Aircraft carrier HMS Prince of Wales is leading a massive fleet of allied warships in a demonstration of unified naval might.

The Royal Navy say that HMS Prince of Wales is responsible for leading NATO’s Maritime High Readiness Force – an international task group formed to deal with major global events – and deploys for the first time in that role to Cold Response.

Aboard the carrier are the most senior sea-going staff in the Royal Navy – Commander UK Strike Force, headed by Rear Admiral Mike Utley, who will lead the sizeable task force as part of a galvanized NATO effort for peace and stability in Europe.

HMS Defender, HMS Northumberland, HMS Albion and HMS Grimsby also lined up alongside Prince of Wales with ships from France, Norway, the Netherlands, Denmark, Italy, USA, Latvia, Belgium and Germany at the start of Exercise Cold Response.

The Royal Navy say here:

“A task force of 25 ships from 11 nations gathered off the Norwegian coast at the start of the training, which will show how a unified force would defend Norway and Europe’s northern flank from a modern adversary.”

The ships of the Cold Response task group are:

Surface Group: HMS Prince of Wales, HMS Defender, HMS Northumberland, RFA Tidesurge, USS Roosevelt.

SNMCMG1 (Standing Nato Mine Counter Measures Group 1): HMS Grimsby, LVNS Virsaitis, BNS Lobelia, FGS Bad Bevensen, HNLMS Schiedam, HNoMS Magnus Lagaboete, HNoMS Olav Tryggvason, HDMS Vaedderen, HNoMS Hinnoey, ENS Sakala.

Amphibious Task Force: ITS Garibaldi, FS Dixmude, HNLMS Rotterdam, HMS Albion, RFA Mounts Bay, HNLMS Van Amstel, HDMS Peter Willemoes, FGS Berlin, HNLMS De Zeven Provincien, FS Languedoc.

You can read more on this deployment from the Royal Navy here.

 

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

174 COMMENTS

  1. Now we just need our useless penny pinching government to buy enough F-35/weapons to properly equip it and in a timely fashion (i.e. not by around sometime circa 2035….). Likewise with our surface escorts and their lack of any AShM.

    • Better tell LM to get on with the B4 software then?

      No point in wasting money integrating weapons on B3 and then doing that again down the road.

      • I also used to think that, but I’m not sure we have the luxury anymore. We should order the next tranche of F-35s as soon as we know Meteor and Spear will be integrated, irrespective of whether Block 4 is complete. We need to plan for integration of FC/ASW and JNAAM on Block 4.

        • We need to show some urgency in almost all departments of surface warfare at sea. Present arrangements show a woeful neglect. We also need 3 more SSN’s or 9 more conventional subs as soon as possible. The Babcock frigate factory needs both of its build tracks to be commissioned with out delay. Glacial wont do.

          • With you on the subs Jonno but I don’t think it’ll ever happen or anytime soon. They can’t even fully arm the current ships that we do have! It would have been useful to have had an additional two T45s batch 2s in the fleet even if a bit under armed. Hope the all the T26/31/32s get seriously well armed. If it’s affordable why not a couple more T31/32s for the RN.

          • Let’s armed with and not fitted for the duds at the admiralty have allowed that nonesense to get on too long

      • That photo is what the carrier would look like with the entire royal navy fleet sailing with it our piddling 19(ish) compared to the photo is. I’d like to be a fly on the wall at the mOD and the admiralty when Charles is crowned says he’d like to review the fleet result? total Panic!!

    • Pilots available to fly them even if the production line could make them quicker?

      Crews trained to use them both on ground and at sea in the numbers required to handle more aircraft?

      How much spare cash do we have after the pandemic?

      Lots of reasons exist in the bigger picture as to why we dont have more of these aircraft.

    • A very good article over on NL which is worth reading with some excellent pictures too!.

      HMS Prince of Wales is not embarking F-35 jets for the exercise and will be used as an ASW helicopter carrier and command platform.

      With USS Truman, deployed elsewhere, despite the number of ‘flat tops’ present, there is no organic fixed-wing capability available for the exercise. There will be some, partially justifiable negative comment about “aircraft carriers with no aircraft” but this must be seen in context.

      There was never any plan to embark jets for the exercise. The UK is in the slightly odd position of having both its carriers operational but the slow delivery of F-35s and pilot training means carrier strike is only at Initial Operating Capability (IOC). In future, it will be more normal to have 1 carrier operational with 12 Jets routinely available and 24 for emergencies.

      https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navy-and-partners-rehearse-protecting-natos-northern-flank-from-russian-attack/

      • U.s navy policy is that a carrier Will be not sail without less than two thirds of its standing air wing embarked.

  2. It is impressive. It looks far more capable than the Russian aircraft carrier being towed by a tug a few years ago, But I cant help thinking it would look a bit meaner with some aeroplanes on board. (yes I am aware the F-35s exist & more are being purchased)

  4. Interesting that three Eastern Europe nations have gone to the Ukraine capital. Just at a time when the Ukraine President has said it is clear Ukraine will never join nation. At the same time making it clear that Ukraine has felt some Western nations have left them hung out to dry.

    I have to wonder if we are seeing the development of a new security block made up of Eastern Europe nations, as the mood music is Poland et al are not happy with the rest of NATO.

    Also as an aside if the leader of a NATO nation is killed by shelling or an air attack by Russia, when they are visiting another state, that would according to the NATO charter be an article five…..

    • Poland could have given the Migs to Ukraine on their own if they felt it was right, but they didn’t because they were worried what would happen. They wanted the US to take responsibility and protect them from Russian retribution. They may not like the fact that NATO doesn’t want to get involved but I doubt they are about to go it alone with some other nations who do not provide the same protection.

      • But it within their right to set up any form of defensive alliance they so wish as NATO members. So there is nothing to stop the Eastern European nations from forming a defensive alliance and still being part of NATO.

        The sticky wicket comes in when say Poland belongs to Two defensive alliance as you would end up getting contagion between the two alliances.

        • True but if they did enter another alliance they’d still have to get NATO’s permission to act against another nation or it’ll end up triggering article 5 without the others approving of their actions. Now that would really test the common resolve.

          • Yes the problem is article five does not have a but you caused it clause. It’s an if your attacked anywhere in the geographic area cover by NATO we are all attacked. That’s why it’s problematic having any nation in NATO that may initiate aggressive action ( looking at turkey).

            The EU mutual defence clause is a bit tighter in that it’s only triggered if a nation is attacked within its own boards.

            This trip by the Leader of Poland to UKriane is a bit risky because if he gets killed by the actions of the Russian military it’s an article five of the worst kind ( not an attacked ship, or jets, but the head of a nation).

          • Ploands pm/president/first minister should be safe. Going to Kyiv. Russians havent surrounded the city. Are struggling to advance to within heavy artillery range and Russia does not have air superiority despite it being + day 20 of war and Russian airforce theoretically outnumbering Ukranians 10:1. I think Russia is saving its high performance jets just in case of conflict with NATO.

          • We can only hope, Russia is making sure it does not do anything near the leaders. But knowing Putin I would not surprise me at all if he tried to have them killed as a way to test and stress NATO.

        • Yeah I was wondering abou this last weerk – if there was a break away Eastern EU ‘bloc’ between NATO and West Europe.
          Very dodgy – you never know who they might side with in the future!

      • Wrong, the deal that fell through was that the US would fund the programme, as part of a military foreign aid deal the Migs would have been US owned and the money paid to Poland.
        Poland would then have been used the money to purchase US F16 or F18s. The deal would had to have been passed by the US Senate and Upper House. If the vote had failed it would have been a major embarrassment. Hope that helps

        • That’s just the mechanics of that proposal, fundamentally NATO does not want to provide offensive arms, just those it seems defensive. That proposal would never have been put in front of Congress.

          There is no need to be condescending.

          • Here we go! What part of my statement is condescending? I’m merely pointing out the facts. The mig 29 is an air superiorority fighter used to defend air space and would have been used as such, ITS NOT A GROUND ATTACK OR BOMBER. Now I’m being condescending. So ignore the mechanics as you say. You should also note its NOT NATO who have supplied man pads and weapons to Ukraine but individual countries that happen to be members of NATO, that is the difference.

          • When you open a comment with “Wrong” and finish it with “Hope that helps” it does rather come across as condescending, or at least leaves it open to that interpretation even if you didn’t mean it to be so.

            How you or I are classify the Mig 29 doesn’t matter, the US State Dept and White House stated that it would be too much of an escalation and risk to NATO. That’s why the proposal didn’t move forward. Perhaps the Poles got the wrong end of the stick or someone in the US gave them the impression it would fly. but no one it seems got the permission of those who matter before announcing it. As a result it was never put together as a deal in the US to put in front of Congress, albeit you are probably right in saying they wouldn’t have passed it anyway.

            I don’t think anyone is making a distinction between individual countries supplying arms or whether it is through the NATO banner, it is all viewed as the same by the Russians, which is the problem and why no one wants to risk escalation by sending more than small portable weapons. I don’t necessarily buy that distinction, but NATO seems to and the Russians haven’t attacked NATO yet so perhaps they do too.

          • I’m sorry but you cannot keep politics out of war. The arms supplied to Ukraine did not come from NATO stocks, it is being supplied from individual countries some of who happen to be NATO members. That has been made clear, Mig29s are not NATO assets or are they offensive aircraft. Poland was assured as was agreed that the US as the only country who could rapidly replace the Mig 29 from US stocks. The rug was pulled for purely political reasons, The Senate and Congress were luke warm to the deal. However if the deal had gone through the Migs would not have made a great deal of difference. Most of Russias offensive have been cruise missiles, artillery and a proportion of cluster bombs. Turkey has happily supplied drones to Ukraine which certainly can be used as offensive assets. Ukraine has been remarkable in its restraint in not attacking Russian territory or Russian military bases on the border.

    • Polish Prime Minister after the meeting in Kiev.
      “When this is over we need a NATO or other alliance peacekeeping force in Ukraine able to defend itself”

      • I think we know it’s unlikely to be NATO. So I suspect it will be a new alliance or structure, something like JEF maybe.
        I sounds like Russia is starting to look for a way out or the mess it’s stuck it’s military in.

        So if Ukraine can find a defence alliance that works but keeps the US and NATO at arms length I can see some form of settlement.

        UKriane has proven that Poland and those other Eastern European nations ( maybe including Finland) have the mass together to defend themselves ( Ukraine has proven the model for those large manpower Eastern Europe army’s with a bit of western edge can stop Russia).

        So yep I would say we will see an new treaty to support those nations boarder it Russia without the toxicity ( for Russian) of the US.

        • There is absolutely no way Poland is getting into any military alliance that doesn’t involve the US. And they aren’t foolish enough to do so. Any Eastern European military alliance with Ukraine lacks one fundamental element – nuclear weapons. You don’t confront Russia without that.

          • Daniel Poland is already in NATO. It does not have to leave NATO to form another alliance with none NATO or even NATO members.

            Most people don’t realise it but the EU is a Millary alliance with its own articles of joint defence in which all EU nations are bound to defend each other.

            There is alway room on the Board for another alliance.

        • The UN is the most appropriate for this. Agreed by both sides and made up of neutral forces, i.e not NATO or russian.

          I’m sure Ukraine saying it will never join NATO is part of their negotiation strategy to encourage peace talks. Hopefully it works, as I can’t see Russia giving up the land it has won and so peace with new borders is the best of the bad options.

          • Agreed 100%, if it was to happen a UN peacekeeping force is the only way for it to go, preferably consisting of no NATO member forces.

          • But are there any neutral forces that can defend themselves? If its not NATO or Russia (or China) there are slim pickings around the world.

            If i was Zelensky i don’t think i’d be disarming my top class troops anytime soon to be replaced by poor quality UN forces with which to defend against a renewed Russian attack.

            The best outcome here? Ukraine constitutionally promise not to join NATO and gives up Crimea and the new breakaways. Ukraine stays armed and neutral with current government intact. Russia goes away with a bloody nose knowing they were soundly whipped and with no stomach for another fight for the next generation (hopefully). Get it done before the current NATO/EU sanctions alliance starts to fall apart through partisan infighting.

            Its not fair, its not legal but what’s the alternative?

          • Oh and we learn a lesson and make it crystal clear for next time. If they put one foot into Eastern Ukraine then we go straight into Western Ukraine and stare straight back at them.

          • UN peacekeepers wouldn’t be there to fight, they would be there as a deterrent. However it’s a good point, finding countries that could add to any force would be difficult. I would guess Africa/South America and some of South East Asia.

          • The UN would not cut it to be honest, they are only really able to observe peace settlements. What Ukriane needs a s what the leader of Poland was talking about is a force to ensure the security of UKriane and that is not a UN peace keeping force.

            Which after all as part of their mandates cannot get involved and would have to sit by and watch any infractions.

          • The only countries that could put enough forces to realistically prevent anothet war are China and USA. Poland and a few eastern european countries aren’t going to be able to deploy enough forces, unless they managed to get UK/France/Germany to deploy big and even then it probably wouldn’t be enough.

            UN peacekeepers are there to stop skirmishes and give both sides a polictical avenues out of the war, they aren’t there to stop a repeat.

          • The thing is Steve it’s all about geopolitical entanglement and putting nations at risk. If Poland did put forces in Ukraine as part of any new Alliance they are still part of NATO. And this is the important bit, there is no You caused it clause in NATO. If Poland did place forces to guarantee peace in Ukraine and Russia attacked them or they forced an engagement with Russia then that is an article five trigger.

            Turkey has been using this a fair bit with Syria, if you look the Turkish government has made a number of NATO related threats to Syria….with the Syrian foreign minister actually going so far as to say back “ we hear you loud and clear”.

            Its a little know fact that a NATO nation if it so wished could try to use NATO membership offensively ( as Turkey has been boarding on doing).

            Even beyond the power of entanglement that Poland could use. It’s also pretty obvious that Russia has struggles with Overcoming the Ukraine military. Therefore what would happen if Poland decided it was not going to be passive, it’s got around 1000 MBTs, 500 of which are modern types and 500 the same as the best in the Ukraine armed forces.

            I suspect there are a lot of things going on in the leaders of Eastern European nations at present, probably based around:

            1) Russian ground and air forces have had difficulty with a nation that has defence spending of only 5billion a year.
            2) The US has shown how far it will go or not go.

            If I was say Poland or Finland etc I would be looking at all the other Friendly Eastern European nations and thinking we may need to be looking to our own defence and not depending on the US or Western Europe.

          • For sure. But don’t underestimate Ukraine, it had built up a pretty large army after the loss of chrimea. Russia isn’t struggling against a complete mino. I’m not sure Poland combined with the other eastern European countries combined would have an armed forces the size of Ukraine had before this war started.

          • That’s true, but what Poland especially offers is better quality kit and another threat axis. If Ukraine on its own can make Russia bleed imagine what would have happened if there had already been a Poland Ukraine pact in place. For a start russia could not have amassed so much military power in one place and Belarus could have been held completely at risk so could not have been a launch platform for the invasion.

            If Finland had been involved as well, it’s ability to mobilise a Local military threat make every other European nation look like minnows.

            so I think if you look at those eastern nations as a group the could create a barrier that Russia could not really intimidate.

          • The UN? Thats a joke. It has done nothing useful since the communists attacked South Korea sone 70 years ago.

          • “…as I can’t see Russia giving up the land it has won and so peace with new borders is the best of the bad options.”
            A total Russian withdrawal from recent occupied Ukrainian territory will be necessary, or all the sanctions will stay.

    • Its very much a sign of division within the EU, especially as the EU itself only found out the leaders had decided to visit at the point they had already set off!

      • The EU is a trading block, it’s not a foreign policy block. EU members are allowed to do what they like with foreign policy, as we did joining various wars with the US without other EU members.

        • I didnt say it wasnt, however this little surprise visit has clearly not been too well received especially by Western EU members which are trying to show a united front against Russia.

          • Fair.

            If the news is to be believed then peace talks are starting to make progress. Maybe Russia has realised it’s more pain than its worth. It could be they were there unofficially on behalf of the EU helping with said talks.

          • I really hope some break through is reached in the talks.

            Realistically for it to end soon Ukraine is going to have to give up Crimea completely and probably the two regions Russia declared as ‘republics’ the day before this all started.

            Very true they could well have been sent in but as the talks are not happening in Ukraine it wouldnt have been to negotiate as such with the Russians.

          • Ukraine is going to have to give a lot and Russia nothing for the peace talks to happen, which means giving Ukraine something from Europe might be a way to sweeten the pot. It won’t be just these 3 areas Russia will want to hold, it will also be the wealthy port city, they have recently taken and areas of northern Ukraine. Pretty much Russia will be looking to keep all the areas they currently hold.

          • Well the West is going to have to back down on a number of sanctions for peace to happen and probably rule out Ukraine joining Nato or the EU which are basically Russia’s initial demands which got ignored.

            Im sure Russia will try control the entire black sea coastline but I doubt that is something Ukraine would be willing to agree to.

            Whichever territory Russia demands to control its going to have a massive repair bill to fix it and also the headache of a revolting population it will struggle to control.

          • Not really sure Ukraine is in a position to decline the demand for the black sea coastline or anything else. Ukraine might succeed in a defensive war, but it’s chances of retaking areas taken by Russia are close to zero, as they need all hands to defend what they have and I’m sure Russia knows that.

            I am are of course assuming it’s not all a trick by Russia to enable them to regroup and sort their supply lines, which seems equally likely.

          • So basically you are saying Ukraine gives up what Russia has taken by force to ensure ‘peace’.
            Thats both The Crimea and the expansive Eastern regions.
            Seems like aggression combined with western appeasement has won again.
            Until the next time Putin decides he fancies some more land.
            Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded.

          • Im not in the peace talk meetings so have no clue at all what they will be negotiating over.

            I think asking for Crimea and the two eastern regions would be the best case scenario.

            Russia will want a ‘win’ scenario on this and considering its ‘special mission’ is to liberate the areas it declared as republics from Nazi aggression that would technically be a successful mission.

            However Russia will im sure still demand guarantees on non membership of Nato and the EU for Ukraine, non Nato membership for Finland and Sweden and goodness knows what else.

            I fully agree with you, it will only last so long before he decides to move again however this time he has a huge economic time bomb he has to deal with back in Russia, unless of course the West agrees to lift sanctions then it truly is Western appeasement.

          • To be honest I think James is correct, there is no way Ukraine will be able to move Russia out of those areas it’s controlled for effectively 8 years. It’s playing a defensive war to try and stay alive, but it’s stilling dying as a nation )literally). It’s population is being scattered and it’s infrastructure shattered, it’s going to take it a decade at least to recover from what has happened now.

            As soon as NATO basically said we are not going to war with Russia, UKrianes only game is to try and. Find some way for a core of the nation to survive. It’s going to have to give a lot or russia. Will just keep pounding.

            Remember the war is on Ukraine’s soil a nation cannot stay a battleground without losing itself in the process.

          • I absolutely agree with you that Ukraine have very little chance of getting Russia out of The Crimea. We let that annexation and the subsequent Russian ingress into Eastern Ukraine happen with barely a whimper- to our shame.
            I also agree that with the tactics the Russians are using with wide spread death and destruction the Ukrainian PM needs to think very carefully about what he is prepared to allow to happen to his country and his people.We see it being destroyed piece by piece each night -and its a disgrace this is happening in Europe in 2022.
            Its not as simple as just saying “we will fight them in the fields” and he of course knows that- at some point pragmatism has to take hold & I have said as much previously on here-and been shot down for it I might add.
            What I am saying is that the Wests appeasement of Russian excursions into Ukraine in 2014, and the hiding behind “not part of NATO” in 2022 has directly influenced Putins actions in this War.
            Still at least parliament ‘clapped him’ – I bet he was well chuffed with that, and slept well that night!
            If as I suspect Ukraine sues for peace and has to give up its Eastern Regions as well as The Crimea then The West will yet again have given into Russian expansionism – and a Bully will have got his blood stained hands on his rewards.
            Anyone thinking he will then sit back , put his feet up and think “thats enough for me now” is deluded.
            Sanctions should continue until Putin gives his ill gotten gains back – but we all know they wont.

          • NATO will have a say in the peace talks, it will Not want to be seen to reward Russia with Ukrainian territory!

          • Russia currently holds all the cards, so is unlikely to surrender much land. It went into the war knowing the sanctions would be applied, but considered it still worth it

      • This is less of an EU issue as it has no impact on the EU if they get attacked or killed in Ukraine as the EU mutual defence clause only relates to a foreign power invading an EU nation and within an EU nations own boarders.

        NATO on the other hand is another matter as it’s has more flexibility within article 5 and involves any attack on a nations forces across Europe or Northern America and If they were attacked in Ukraine that would be an attack on a NATO nation and Poland would be able to trigger article 5.

  5. Our representation, as a show of force, is a little half-arsed. Mostly not the RN’s fault but a little less PR smoke from the 1st sea Lord and his staff might have made us angry a little sooner.

  6. Looks impressive, but if you go back only 40 years to the Falkland task force made up of 127 vessels of which 43 were RN, 22 Royal Fleet Auxiliary and the remaining 62 merchant vessels. We desperately need more ships.

    • Assuming the modern air defence missiles actually work, unlike their Falkland era versions and assuming crowsnest is functional and there is sufficient stock of missiles and phalanx to fully arm all the ships, then if you repeated the Falklands, less escorts would be needed. The big question mark in my mind is the anti-sub coverage. Is 4 (probably realistic number that could be sent) t23 enough to protect the task force, I suspect not, as the number involved was considered insuffient to deploy a large enough net.

      • If you wanted to do a Falklands 2. 1 QE carrier. 2 or 3 astute. 3 type 45s. 4-5 type 23s and entirety of RFA would deliver more effect and combat effectiveness than our fleet of 1982.
        The QE carrier with F35Bs would enable the uk to dismantle Argentinas airforce and bases almost at will. Coupled with tomahawk. Plus Typhoons flying from Mount Pleasant.
        Would be no contest.
        Any Argentine jets getting through crowsnest and F35B CAP would meet Sampson with Aster 30 then sea ceptor. Then phalanx.
        Thats what would happen fighting Argentina. Its adifferent matter fighting a peer nation. In which case we need type 45s upgrading with sea ceptor. Pip. Mk41vls asap.
        Ditto the interim anti ship missile
        Ditto more astutes
        More F35Bs
        More Wildcats and Merlins.
        More of everything really. Just not seeing any urgency to implement these desperately needed changes.

        • Clearly Falklands itself isn’t going to happen, but I was more thinking similar scenario where UK was operating at extreme range with no land bases and a semi modern opponent. The Argentine airforce of the day wasn’t that far behind the UK one, so it would be F35b in tiny numbers Vs probably some russian or Chinese 90s / early 2000s fighters I would guess. Maybe even french rafales or mirages.

          To compare you can’t modernise the RN and not also modernise the opposition.

          • In the case of Falklands 2 though Argentina haven’t modernised though and have less than they had in 1982.

            And – why would Russia invade a country , get bogged down for 20 days, and still keep their elite troops and best armour in reserve ? That makes no sense !

      • I totally agree.

        I have confidence in Ceptor : Aster.

        A lot of the ships sent South had little effective armament other than the 4.5” guns and the Exocets – but they were too short range for that conflict.

        Ships like Counties or T21 were really there to provide NGS and a wider variety of targets. Does not diminish the bravery of the crews who were sent to war with rubbish systems.

  7. On a tangent how many ships would have to be fitted with anti-ballistic missile missiles to make any difference during a full on nuclear strike by Russia?

    • I’d have thought a full on all out nuclear exchange it wouldn’t matter what proportion were K.O.’d by ABM, if we had them, as what got through would anihilate us anyway. That’s MAD for you- everybody loses. Even if we K.O.’d 100% targeted at us(never going to happen), the fall-out etc from elsewhere would render us uninhabitable & a slow nasty death for all. The ice caps would melt raising sea level 50-60m in short order. Pleasant dreams!

      ABMs are useful for defence against conventional/biological/chemical strikes & the odd rogue nation/terrorist use.

          • Exactly…. POW has no striking power, its not an example of Naval Might, just a toothless Tiger!

          • It wouldn’t be so bad if she had a flight of F35’s to mount a basic CAP and a flight of Merlin’s to push the submarine threat out to an acceptable limit but she is acting as the hub for the CFH so unless Royal can attack Russian SSN’s/SSK’s and shoot down threats from the sky she is lifting her skirts and saying to Putin Come and get it!!!

          • Apparently 4x f35Bs on board. Just pathetic. The real power in the NATO fleet comes from USS Roosevelt

      • That’s pretty much my view. So beyond protecting against rogue nations/terror groups with low numbers.investing in anti ballistic systems might be wasteful.

        • NATO does have an active ABM system in Europe including US Destroyers. How many ICBMs Russia actually has active is anybody’s guess, and of course during the Cold War NATO subs tracked Russian SSBNs in order to neutralise them before they could launch….

        • Well no not wasteful. Can use it to stop one or two if they are trying to make a point with a tactical nuke, also help stop conventional missiles. It is one step from full scale retaliation- always good to have options.

      • Ah is that a little bit of reality creeping into your posts now Frank?

        Glad you are now understanding if we put forces into Ukraine what would most likely happen.

    • Nothing would make a difference, as it’s easier to launch ballistic warheads than it is to shot them down. Even the US system is only designed to manage a handful of medium or intermediate range balistic missiles if they are very lucky they may manage an ICBM, but it’s even a lap of gods thing for the mighty the US GMD system and latest block SM3s ( which are essentially a multi stage orbital booster with an exoatmospheric kinetic kill vehicle).

      Every other system is essentially trying to kill the re-entry vehicle at the terminal Phase, which is difficult for short range Ballistic missiles and impossible for ICBMs which are just to fast at that point 7-9km per second. ( or up to 20,000 miles per hour….it’s not just hyper sonic is impossible fast).

      you have to remember THAAD (and other types ) has a ceiling of around 150kms compared to the apogee of an ICBM which is around 1000km high.

      The other pain is that each balistic missile will launch multiple re-entry vehicles and penetration aids.

      The main use of ABM systems is not to counter a devastating strategic weapon attack, but is to counter tactical type ballistic missile attacks either nuclear or conventional ( Russia has lots of conventional Short to intermediate range ballistic missiles). So what we need to defend against is a sub launched attack on a key U.K. military, communication, government or other target with that handful of short to medium range missiles.

    • We dont have enough. Russia has thousands of nuclear missiles with MIRVs. We would be hard pressed even if all 6 type 45s hadABM defence ability to shoot down more than a few dozen.
      There are no winners in a nuclear war. It would be the end of the world as we know it.
      Our retaliation for a full strike against uk would destroy large tracts of Russia. Certainly all their cities.

  8. No anti ballistic missile defence, no anti ship missiles and no fast jets wow some show of force. Crazy to think how current and past governments have completely hollowed us out in favour of a few pieces of shiny gear.

    • Could the Russians assemble a task group like that? No. Does Russia have aircraft carriers? No. Russian anti ballistic missile defence? No. Lots of BS talk about hypersonic missiles. Yes. Do they work? No.

      • Do we want to find out? No. Look it’s an impressive fleet, and we have quality assets. It’s that I fear the resent unraveling of Russia’s might isn’t representative of there actual abilities. I also fear that if we ever engaged in major warfare again that our fate will be that of the russians

      • The Chinese just sent a hypersonic missile the whole way around the earth, it missed it’s target by 20 or 30 miles after circumnavigating the globe. So I’d say they are not that far away from a game changer

    • Russia launches ICBM’s they get ICBM’s sent back at them.

      I believe a few ships in the fleet (not RN admittedly) have anti ship capability?

      Why would fast jets be needed for this exercise when its a landing force task force for using helicopters? Numerous fast jets could be deployed from various countries nearby.

      • Considering the headline was ‘british carrier leads huge fleet’, in what way does it lead? Hasn’t got any fast jets for any CAP to cover this landing force. Is entirely the wrong asset to be used as an assult ship, bar it’s ability to carry large quantities of helos. Would be a sitting duck if the reds had any anti ship. Another example of an MOD cluster….if we wanted a jack of all trade should’ve gone the Italian way with there latest flat top, able to embark Al load of marines and landing craft and with the bonus of having F35bs onboard. For what Italy is paying we could have 4-5 fully equipped for the price of 2 QE’S. I’m not slagging of the QE but the question should be if we can’t afford to properly outfit it then why should we have them?
        By all means show of your best assets to deter the others but Russia is as intimidated by our carriers as we now are there armoured divisions

        • They are new in service, as we have lost the capability since retiring the Harriers and last couple of carriers we cant just wheel out a fully equipped carrier strike capability over night.

          Im fairly sure POW in this instance can easily be used as a command centre for the operation in question and as you say it can carry a boat load of helo’s.

          Totally agree its not the right ship for the this exercise type and its being used in roles that its not exactly designed for but regardless its an exercise and will give invaluable training to the crew.

          • I get it takes time, and there has to be plenty of flag waving exercises but if we’re gonna do it as a program them do it properly. Otherwise surely smaller carriers would’ve be a better investment

          • Smaller carriers would give on paper full capability for said carrier quicker yes but ultimately be much less capable over time.

            Its a complex situation to work up to and the F35 being ultimately delayed quite a bit isnt helping.

  9. No mention of Merlin in the anti-sub role on PoW. What is the MoD/Admiralty playing at here? You would think that with a major war going on in eastern Europe that could easily get very hot they would have embarked a few.

    • Merlin is embarked if that’s what you mean.
      820 squadron has deployed a third of the squadron for cold response 22. Touched down some days ago.
      Commando merlins are also deployed. There are some in Norway. I also believe there are some wildcats around as well.
      All the carriers in pictures have there aircraft in the hangers and not on deck. It’s cold in the artic.
      If the f35 are needed on deck they can be there in a matter of hours.
      I’ve every faith the navy knows what it is doing. Also the American carrier in the med was meant to be joining in the artic also for the exercise.
      There will be a lot of land based aircraft also operating in the area.
      I’m happy to have the F35b around the U.K. able to deploy to Europe or back up the typhoons if needed.

        • Anytime. I only replied as I’d been looking at Twitter, navy website earlier that day. It seems hard to get actual numbers from sources. Best I found was a third of 820 squadron. I haven’t actually looked to see what that adds up to in aircraft.
          I would prefer to see the carrier with a busy deck but we are where we are. I’m ever hopeful that they will fill up overtime.

  10. So about half the size of the fleet we sent to the Falklands consisting of just GB ships. And those little carriers had more jets than FAA can field today!

    • Every European navy has also shrunk in that time.
      The capabilities of many of those ships was questionable. 2 type 22s and the Type 42 with 1022 radar were the only ones that could really detect or hit aircraft at low level.
      Most of those frigates were under armed focused on ASW, and we were lucky there was not a more advanced opponent. The fleet now is far more capable.
      Sea slug was by then useless , sea cat not much better .

      • I don’t think the “Axis” navy shrunk! Germans same or better navy while Italians decidedly better and bigger.

        • Germany’s navy, you mean the one that is basically tied up idle as virtually every vessel other than the couple they have sent on this is broken awaiting parts?

          • As with most of the rest of their armed forces. Specifically their air force being in poor state from the last piece I read on the subject.
            Technically the RN (With RFA included) is the biggest of the three mentioned with 80 ships/boats in service. The Germans have 45 ships/boats and the Italians have 60.

            All this is excluding any research vessels.

          • Yeah its a while since those reports came out but as the increase in funding is very recent I cant see them having it all rectified as of yet.

            The entire submarine force at one point was not able to go to sea.

  11. I wondered what people’s opinion is of putting heavyweight torpedoes on surface ships? India seems to be looking at doing it along with a few others.
    My view kind of goes towards getting drone ships to have this rather than dropping it off the back of a type 26. This is only if it’s better than having drone or helicopter launched lightweight torpedoes doing the same job.
    I’d been led to believe that if the surface ship has found a sub it would be in range of the subs heavyweight torpedoes. So I’m guessing a large surfaced launched torpedo would be mainly used against surface ships.

    • Its generally accepted now that a single standard torpedo’s warhead could sink any ship so no need for heavy torpedoes unless making up for other technological deficiencies. The only ones that really kept using them were the Russians (because they couldnt detect Anglo/US submarines they needed something fast to countershoot after they had been fired upon as they knew they would rarely get the first shot) and even then they dont always use them. The Los Angeles class were built to carry heavy torpedoes but never ended up doing so ending up using them as deployment mechanism for divers/diver aids.

      • Do you mean the Los Angeles cruiser of the Baltimore class had heavyweight torpedoes. I’m assuming you don’t mean the submarines as I’m sure they would use the 21inch torpedoes.
        Oh actually do you mean heavyweight as in bigger than the standard 21 inch. The big 655mm Russian ones.
        I refers to lightweight being the airborne and ship launched 324mm and heavyweight being the 21inch torpedoes subs mainly use.
        Sorry brain fart in text there

        • Sorry, yes I meant the Seawolf, was designed for 26.5 inch torpedoes to tackle Typhoons but they never rolled them out and just ended up using 21.5 inch.

    • Western SM launched ‘heavyweight’ torpedoes – 533mm, serve a dual attack role, and are designed to attack and sink both SMs and ships. They need a bigger warhead for anti ship role, hence bigger sized weapon. RN Spearfish comes in at a tad under 2 metric tonnes weightwise.
      Spearfish is also wire guided as opposed to fire and forget – like Stingray, as it has a much greater range, so needs mid course guidance to help it get to it’s target.
      All torpedoes have a short target detection range, largely driven by the number of hydrophone/transducers you can fit on the torpedo head. Obviously the larger the diameter the greater the number fitted, thus a slightly longer detection range. However, it’s still not long, so onboard sensors track said target allowing the torpedo to use its speed to close the range and self detect the unit, whereby it will auto attack, and hopefully sink it.
      Hope that helps.

      • So Do u think there is a call to put larger torpedoes on surface ships? I read the Indians were looking at putting heavyweights on frigates. Perhaps it’s the range they are after over light weights.
        Personally I think the best weapon has to be the submarine for surface hits.
        As with nearly everything detection and tracking are the hard bits. That’s where I find folks going on about 1000 mile anti ship missiles a bit pointless. Limited roles I would think

        • Not sure what the point would be. Lightweight torpedoes can sink a SM, Ships don’t use these to sink other ships, ASM and possibly guns are the weapons of choice. And yes., a SMs main weapon against ships is the torpedo, although some may well have ASM too.
          The issue with LR ASM is the targeting, it needs to be very good and accurate. If a missile takes some 30-60 mins to reach its target, the target could have moved 10-15 miles in that time. So lots of problems to overcome. It’s one of the main reasons why the RN don’t have a ASM fitted to ships or SMs.

          • Thanks for your comment very interesting. Persistent drones may well help with situational awareness in the future above and below the waves. Some technical hurdles to over come before we see 50 drones around ships all feeding into a picture.
            Power supply, cost, sensors to name a few. But if each one had 12hour endurance and a 50 mile sensor range and automatically landed and recharged while another replaced it, in fact I will stop there. Going full star trek future tech dreaming.

  12. Amazing! I’ve been rabbiting on about aircraft for the two carriers since they joined the fleet and have, if you’ll excuse the pun, been shot down here regularly. Now presumably because of the Ukraine more F35’s being ordered urgently is a good idea.

    • Not really no, the production line is full so how would we get them urgently?

      Secondly they still arent coming with the full capability we need or want meaning we then need to refit them out later at more expense.

      Thirdly we dont have a line of fully trained pilots to fly them so getting more would have planes on the ground with no one able to fly them.

      • That’s the whole point James. If we had ordered at the right time we would be in the production line with more airframes coming soon. The capability will come but not if you haven’t got the aircraft to be upgraded and we would have more pilots if we had started training them earlier.
        As things stand we may have enough aircraft to equip two or three small squadrons, to be shared with the RAF, by around 2027/2028. It is ridiculous.
        Even if you think the current situation is sensible, and I do not, when do we order the next tranche. This year, next year, whenever….
        We need to start building a real F35 force now with sufficient aircraft for both services and as I stated in my article of a couple of years ago five/six squadrons of ten and an OCU is the absolute minimum.
        While I’m at it I am also in favour of increasing the Typhoon force as well.

        • Totally agree on Typhoon being increased with newer Tranche/Radar capable aircraft.

          But mentioning Typhoon is the perfect example, if we had ordered lots of F35’s early on, and thats assuming we could have got build slots we would just end up with what we have now, squadrons of T1 Typhoon style aircraft which are o.k but not that capable and uneconomical to upgrade.

          The current situation is not ideal I totally agree but it is much more ideal than having an additional 20 aircraft which we need to spend tens of millions per platform and take them out of service in a few years time to do the upgrades. For a change the accountants have made sense of the numbers and done it the correct way and ordered at the right time.

          • I’m sorry James but I still think your missing the point. In order to get onto the production line circuit the airframes have to be ordered, otherwise nothing is going to happen. If you fancied a new car you would go out and order it, not think… they might make changes in the specs. next year so I’ll wait for another year or two. We order now …they arrive in three or four years. Meanwhile we train the pilots.

          • I fully understand the point of ordering items based on waiting times, I do it for work.

            However why would we order something we arent going to get in the specification we want and then have to spend a fortune upgrading it whilst taking it out of service? Hence I think you are missing the point I am making.

            If LM turned around and said from January 2024 the F35’s will be in X specification and we guarantee this place the order now for the aircraft to start being built from that date then yes I completely agree order the airframes. However they clearly have not hence we are waiting.

            Training is another discussion, I am unsure of how many of the F35 pilots are pilots who fly typhoon and have moved on, a reason other than the lack of air frames will exist as in we cant just take pilots from one area to another leaving the original area without pilots also.

          • James.. The USMC are receiving F35B Block 4 aircraft NOW so they are ready so we have to get our order in NOW. We need more pilots if we are to maintain squadron numbers so again we have to recruit NOW. If you cannot see this it is pointless our continuing this conversation.

          • Morning Geoff, I was under the impression that Blk 4 upgrades had been delayed until late 26\early 27?
            Which begs the question how is anyone receiving Blk 4 aircraft, as nothing seems to have been released to that effect, and I’m sure LM would have been shouting something like that from every rooftop!

          • Maybe I misunderstood the articles I ‘ve read recently. If so fair enough but we still have to get in the procurement chain don’t you think?

          • Hi Geoff, I believe we are to receive our remaining aircraft (23 I think) by late 2025, taking us up to our original 48(47)
            As Blk 4 was originally scheduled for 2024, some of our last deliveries would have been at the latest standard, meaning less aircraft requiring upgrades, thus saving money dare I say.
            Agree totally that we need more of them, if the news is to be believed we will get somewhere between 60-80 aircraft. Unfortunately the MOD finds itself through no fault of its own, between a rock and a hard place with ordering more when Blk4 upgrades are delayed.
            Given that it takes some two years from orders to delivery of these, with our current delivery schedule, if we ordered today we wouldn’t receive anymore until say 2026. There are no guarantees that these airframes would be Blk 4 standard either, so incurring costly upgrade fees.
            Def Sec and the MOD have some tough calls to make over this.

          • As per reply below the Block 4 is definitely not available now, and we are along way from getting integration of the weapons that the UK needs to be integrated.

          • So what are we going to do? Wait until 2027 before we put in an order? Meanwhile we can run two carriers devoid of any useful air wing.

          • We have more aircraft arriving in confirmed numbers (albeit low numbers) for the next few years, im sure and hope that when the integration of what we need happens larger orders will be placed.

            The doctrine for both carriers was never to have 2 fully equipped carriers, its to have 1 carrier available 365 days a year.

            Even one carrier with 12 F35B’s on is more advanced than anything anyone else can field other than the US and arguably France when its carrier is not in dock undergoing maintenance.

          • O.K. complacency lives. If the Falklands happened today we couldn’t cope and please don’t tell me it’ll never happen. If your content that we will have 30’ish airframes available to deploy in five years time and they have to be shared with the RAF so be it. Best part of 1500 personnel including escorts to send 12 aircraft to sea around the world. Ludicrous.

          • As of today Argentina poses zero as in not a single threat to the Falklands so that scenario is not possible.

            If in ten years time Argentina has sorted its economy out a bit and sold its soul to China purchasing aircraft and ships from them then maybes they might pose a minor threat. By then we should have more ships on the seas and the F35’s should amount to 35+ air frames quite easily.

          • So there is no potential threat to us or an ally until your time scale of sometime never comes to fruition.? Excellent. I just wish I could get into your head that we will not have 35 available, and again I emphasis to be shared with the RAF, until 2027 and we have to train the pilots. If the RAF has deployed it’s 35’s elsewhere we are back to 15 to 20 for the RN. IT is simple mathematics.

          • I am fully able to work out the numbers and dont need comments which are starting to border on personal insults.

            What you dont seem to understand is yes great lets over spend out of the budget now on something that is not the spec we want, whilst having to cut something else to pay for them. Then in 5 years when we need to upgrade them to fire the weapons we have in stock spend no doubt hundreds more millions refitting the aircraft whilst having to take them out of service for however long to get the work done. How long has it taken Typhoon to evolve into what it is today, T1 aircraft are generations behind T3, you seem to want exactly the same scenario with F35.

            Look at the bigger picture not just the now of want want want, what we want and what we need we cannot have both at this time.

            The procurement of these aircraft at this time is perfectly acceptable and sensible based on operating capability, availability of the aircraft and the current specification that the aircraft is available in.

  13. Just watched Tobias Ellwood BBC Hardtalk – a Conservative I could vote for and a person who stood up and my own thoughts.

    Russia needs facing down, the West deals out its own hand when it says if we do X Russia will do Y, we know that how? We don’t.

    NATO MS should enter the Ukraine and create humanitarian safe zones with air cover.

    Let Russian commanders dare to attack and see the good news delivered.

    • Then the spiral begins……

      Russia would get desperate in the face of embarrassment, if things stayed conventional (which it wouldnt for long) they could pile in hundreds of thousands of more troops quite quickly causing the West a big problem. Plus the troops would now have an actual motivated reason to fight, the nasty West which they have been brought up to hate is now killing Russians in a foreign land.

      However when they did stop using conventional weapons what does the west do, respond in kind? Then when does it stop?

      • It is kind of strange watching this play out, I know they’ve been having said issues with supply but in the past they have been able to do snap exercises with far greater numbers and the ability to move them at will. At the back of the mind it makes you think they’ve set themselves up for a staged escalation for a nuclear or chemical attack

      • “…they could pile in hundreds of thousands of more troops …”
        Russia does Not have hundreds of thousands of extra troops to spare. They have committed 2/3 of their ground forces, they cannot commit the National Guard, as it’s last line of home defense.

        • They have army over the in the East and other areas which are not small in numbers and as everyone male of fighting age can be conscripted then yes they can easily throw in hundreds of thousands more men. Would they all be classed as trained troops, no but the ones in Ukraine at the minute arent either.

          Does ask the question would they have enough equipment and supplies to give them who knows but the numbers are available if needed/forced into it.

          • The army over in the East is to defend against China, which held those lands before the 17th century. If China wanted to retake those long lost Siberian lands, now would be the time to retake them.

  14. Australia is the latest country jumping on the rearmament bandwagon, its announced it will increase its military headcount 30% by 2040 from 59,000 to 80,000 primarily recruiting more infantry and stopping relying on using special forces to carry out all regular army deployments. As well as expanding the navy and adding around 12,500 soldiers they will add cyberwarfare and ELINT capabilities and missile artillery. This will be the largest the Australian forces have been since Vietnam.

    • Watch zero, You’re more up to date than me and I live here! I’d like to see the RAN get a medium sized aircraft carrier with a dozen of so F35Bs, maybe one more AAW Destroyer and an additional tanker. Good to see the Aus defence minister and government taking action and now!
      Plus NZ, an extra frigate and a couple of diesel subs.

      • America’s partner of choice in that arena – not us.
        Despite what we like to portary as the ‘special partnership’.

        • Must admit I look at Australia with envy, successive governments that invest in there own and have an idea of where they want to be. Compare there equipment procurement programs with ours… surely we must be getting an uplift in the budget, I don’t see how our current plans work with actual reality of what’s happening in today’s world

        • why would the UK be America’s partner of choice in the pacific? What would the UK even have to do to be America’s partner of choice in an area it takes us months to get to?

          I dont understand the point about australia being better armed, so the partner of choice there. They have, according to above, 59 000 military personal. thats absolutely tiny, its dwarvfed just by britain’s tiny army.

  15. Well, nothing new here, an aircraft carrier with too few helicopters and fixed wing aircraft, under armed surface escorts (RN) and too few Submarines (RN). If ordering more F35s quickly is not possible,

    Do we go for a budget option which gives some uplift and act as a force multiplier, and doesn’t rely on our limited manufacturing base and the the lack of full integration of the F35 and some or all of the following measures eg:

    1) Additional ASW helicopters either by converting all merlin’s to HM 3 standard and buying a new Commando helicopter or transferring all Wildcats to the RN and giving them dipping sonar and sonar buoys, and giving the AAC a new medium helicopter?

    2) Converting the carriers to STOBAR and buying Sea Gripen (say 48) which could give the carriers a basic CAP and free the F35 for strike only?

    3) SSKs brought for elsewhere? say 5- 7

    4) Up arm current escort fleet eg interim ssm, sonar on T45, MK48 launcher system etc etc and more armament on current builds T26 and T31

    4) Speeding up T26 build and adding maybe another 1 or 2?????

    Yes it all depends on the budget but if there is a further uplift,

    • 1. Think as a bare minimum RN should be the only wildcat operator, crazy to think AH-64 needs its own scout just use the asset for what it is.
      2. Biggest mistake MOD made, at bare minimum should’ve gone the C version.
      3. Think the navy is going the way of the unmanned route with current r&d so would see that though.
      4. Latest rumblings suggest this is probably going to happen at some point.
      5. They’ve just launched the updated ship building program and there is nothing to suggest any sort of urgency unless get an uplift.

      • I mean, good luck with having any credible military at all if the carriers were now still non operable, roughly twice the coast, not enough pilots to man the aircraft since landing on catobar is a fulltime job for a pilot and we dont have the personel to dedicate them purely to that role, more crewing pressure on the vessels, higher running costs. In return we would eventually get jets that could go a bit further, a tactical and operational benefit to be sure.

        How small do you want the army, how many typhoons do you want to cut, how many of the surface fleet ould you sell, to afford this? This is, of course, assuming a massive 0.5 increase in defence to just get the carriers up and running

  16. This week they have retired the hawks of 736 squadron used to train the Navy to be replaced with as yet not in service uncrewed systems. It’s not just not having enough aircraft on the decks, we are also cutting training.

    As for pilots I’m sure we have more then enough with all the aircraft reductions over even the last 5 years.

    This fleet looks beautiful but it is toothless and despite the fact there is a war in Europe the Government is making it more toothless still with cuts which continue to happen.

  17. How long will we use COVID as an excuse for low defense spending ? There have always been diseases and pandemics, so that should be a relative constant. In any case. the carriers are fine, but without an air wing they are powerless.

  18. Impressive, yes. Military might – no, unless you’re a tribesman. From an RN perspective there’s no ASuW whilst limited ASW once Northumberland’s been removed. RN lacking in capabilities yet posturing the opposite. Not learned any lessons from Falklands!

  20. I’m no expert, and it may be that this is because its an exercise with a specific purpose, but PoW is operating as a Helicopter Carrier only, so the fleet seems like it’s operating with no fast jets at all (Assuming that USS Roosvelt is the Arleigh Burke DDG-80 and not the USS Theodore Roosvelt CVN-71)

    I’m just looking to understand – How do you train without having an air element in the mix? or do you just set the exercise up with an assumption that air superiority has been achieved?

  21. Does the “huge British fleet” have mor than a token number of fighter a/c? If not, then it’s just a target for Russian torpedoes and sub-launched missiles.

    • NO, the PoW has several Merlin ASW helos aboard, operating on exercise. That’s their role, an anti-submarine screen armed with Stingray torpedoes.
      Aircraft will also be operating from the Norwegian mainland as well.

  22. Deploying a large and modern aircraft carrier operationally without any air group – other than three(?) Merlin helicopters – both seems and looks a bit embarrassing.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/HMSPWLS/status/1504421147915571200/photo/4

    It reminds me of the Japanese aircraft carriers in 1944 and 1945 when they were essentially just decoys due to the lack of aircraft and pilots.

    No doubt PoW is proving to be an excellent and roomy C3I command platform for NATO, but it seems to be a very expensive – almost OTT – solution. Albion could do the job nearly as well (albeit she has less capable radars), or she if can’t be spared from the Littoral/Amphibious role, bring Bulwark back in to service. Note that PoW will be replaced as the NATO Command Ship by an old Turkish frigate at the end of the year, so clearly the bar is not set very high.

    I may be wrong, but I’m getting the impression that the RN is desperate to justify keeping both carriers in active service, when Buggin’s turn might make more more sense until the UK has a larger force of F-35B’s and the FAA a viable AEW capability.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here