HMS Queen Elizabeth is heading north to lead aย  multinational Carrier Strike Group deployment.

The Royal Navy say that the aircraft carrier, crewed by up to 900 sailors, with her F-35 Lightning II stealth fighters and Merlin helicopters will lead a mixed group of warships from various nations as they head to the Norwegian Sea and waters of northern Europe.

The UK Carrier Strike Group deployment comes just days after HMS Prince of Wales departed Portsmouth for the United States, where she will undergo trials and operate a multitude of aircraft and drones.

Defence Secretary Grant Shapps said:

“The UK leadership of this international strike group shows the strength of our commitment to working with Allies to promote security in Europe and demonstrate our resolve against any threat from potential adversaries.

With both HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales deployed simultaneously, the Royal Navy sends a strong message that the UKโ€™s capability for carrier operations is among the strongest in the world.”

The first phase of the deployment will see the carrierโ€™s F35 fighter jets taking part in Exercise Cobra Warrior, the RAFโ€™s largest bi-annual exercise, which will see aircraft from the Australia, Canada, Germany, Italy, Norway, and the UK taking part in joint exercises.

The 18-day exercise will involve RAF Typhoon and F35 jets, A400M and C17 transport aircraft, and Voyager air tankers, developing interoperability alongside allied aircraft and practicing integration between fourth and fifth generation fighter aircraft across air, sea, and land.

Commodore James Blackmore, Commander of the Carrier Strike Group, said:

“It is with much eagerness that the UK Carrier Strike Group is now assembling for deployed operations โ€“ the first time the UK CSG will be under my command. This autumnโ€™s deployment showcases the UKโ€™s capability to operate at range from the UK and demonstrates our continued commitment to North Atlantic security.

The Carrier Strike Group is an agile and highly capable force and we are excited to be heading to the North Sea and North Atlantic along with our International Partner Nations to reinforce security across the region.”

You can read more on this 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

117 COMMENTS

  1. I not in this picture and recent pictures of PoW there are no CIWS (phalanx) on the carriers. They have been taken off. Is this part of the MoD’s ongoing effort to save money by removing every weapon for self defence on these platforms. The QE class was built to take 4 Phalanx and 4 30mm mounts. We ended up with 3 Phalanx… now it appears we have none…

    I am sick of the MoD under arming our ships and acting as if they will never see combat. Especially with the carriers were we have invested millions but do not spend a little extra to give them decent self protection. Our carriers are the least well protected in the world. The French, Italians, Spanish, US all do a better job.

    it makes me so sick that we can be so negligent…. if we were half way competent we would instal 4 CIWS, 4 30mm and some Sea Ceptor.

    • Baffling to send out a vessel without some vague means of self defence. I also donโ€™t buy the FOD โ€˜argumentโ€™ not for installing a sea ceptor battery on QEs.

    • Phalanx is plug and play. I guess the RN deem the threat level for a training exercise in the North Sea off Norway to have a different threat level than transiting the South China Sea, when she was armed with Phalanx.
      HMS QE will never be out of range of RAF and NATO Aircraft while on this exercise not to mention the other naval vessels accompanying her.

      The aircraft carriers seem to be singled out for โ€œspecial treatmentโ€, they donโ€™t seem to be able to leave port without being fully โ€œtooled upโ€ in case WW3 kicks off while they are out on a training mission.

      EDIT – I was referring to HMS QE as I could not see any Phalanx on pictures of her departing Portsmouth to go the exercise off Norway.

    • Thoroughly agree, nil protection for all of the people manning the vessel, especially if something should kick off. Disagree with Phalanx as itโ€™s proven to be unreliable, slow to rearm and at times woefully inaccurate. The USN and many others have ditched it and now use RAM or Super RAM, even the Chinese have their own version on their CVโ€™s and surface vessels, which is far more reliable, easy to mount and exceptionally accurate. The only drawback is that the U.K. would actually have to spend a small amount in ship protection for once and our inept admirals would have to drop their Falklands mentality, believing that the embarked aircraft and the single Type 45 escort are its defence. This was stated to me once by the 2SL and left everyone present aghast. Itโ€™s high time that our warships were properly equipped and armed and ready for deployment and combat, because at the moment they are a joke.

      • Utter Bollox…
        Phalanx is now in its latest guise quick to reload with a full reload available immediately for inputting into the drum. Inaccurate? Really? Not when I was working with it it wasn’t and since then it’s gotten a TI on the side of the dome for surface action. and a shed load of upgrades.

        RAM requires a command system input and an EW input. Phalanx does not. Lose power to a radar or the EW and no RAM. As long as phalanx has its own power it will search, track, and shoot all without operator input. No EW, Data highway, radar input required.

        Properly equipped and armed? Its a risk management call by Fleet and always has been.
        I was on a B2 T22. Went to the Med in the late 90s doing sneaky stuff against a certain nation operating S300. We were missing a Tyne engine (sent to Brazil for their T22) had are ammo down to 33% and no Exocet, just empty cannisters on the F’csle. Crew was at 1/2- 2/3 of compliment with the girls taking up 35% of the numbers meaning we had to give the girls extra messdecks as they normally only provided around 15% of the onboard numbers and we did that for 3 months.
        Why was it like that because Fleet knew where we were going and at the time, they had negligible threat on the board.

        I am not saying it was ideal and there were concerns regarding the Damage control and FF response should it be needed. But it was manageable.

        For a carrier going to the CONUS what threat is there?

    • With you Rob, perceptions not a good look. Why is it so hard? Biggest asset in the RN. They could add a 2-3 40mm to complement the Phalanx’s, even 1-2 RAMs, with Starstreak, LMM or ASRAAM. Anyway, they seem to love FFFA… It’ll probably take a real crisis to get things uparmed. As you say, others seem to have things covered.

      • Yes I would swap out Phalanx for 4 40mm and fit Sea Ceptor. The missile has a basic anti-surface mode too. There are at least 8 CWIS mount sites on the QE class we should be using them. You could fit box mounted Sea Ceptor in 4 sites and the 40mm in the rest. It is the minimum we could do to give the ship a credible self defence capability. The protection given by escorts and aircraft may be significant but you need to cover tge unexpected or just massive attack were things might leak past the other defences…. it is called defence in depth. Currently the UK GSG does not have defence in the centre – the carrier itself. We need to give her that. After all in the Falklands war HMS Invincible fires its Sea Dart in self defence….

        I also am very unimpressed by the MoD and is argument that it does not sant the 30mm fitted as they may hit other ships. In that case you better remove tge Phalanx too fir the same reason. The real cause as we all know is that they want to save money. Get rid of the farce that is AJAX that will save money….

        • Your point on the 30mm, that is a pretty soggy reason, if so then you’d need to remove it from all RN ships then. Other navies, have 40mm, 76mm, plus missiles! Seems like some piss weak decision making in the CIWS department. How are they going to handle Dragonfire?!

          • Good point – as the 30mm argument was just a thinly desisted cost cutting measureI am sure their argument will only apply to kit they think they will get away with cutting.

      • “Thanks to a compromised ability to render their fuel tanks inert, F-35A Lighting IIs canโ€™t fly within 25 miles of a thunderstorm or other atmospheric electrical activity. Over two years after issuing the flight restriction, the F-35 Joint Program Office was expected to lift it. It hasnโ€™t.”

        LINK

          • How’s your brain cells holding up this weekend? so far, it’s not looking good for poor old Nigel. Maybe put more effort and energy into degrading our enemies fast jets. Can a J20 fly in a thunderstorm? what’s its upgrade timeline and cost looking like? Please tell us Nigel……..๐Ÿซก

          • “Didnโ€™t 3 minutes in the TA teach you that?”

            What did a career in the Navy teach you Debs? ๏ปฟ๐Ÿ˜‚๏ปฟ

            Unlike their Air Force counterparts, the jets appear covered in reddish-brown streaks and splotches over most of their upper surfaces, including the center fuselages, wings, and tail surfaces. In fact, the aircraft almost looks as if they have a case of rust, which is not altogether unheard of for the Navy, but as with most things related to the F-35, the reality is likely much more complex.”

            While it is known that significant leaps in the maintainability of radar-absorbent materials (RAM) were integrated into the F-35 design, recent images from the F-35C’s inaugural cruise raise potential questions about the ease of maintaining the jet’s coatings in the demanding maritime environment.

          • The fact you think I’m two people just shows how demented you are Nigel. Ask Danielle. We speak on Facebook messenger as well as on this site. Because he’s a cracking bloke. Unlike you. Look me up Nigel

          • Nigel mate, Robert is indeed as he posts. As am I. Look him up, look me up. Neither of us are hard to find as we use our real names here. No nefarious reasons not to.

            Deebee is another person entirely!

          • As do I.

            But who is Deebee? She sounds very familiar to me. Almost word perfect.

            Deebee
            3 hours ago

            “Over 840 F35s in service with 17 countries operating from 26 bases around the world with 400,000 flight hours, combat proven in the middle east, the F35s capabilities are so good, Japan, arguably the most technological nation on earth civil& military are so impressed with the F35B variant they modified both of their helicopter carriers Izumo & Kaga to operate it, ( what would they know, a long with the many other thousands of aeronautical experts, air warfare planners, chief test pilots etc from the 17 countries which are purchasing this fantastic jet in droves??) The moaning Minnieโ€™s can keep moaning but sales figures speak for themselves, end of.”

          • Hi, there is a bug on the site that prevents editing of a comment.
            It says I am typing too fast.
            Please can you look into it?

    • No one wants the guns, the USAF is trying to figure out how to get rid of them on the F35A variant. The gun has caused a large part of the poor readiness stats for the A model.

      No one wants guns anymore now that weapons like Brimestone and Pave-way IV can provide true precision and close air support.

      A10 is being gotten rid of and even the army donโ€™t want to keep it anymore as itโ€™s the worst plane in the US inventory for civilian casualties and Blue on blue.

      • Hello Jim,

        The F35-A has the problem with the gun and not the Gun pod. It proved to be accurate in test firing.

        “Interestingly, the short takeoff and vertical landing F-35B and carrier-based F-35C โ€“ which carry their cannon in an external pod โ€“ did not have the same problem. โ€œF-35B and F-35C air-to-ground accuracy results to date with the gun pod have been consistent and meet the contract specifications,โ€ DOT&E found.”

        “The primary role of the F-35B STOVL aircraft is ground attack with a secondary air-to-air role. The aircraft is powered by a single main engine with a vertically-mounted, shaft-driven lift fan propulsion system.”

        LINK

  4. Really good to see both carriers in service. If we can do it now there is no reason why we can’t keep both carriers active under the right circumstances. A question and it really is only a question๏ปฟ๐Ÿ˜‰๏ปฟ…anyone know what the air groups are?

    • Availability of both vessels depends on refit schedules. QE goes into refit late next year. The POW will become the on call carrier at 48hrs notice to deploy.

  5. I thought the CSG was deploying for 3 months and it’d be heading to the Eastern Mediterranean?

    Suspect with the continued stresses and strains on the F35 force that no more than 8 will embark again.

    • Does it need more than 8 for an exercise?

      We can stick them all on there and burn up air frame hours and get more corrosion.

      F35B crews donโ€™t need the same level of carrier training as Harrier pilots did because the F35B has an auto land feature.

      Thatโ€™s why all F35B pilots will be certified for carrier landings. QE class really is more of an FOB than a strike carrier.

      No need to have dozens of expensive 5th Gen jets so close to salt water all the time when you can surge the entire force if needed.

      • The carriers meed to embark the maximum numbers of jets on exercise to ensure the deck crew are up to speed with high tempo ops, hence you always see a US Carrier with a full airwing. It might be an exercise today, but the whole idea is to ensure we are ready for hostilities at the drop of a hat tomorrow!

      • Embarking large numbers of jets requires a lot of planning and a whole different rhythm and tempo of operations. Don’t think it’s a great idea to assume all of the maintenance, refuelling, munitions loading and movement between and around the hangar and flight-deck to generate increased and sustained sorties can be worked out ‘on the job’.

        Plus QE has already been in service for half a decade. Is it great value for money to accept having 70,000 ton carriers virtually empty 90% of the time!

      • Autoland – while the ship itself is moving is different from landing on a air base.
        Same as a conventional takeoff- short takeoff- short takeoff with ski jump, all different and need practice no matter the autoland.

      • Carrier decks are busy dangerous places.

        Part of the issue with the F35B loss was the lack of time on carriers with F35B.

        If it had been working methods and experience would have evolved.

  6. You mean the UK is operating a carrier strike group and at the same time itโ€™s second carrier is operating the most revolutionary flight trials in 50 years off the coast of another continent.

    But I thought we were s**t.

    This actually means we have more super carriers at sea than the US Navy right now. Two more than China.

    • Whats the status of the rest of the ships in the Navy? How many are there, how many are planned, and how many do we actually need to do a job and have a tangible presence.

        • Even if we were to have the planned numbers (which I agree is what we need at a minimum), it’ll be late 2030s, early 2040s by the time these numbers are realised. This is especially true when it comes to the SSN(R), which is the Astute replacement.

          A lot of years between now and then which means a lot of changes of government and associated SDSRs.

          Unfortunately – short of war – I have zero confidence that the planned numbers discussed will ever see the light of day.

          • Totally agree Mr. Bell but the reality is there isn’t and there won’t be. The age old adage still rings true – there are no votes in defence.

        • As yet the numbers for Type 32 are neither planned nor budgetted. “Up to five” does not mean five. Even in the National Shipbuilding Plan only the first Type 32 features followed by a decision point. So the promised numbers of escorts are >19, which we hope will be 24.

          As for 12 SSNs, don’t hold your breath. That won’t happen until 2054 at the earliest if it happens at all. I’ll be surprised if Barrow can churn them out that fast or if the MOD can afford to pay for them at that rate, but it’s just about possible.

        • The planned SSN force hasnt changed from7 Astutes. In fact it cant as the new Dreadnoughts under construction will be taking all the resources
          A 40% increase is out of the question, maybe 1 or 2 extra

      • Two carriers with one operational F35 squadron between them and the RAF; Albion and Bulwark, six destroyers and eleven frigates, seven SSN’s (?) and four Vanguard. Too few helicopters by far.
        Needed, within the bounds of common sense: Two carriers with four or five ten F35 squadrons overall and sufficient helicopters to allow both carriers to go to sea properly protected. Ten destroyers and ASW capable frigates and ten more multi purpose. Unless by some miracle there is a way of bolting on more SSN build we are at seven for the nest fifteen years.

        • It is the F-35 program is further behind schedule more then everything. The planned 48 F-35B’s for RAF/RN won’t be realised until 2025. The RN squadron 809 stand-up has been delayed until 2024.

        • Yes, HM Government, needs to put in orders for more F-35Bs, for deliveries beyond 2025! Preferably to include more Block 4 inducements by that time.

      • Peter. There is zero way Argentina would fail to be impressed if we deployed a QEC battleground with even just 12 F35Bs onboard. That is still far to much firepower for the Argentinian military to cope with.

      • That’s pretty much it, but we do have 3 x Type 45 at sea at present – Dauntless, Duncan & Diamond. Not sure what’s going on with Daring? Defender’s recently entered refit and Dragon already in PIP refit?

    • Jim, I’m sorry but this just isn’t happening. We have the QE taking part in a joint exercise, not leading it’s own strike group. The POW is off to the States trialing ONE American drone. I know you would love it to be true. So would I but misinformation just doesn’t help anybody. We are not s**t but we are struggling to bring everything together and it’s not going to get any better.

      • Unless the government put more money in Defence and Get more manpower rather than cut your right it will never get any better.Just look at who the PM choose for defence minister ๐Ÿ˜Ÿ

    • Shhhh, you’re intruding on the agenda for many here! If it’s not worth a good moan it’s not worth commenting on.

  7. What sites are you referring to? This is a free site for all to enjoy. George and his band of volunteers do a great job. Not every article is to everyone’s taste, but we are free to ignore, comment, discuss, argue and debate. Sometimes the knowledge shared is excellent. Other times not so much. But it’s all free. And we all have a choice.

    • I must admit some of my comments disappeared the other day. You seem to know more about it than me, so I’ll leave it at that. Otherwise I’ll be in the dog house too ๐Ÿ˜„

      • I wouldn’t get upset matey. We live in a country blessed with freedom of speech. If your comments are deleted either A) set up your own defence analysis and commentary website or B) comment on another site.
        I couldn’t care less if my comments get deleted as there are other avenues for your opinion to be expressed.
        It’s not like we are living in Russia the fascist dictatorship or ditto China (same description)

        • Several of mine have vanished lately. I don’t think it is always George or site mods, but Trolls flagging certain posters. The comment I believe is removed then returned later when seen to be within site rules.

          In these cases, I just hope those abusing the system are noted by the site mods.

        • You should.

          Captain, if I may?

          We go way back on this site, we used to have a great laugh and fights with H and others. So no issues ever between us two.
          The thing is, I don’t see the point of so openly going against George. You’re predicting you’ll get banned again soon. Well, openly criticising what he may or may not do with his own site and how he runs it isn’t going to make a blind bit of difference, its just a red flag to the bull and asking for it.

          You’re posting again, which is fab. Site admin have lifted your ban. So go with it, don’t antagonize so soon!

          Just my view mate. ๐Ÿ‘

          Ps, I remember the upvoting, downvoting farce all too well.

          • We had a spate of this many years ago, it was rampant.
            I’m sure I read George mentioning that they, of course, can see who is flagging and can take action if It’s being used inappropriately.
            Maybe you can flag this comment so it’s noted upstairs! ๐Ÿ˜†

  9. Id have 4x Phalanx on board and TBH i would also have some missile tubes onboard.

    And yes……more planes please. Both carriers should have 20 each

      • Fine….if u believe we will buy more later our numbers are going only one way. We are even retiring things early like a Tranche of Typhoons

          • No but buying them when they can actually work would make sense with out a huge physical upgrade rather than easy software upgrades

          • As long as we do……..well short in numbers. Id buy other variants for RAF but others say that causes logistical issues

          • Well we have committed to the QEC carrier, that means we need to commit to that type of F35, the B, before buying other types, to maximise that investment.

            If we now went and spent a lot of money on a few Squadrons of F35A for the RAF then there is no Tempest. Money does not exist for F35B,F35A, and Tempest, while upgrading Typhoons as well.

            What do you, as Secretary of State, choose, with x amount of money? It is a difficult balancing act. It is very easy for us to say spend more, simple, but it is not as easy as that.

          • No argument re F35s….i would have bought other variant for RAF but as i said others have said the logistical issues rule it out.

            The damage on spend has happened long ago….we gave wasted ยฃBs across several years.

            We need to spend better get bigger bang for our buck. Balancing act needs a big review and big decisions if no more funds.

          • Some of earlier F-35 airframes with require the TR-3 hardware upgrade to run Block 4 software upgrade, just like upgrading an operating system with new programs on a PC will require a hardware components upgrade.

  10. We are two days in to the CSG23 deployment and it’s still not clear which ships and aircraft will constitute the “powerful strike group”. Informed speculation at the start of the year was that the CSG would head to the Eastern Med (for obvious reasons given current events), and then might even transit the Suez Canal for a brief visit to Al Duqm in Oman. A 2-3 month long deployment. Instead CSG23 seems – like CSG22 – to have been cut back to a relatively brief one-month tour of the “Norwegian Sea and waters of northern Europe”. The withdraw of RFA Fort Victoria and then HMS Somerset from CSG23 may have influenced the change of plans, and longer-term planning is focused on the ‘East of Suez’ CSG25 deployment announced by the PM.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here