 loyal wingman, maybe… Read more »

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago
Reply to  Daveyb

So Tempest = Typhoon + radar 2 + more RAM + twin tail?

DaveyB
DaveyB
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Leonardo have said that Tempest will have a radar, that is an evolution of what they have learned with Radar 2. I’d expect Tempest to use Radar 2 initially, unless they can produce the new radar in time. The aircraft will likely have very similar avionic capabilities to the F35. Including the all round vision, which is combined with a passive missile approach warning system, that can also be used for targeting. It will likely have a similar covert multi-function advanced data-link (MADL) as per the F35, as Link-16 is too slow and restricted. It must have similar or preferably… Read more »

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago
Reply to  DaveyB

Great background! Thx.

Angus
Angus
1 month ago
Reply to  Daveyb

There are currently 2 at sea as they have only just come out of build and we will go to one in the not to distance future as that will be the usually cycle of ship maintenance etc. It is not all about the fast jets as the helo’s are in short supply with just enough to make one wing up. The FAA’s needs expanding to cover its day to day needs of the nation. Operating at sea is far different from land based and even though you have much better sims today actual doing it is a lot different.… Read more »

Dave Wolfy
Dave Wolfy
1 month ago
Reply to  Angus

The primary role for the F35Bs is tactical nuclear weapon delivery, namely the US weapons stored for NATO battlefield use.
The F35 is the only delivery system that we have for this purpose.
I would appreciate a dedicated number of F35Bs for what should be the Royal Naval Air Service.
Now that the treaty covering intermediate range nuclear weapons has virtually lapsed, perhaps that method would make the F35s a primarily naval resource.

Louis
Louis
1 month ago
Reply to  Dave Wolfy

F35A is the only variant able to drop nuclear bombs.

Dave Wolfy
Dave Wolfy
1 month ago
Reply to  Louis

Every day is a school day, thank you.
Am I to take it then that the USN has no air deliverable nukes?
What an oddity it would be if only their helicopters could deliver their nukes, in an ASW capacity.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
1 month ago
Reply to  Dave Wolfy

A bit more on this subject can be found via this link. The F-35 is one step closer to carrying nuclear bombs. What’s next? “Older aircraft — the F-15E Strike Eagles and F-16C/D Fighting Falcons — currently fill the dual-capable role and will be able to carry the B61-12, too. Bringing the F-35A into the mix gives the Air Force a fast, stealthy option for getting nuclear weapons past modern air defenses. It will eventually replace the older jets as the primary nuclear-capable fighter. The F-35 will remain in the inventory longer than the B-2 Spirit bomber, the main stealth… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  Angus

I agree. I cannot understand why the RAF fly F-35Bs off carriers – they are gate-crashing the FAA’s party.

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 month ago
Reply to  Angus

Budget. The RN has to fund the Fleet, the RM and the RFA along with the FAA. Other than aircraft the RAF only has rhe RAF Regt. The RN simply doesn’t have the money to buy F35. Whether they have the money to operate them is beyond my knowledge.

Marked
Marked
1 month ago

Wow, a show of force comprising of 1 empty flight deck and 1 with 40 year old relics. Breathtaking stuff.

Angus
Angus
1 month ago
Reply to  Marked

Could still have had our SHAR’s flying still if all proposed future mods had been actioned. It was RAF Top Brass and a weak Admiral that killed those truly Multi role aircraft. The Junior service needs to know its place. As in the near future there will only be a single flat top operational in the RN 1 x full wing needed. 36 F35B front line and an OCU so all ordered would keep that going for some years. Yes the RN could easily back up the RAF as we have always done. Just need some people with ‘B__ls’ to… Read more »

Andrew D
Andrew D
1 month ago
Reply to  Angus

Yep SHARs went far to early 😮

Liam
Liam
1 month ago

I know this is a free site and it has to be paid for, but the ads are getting to be quite instrusive.

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach
1 month ago

What’s the difference between a British aircraft carrier and a Spanish one? The Spanish carrier carries aeroplanes!

Levi Goldsteinberg
Levi Goldsteinberg
1 month ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

And the British crew can stay awake for more than ten minutes. And have a credible armed force, plus the world doesn’t forget it exists

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach
1 month ago

tu eres un diabla senor!😡

Farouk
Farouk
1 month ago

What’s with all the negative comments regards the RN training with the Spanish Navy. Its training, its not a full on Military deployment , it allows those in the picture to practice in slow time with others, it allows for mistakes to be made, so that people can learn from them, it allows for people to work as a team and with regards other nations it allows people to get to know each other. I see nobody complaining regards TEWTs

JamesD
JamesD
1 month ago

Ok this might be stupid I don’t know but in a emergency, a serious shit hitting the fan emergency could typhoons be craned on to the deck and take off? Obviously they couldn’t land back on the carrier and would need a friendly airfield but could it be done? Just curious

Stu
Stu
1 month ago
Reply to  JamesD

Interesting thought experiment there.

Yes – They proposed a navalised Typhoonto the Indian navy to operate off their new carrier. https://www.flightglobal.com/aero-india-eurofighter-reveals-offer-to-produce-navalised-typhoon/98271.article

Major changes were to allow landing. Take off was seen as no major problem.

JamesD
JamesD
1 month ago
Reply to  Stu

Yeah I think they missed a trick with a navalised version

Armchair Admiral
Armchair Admiral
1 month ago
Reply to  JamesD

Hmmm…wonder if this is the sort of thing that MIGHT be possible, but no one will admit to?
On the other hand, why would you want to?
No more F35b until it can carry British weapons! Fit Spear3 on everything!

AA

JamesD
JamesD
1 month ago

I’m just thinking if we needed to throw all available airpower at a conflict, even in ten years I’d imagine there will still be spare room on the carriers, I’d love to see it even as just an experiment

Stu
Stu
1 month ago

Oh it’s 100% possible.
Why would you? Well, at the risk of a can of worms here: could fit traps, buy naval Typhoon & fly them off QE’s.
Just like that , you’ve got Spear3, Meteor etc etc on carriers.
Cost per flying hour = $20k vs $38k for F35.
Multiplied by 8,000 hour airframe life = $144M saved per plane.
Multiplied by 24 planes = $3.5B
So… why? Because by doing so, I get to fly a jet with the weapons I want fitted now, not on LM schedule, and over time save more than Ajax just cost us.

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
1 month ago
Reply to  Stu

When you put it that way Stu it seems like a no brainer but you are missing the conversion cost to fit EMALS and arrestor wires to both QE carriers. Thats going to be expensive. Plus the R+D cost and then purchasing price of a fleet of Navalised Typhoons. I think you are right. It would deliver an amazingly capable carrier airwing but we’ve probably missed the boat. Needed to be done as the QEs were undergoing build. Cameroon tried to do that so the RN could get F35Cs but then realised the cost in terms of carrier conversion and… Read more »

Stu
Stu
1 month ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

Was actually referring to STOBAR option, no cats. It’s all wishful thinking of course and will never happen but let’s explore the CATOBAR idea (I have repeatedly). France was just quoted $1.32B for full EMALS kit, installation, testing etc. there will be additional maintenance costs obviously too. Let’s say we just do it = $2.6b. Dev costs for Typhoon; design work is kind of done. Pay BAE to build/adapt (a T1 if possible) for testing for Naval use. Ask USA/France to test on theirs if we can. How much…? $200M? $500m? Won’t be billions. Especially if BAE get told, ‘here’s… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by Stu
Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
1 month ago
Reply to  JamesD

Worth reading, a missed opportunity in my book.

https://defense-update.com/20110210_naval_typhoon.html

navalized_typhoon11.jpg
Last edited 1 month ago by Nigel Collins
Stu
Stu
1 month ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Indeed. STOBAR + Naval Typhoon is such an appealing option. Would love to hear the reasoning why we didn’t.

Esteban
Esteban
1 month ago

Who writes these press releases? Just call it a training exersise, and not a “Show of force”. That just sets them up to look silly.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Esteban

Agree, it invites the naysayers to get on and critique.

Nicholas
Nicholas
1 month ago

I’m still feeling wistfully nostalgic for the Harrier.

Andrew D
Andrew D
1 month ago

I wonder if the RAF got a chance of more T 4 Typhoons in exchange for the RN to have F35 Bs .🤔

Mark Franks
Mark Franks
1 month ago

So next time POW or QE put to see what’s the bet we might see F35s deployed. Or are we going to see more excuses dressed up as an excersise. Maybe they should be redesignated as through deck cruisers. Gets hat and coat and hails for a taxi.

Last edited 1 month ago by Mark Franks
Andrew
Andrew
1 month ago

Wasn’t that long ago, when the Royal Navy would have taken every opportunity to fire multiple broadsides to sink the Spanish ship if they knew the king of Spain was onboard!

Daniel
Daniel
1 month ago
Reply to  Andrew

We’re talking about 300 years ago, mate.

Mark Franks
Mark Franks
1 month ago

That’s an aircraft carrier

FB_IMG_1656093568184.jpg
Andrew D
Andrew D
1 month ago
Reply to  Mark Franks

Very true

Mark franks
Mark franks
1 month ago
Reply to  Andrew D

Yes it’s got surprisingly fixed wing aircraft onboard.

DRS
DRS
1 month ago
Reply to  Mark Franks

Is there a disadvantage from having propeller airplanes on carries there are some STOL types we could employ that could do some of the less intensive mission types and potentially even attack. Not everything needs to be super expensive. Or a jet type like a dehavaland vampire or similar I am not sure if that was a STOL. Or make one? The carriers are pretty long and what was maybe not possible on an invincible class may be possible on a QE class? If we are making a new type get a manned version first then convert to unmanned with… Read more »

Jon
Jon
1 month ago
Reply to  DRS

I can think of two major disadvantages. The carriers are designed to allow take off operations at the front and simultaneous landing and other operations at the back. Using small STOL aircraft, such as a Britten-Norman Islander would require clearing the full length of the deck for both landing and takeoff. The carrier would almost certainly have to be facing the wind too. So it would be far more disruptive than using a helicopter. Unlike Mojave, they require pilots certified to land on a carrier. Just because the plane can land within the length of the deck doesn’t make it… Read more »

Hermes
Hermes
1 month ago

Show of force with white elephant

Griizzler
Griizzler
1 month ago
Reply to  Hermes

How’s the Charles de Gaulle doing these days

Airborne
Airborne
1 month ago
Reply to  Hermes

I see no elephants, I recommend a book in animal recognition skills.

Tomartyr
Tomartyr
1 month ago

Something I always wonder is what do the Spanish sailors involved in causing trouble for Gibraltar get told?
“Now we need to conduct grey zone warfare against an ally, for completely legitimate reasons.”

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
1 month ago
Reply to  Tomartyr

They get told its a special military operation. Then they all go off and have a siesta

Bill
Bill
1 month ago

Spain. Our esteemed ally. God help us in a storm.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
1 month ago
Reply to  Bill

We’ll ask France to help us out 😂

Last edited 1 month ago by Nigel Collins
Andrew Heath
Andrew Heath
1 month ago

People asking why we got 2 carriers when we only have a few jets? 2 places to land is better than one, if one ship got took out jets can land on the other one if we only had one ship and that got sank, there will be no where for jet to land. Also if all are jets are on one ship then if that ship got sank then so have all our jets.

Isambard Hooper
Isambard Hooper
1 month ago

NATO is the premier force in the world and is a force for peace .

ABCRodney
ABCRodney
1 month ago

Sending POW out without any aircraft is quite honestly embarrassing. They both need a full CAG ! As for comments about previous defence cuts, just remember some of the biggest cuts have been made under Conservative Governments. Have read of this it isn’t pleasant reading. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7313/CBP-7313.pdf My personal favourite was John Knott who by announcing the cutting of the RN and specifically the South Atlantic Ice Patrol Vessel pretty well invited Argentina to have a go. If they had waited till his cuts took place we would have never had a task force. Both sides cut and sometimes both have… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

I seem to be repeating myself a lot. Our 2 carriers have at least 4 different roles. Only for the carrier strike role do then need a CAG.

abcrodney
abcrodney
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Yes but are the other 3 a good use of an extremely expensive Aircraft Carrier ? Besides which in any other role they are just a massive, extraordinarily expensive, defenceless target. A CAG comes with the ability to mount CAP so yes they need Aircraft, ASW Helicopters, SAR and AWACS.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  abcrodney

Yes. If you deem an aircraft carrier to be very expensive it behoves a nation to get maximum use out of it. That is achieved by a carrier being able to do several jobs – and it reflects the reality that the Navy is not going to be allowed to buy one or more LPHs or a specialist HADR ship. Why is a carrier without fast jets embarked (ie in a non-carrier strike role) deemed to be a defenceless target? Her escorts and any shadowing subs provide defence. I am well aware what constitutes a CAG but you only need… Read more »

Esteban
Esteban
1 month ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

The only reason for a aircraft carrier to exist is to operate aircraft. There are not even enough rotary winged AC to perform the other roles at this time. The idea that one should have a 65,000 command ship is a ludacris waste of resources. If you are not actually training for the role ship was made for, then you are just faffing about burning fuel for no apparent reason.

Chris
Chris
1 month ago
Stc
Stc
1 month ago

Yes, a little embarrassing, a flat top and no f35s, surely the RN could have fielded a token 6 ? Yes helios can be lethal but against peers you need your best asset and that might be just around the corner. Pilots of simpler Aircraft need to keep current and the demands of fighter jet pilots even more so. The F35 pilots need to be getting all the practice they can. Again potentially another example of the MOD, at the behest of the treasury, trying to save a few Bob and a policy that could bite us on the bum… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 month ago
Reply to  Stc

If this was intended a show of force by a British carrier, it should have been loaded with a lot of F-35s, and a fair few helos, preferably big ones (Chinook) and weapon-rich ones (Apache). You load-out to meet the mission.

Paul.P
Paul.P
1 month ago

Very good. But more interested to hear whether / how Argus will be replaced, whether the LPDs will be replaced with LHDs or by littoral strike ships or Ellida type vessels. Anyone have any news?

Peter tattersll
Peter tattersll
1 month ago

We have high end Kit…. Apache . QE. POW . F35 . Astute. Typhoon. New ships being made never stops the Russian trolls moaning .

Esteban
Esteban
1 month ago

Most are not Russian trolls, but simply people that can objectively look at the situation and put 2+2 together.

Peter tattersll
Peter tattersll
1 month ago
Reply to  Esteban

Right the same trolls every time behave pal

Esteban
Esteban
1 month ago

Calm yourself….