Defence Secretary Ben Wallace has said that HMS Queen Elizabeth and her Carrier Strike Group show that Britain “can do both soft and hard power, and do it with quality”.

Wallace said in a statement:

“The carrier strike group has not only visited and worked with over 44 nations on its tour, but has had visits from 66 Ministers. It is great convenor and a great presence that, made in Britain, definitely does go around the world showing that Britain can do both soft and hard power, and do it with quality.”

HMS Queen Elizabeth and her Carrier Strike Group.

What is the Carrier Strike Group doing?

HMS Queen Elizabeth and her Carrier Strike Group are currently (when this was published) heading north through the Suez Canal on the return leg of their global deployment.

https://twitter.com/geoallison/status/1460550502819811338

 

By the time the Strike Group is home, it will have travelled over 26,000 nautical miles from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea, from the Gulf of Aden to the Arabian Sea, and from the Indian Ocean to the Philippine Sea and then back again. The vessels will engage with over 40 countries.

HMS Richmond, a Type 23 Frigate assigned to HMS Queen Elizabeth’s Carrier Strike Group, was the first vessel to enter into the Mediterranean Sea on the return leg of the deployment. Besides HMS Richmond, the Strike Group comprises aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth, Type 45 destroyers HMS Defender and HMS Diamond (although this ship has had recent issues), Type 23 anti-submarine frigate HMS Kent, and support ships Fort Victoria and RFA Tidespring.

In Addition, there’s an Astute class submarine and a Dutch frigate. You can read more about what the Carrier Strike Group has been up to by visiting the link below.

This deployment will end in December 2021.

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

104 COMMENTS

    • “we should stop acting like this global power and just fade into irrelevance”

      Said every defeatist, remoaning Guardian reader ever……

      • Yes I’ve noticed a Guardian silly article claiming the new James Bond film is the UK pretending to be a superpower utter nonsense.

        • I can better that, one Guardian tit bit that made me laugh until I cried with laughter last week, was a typical “offended reader” who took offence and felt threatened, at the Union flag on a box of Supermarket Oat flakes!

          Seriously, not joking, I’m sure you can look it up…

          God save us from these weak shrinking violets!

          • That it you see, if I was a Quaker I would be irritated by a national flag on me oats, but since I’m not, pass me the porridge.

          • Ever read the Guardian Graham, it’s an absolutely rabid anti British excuse for a paper, with every single editorial brimming with re-moaning Britain bad, EU good hatred…

            It’s the great British disease of putting ourselves down unfortunately and the Guardian is head cheerleader for the cause…

          • Yes but I find it goes well with a telegraph or mail. I’m a firm believer in a everything in moderation and a well balanced meal of media Trollop.

            If I want a real laugh I add in an express for a wee bit of snowmageddion.

          • I think we can agree they are all just terrible, stuck in hospital a few months back and desperate enough to read the papers, just awful, piss poor politically biased journalistic pap of both political colours…

            Astonished that anyone still buys and reads them to be honest.

            I do enjoy my phone’s news feed, I have deliberately left the Guardian stories as they always give me a good laugh in the mornings, the offended Wokness of it’s stories are just hilarious…

          • Yes unfortunately there is not a lot of quality left in the Daily media it’s all so very focused on its favoured political party view. I don’t mind opinion pieces as long as they are balanced out, but now it’s all opinions based on only one side.

            I suppose they have to encourage their readership to purchase by supporting their world view…personally I like a bit of impartial facts to I can come to my own conclusion.

          • It costs a lot of money to do proper investigative journalism. It costs very little to churn out baseless, opinionated nonsense, or uncritically regurgitate press releases. I think the rise of other media has impacted on the revenue of traditional media to the point that they simply can’t afford to produce anything worth reading any more,even if they still had the inclination.

          • Probably true, especially around the new media, which I suppose has increased the demand for opinion over fact.

      • Then they ,shout although with very Liberal voices “Where’s the Sercurity forces when the excrement hits the impeller . Boo whoo

  2. Hi folks hope all is well.
    Good to see and informs us that the UK is one of few powers with a capability to deliver a punch if required.
    However, we do look foolish with all this kit and not able to protect 24 mile strip of water between France and England with scores of migrants.
    Why fund France millions of pounds to protect our boarder, it’s our responsibility to protect ourselves, better to spend the money in coastal vessels and assets.
    Cheers
    George

    • UK should outlaw accepting asylum seekers from third party countries then should just ship the new arrivals to NI and bus them to the border with Ireland. Point them south and wish them luck. ROI wanted an open border after all and we would just be facilitating transit – just like the EU funny that!

      • Hillarious. That would actually work.
        Problem is. We would then be as bad as our EU “friends and allies” for not processing and dealing with these desperados who are coming to the UK to generally get a better lifestyle. Most are economic migrants rather than true refugees. If they had been true refugees they would have saught asylum in the first safe country they came too.
        Problem is Italy, Spain, Greece, Austria, France are happy to wave them onto the UK and make applying for asylum impossible. They are all in breach of the UN convention on human rights.

    • Problem is once we pick them up they become our problem. It would be much better for the French to pick them up on their side before they become our problem hence the support given to them.

      Not that I’m cynical but it saves the French a lot of hassle if they make it to our little island or far enough out to sea our patrols intercept them. No amount of financial support will change that.

      • It is blindingly obvious the French are happy to let them come here. Not their problem then. It is our stupidity and weakness, underpinned by the HR left wing lobby, that then prevents action as we are then “racist” for being anti migrant and not accepting them.

        So 20,000 then becomes 100,000 then they have families themselves, our own population ages, then on and on, the population becomes 70 million, then 80 million, and we wonder why public services are falling apart no matter how much money is thrown at them.

        There are too many people. In the world. Full stop.

        • spot on D , Well done for addressing the Elephant in the room!
          Why are not China, Japan, Russia, and Middle East oil rich nations compelled by the UN to take up their share of the burden?
          Particularly China and Japan who bemoan their shrinking population forecasts.

    • Utter and divisive claptrap. Unarmed civilians are not the remit of the armed forces – we have a Coastguard, Border Force and Police Force to manage immigration – and taken together all three have vastly more staff.

      It is true that migration had been weaponised by the likes of Putin, but the people themselves are not legitimate targets for military action – both an innapropriate use and wasteful of scarce and highly trained military personnel who are sorely needed elsewhere, not least to deter those who facilite illegal migration in order to disrupt the West.

      We should not forget that for centuries migration originated in the UK and not the other way around. That is why much of the world speaks English.

      • James, your balanced view is a breath of fresh air among the anti-immigrant, anti-French, anti-Remainer, anti-Guardian UKIP stuff that precedes it!

        • At the end of the day, we are talking about human beings some may do us harm the majority just want to be safe. Not one of we site contributors would stand by and watch women and children perish in ice waters. Navy and Coastguard crews face this situation every day. We need a balanced approach to this issue and compassion comes first and foremost.

          • Well you could say they were safe the moment they got into the EU! Then they risk that safety by getting into a little boat and try to cross the ditch!

          • People that are breaking U.K. law by illegal entry then disappear in black economy, no problem with legal ones.
            Australia deals with situation fine but U.K. hasn’t got bottle, to many snowflakes claiming would break international law! Funny Oz has done fine for 30+ years

        • That does not answer the situation that there are 20,000 people illegally entering a supposedly modern 21st century nation that seems powerless to stop it.

          How soon would people call the police if someone illegally entered their home? And this country IS our home.

          And yep, I’m proudly all of those, bar anti French and anti remainer.
          Leavers are only seen as “anti remainer” due to the claptrap that some of them are still spouting about Brexit.

          Did anyone else notice RD Shell are moving their HQ to the UK and that the City is still booming?

          That sort of remainer claptrap.

      • Well said.

        We are all the decedents of immigrants, the soul, geography and culture of this nation was developed and sculpted from immigration. first Palaeolithic tribes crossing the land bridge clearing land and creating a varied landscape from never ending forest and leaving their monuments and archeology to be dug up, later the p and q celts came creating a vibrant and rich culture that attracted the Roman Empire and creation of Romano-Celtic culture, the movement of Germanic peoples after the fall of the western Roman Empire and creation of Anglo Saxon culture, the movement of Danes and creation of Danelaw with its final unification between Anglo Saxon and Dane cultures which were subsumed by the Norman conquest and the intermix of Anglo Saxon and french dynasties all of those groups over thousands of years of migration came together to create an English culture, that merged with Scottish, Irish and Welsh cultures to became a United Kingdom that built the largest empire ever seen empire and from that creating one of the greatest diasporas ever, turning huge sections of the global into it prodigy and at the same time importing new ideas from across the globe that changed its culture ( just look at the Brighton pavilion, any of our great cities and the take away rows in every town).

        We are the Sons and Daughters of immigration who then became the greatest economic migrants in history, building an empire that will likely stand across human history ( if we get our shit together and have any future history). We need to stop being so pissy about people wanting a better life and sort out the driver and major problem, massive wealth inequality across the globe. If we don’t a few billion people are going dig up the coal and oil, burning it for power and and demolish the forests to grow cash crops, go to war and finally move if they have to, just like all our predecessors did. A few more patrol boats more wire in Poland and a nasty attitude will not solve the problem and March of history, and if it’s not solved we will all end up one of the last few generations of yet another dead species of clever ape ( there have been a lot of those so anyone who thinks we have a right to exist needs to look at back and start counting the ex species.)

        • Immigration isn’t the issue as like you have stated we have had immigration since at least recorded history. However it’s not immigration in itself, it’s the numbers in a compressed timeframe. Obviously population levels were a lot less but for example between the 5-7th CE when the Angles, Saxons, Jutes came over, the numbers were in the small 10s of thousands over a period of a generation, with the land available to be farmed and shared out (but the actual Romanised and ancient Britain’s didn’t quite agree but that’s another story lol) whereby the numbers we are seeing in the last 20 years is on an industrialised scale! That for many is the issue mate. However it’s such a massive and emotional subject it’s a debate on its own. Cheers.

          • I do know what you mean, I just get a bit pissy when I think people try to simply what is a really complex problem. For me the big problem is it’s just going to get worse and worse the way we are going. The mass migration of peoples have always been sparked by something, the Romans came for wealth and mineral resources, the Saxons filled a power vacuum, the Danes came for land and food security etc. What we are facing now is just the beginning of a likely period of great migrations driven by a massive wealth disparity, food and water insecurity and environmental damage There is even likely to be mass migration as a geopolitical tool as well (we may see nations shifting populations around)

            I don’t disagree that you can’t just keep dumping more people into communities without the services or without making sure the communities can integrate well. I’m more of a proponent of integration over multiculturalism. But we are going to have to come up with a cogent plan on how we ( and I mean the human race) are going to manage the migration and the geopolitics of migration, before we get buried under not tens of thousands of displaced people but untold millions all trying to move North to the more hospitable places ( And we are blessed to have what will be one of the most hospitable places on the planet even with 2.5-3 degrees warming ).

            At the moment I’m not keen on seeing drowned people popping up on our coastline (drowning victims from the sea are such a downer to the soul) and looking the way it’s going we are going to end up with a lot washing up on the south coast. I think what the french government is doing is a bit ( well lot) morally iffy to be honest.

          • We are thinking pretty much along the same lines Jon, immigration will never stop, it just needs to be both sensible and humane! However your correct insofar that the issue is being weaponised by certain countries and their leaders.

        • I think Airborne’s comments express my view very well. It is important to note other legitimate refuges will have their place in the ques kicked into touch by theses huge numbers of refugees. It is unfeasible and unrealistic to expect any particular country to absorb numbers like this into their society. Who will pay ?

          My view is is high time that other non western nations start to shoulder the burden. China, Japan, Saud Arabia ,need to step up and take up a realistic quota of theses souls. They bemoan their shrinking population forecasts whilst remaining ardent racists by not helping refutes.

          In the West , we practice diversity, inclusion , multi culturalism and on it goes. So why should this value not apply to Eastern countries?

          • I liked the Blue Klonkie, 😆 I do agree it’s got to be more of an international strategy, one very already well populated island can’t actual do very much around large scale movement of peoples There are lots of nations that do need to take a lot more people.

        • Klonkie I am go to answer this in a roundabout way, so bear with me. Firstly we are already at war: if you want to know about the Grey Zone, just read that post from ‘George’. Putin has made it clear that he wants to ‘shatter Europe’ – what he means is break it up as a force to be reckoned with so he can have a free hand in the former Soviet sphere of influence. He has cottoned onto a range of issues that divide the West – immigration being one of them. He would much rather the UK was focussed on dissing France over migrants, and vice versa than confronting him with a united voice. This is not about the EU, BTW, this is about NATO and the Western democratic system. He would also like the UK armed forces to stay at home.

          Whether ‘George’ is a Rusian troll (I suspect he is) or not, does not matter, the propaganda passed on by these 5th columinists (and swallowed by gullible people across the West) is designed to undermine our resolve to prevent autocracies from expansionism in Europe. This is the war we are fighting already.

          As far as the domestic issue goes there are several areas for action:

          1. Optics – how real is the issue? It makes news for sure, but that does not mean we are not dealing with it adequately. We need to emphasize real facts, not allow TV pictures, extremists and a 5th column of internet trolls to sensationalise the issue. The Coasguard has recently increased its investment in patrol aircraft and drones.Investment in these capabilites is critical, as is genuine cooperation with France, Belgium, Ireland and other neighbours over how we manage a crisis often engineered by our real enemies in Russia, Belarus and China. 20,000 sounds like a lot for 2021 – and you can be sure that uptick is related to two issues 1.) withdrawal from Afghanistan, and 2.) Putin’s war on the West. But if you look at the stats over 61 million non-British people enter the UK every year – 99.9% legitimately. Taken against those figures (which do not undermine our society) this is a (literal) drop in the ocean. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-year-ending-march-2020/how-many-people-come-to-the-uk-each-year-including-visitors
          2. Ethics – Britain has always been a safe haven for free speach and refugees. Marx wrote Das Kapital in London, not Moscow or Beijing (in fact very few asylum seekers have ever considered those places as desirable refuges – I wonder why?), and other thinkers like Freud, Einstein and Niels Bohr have been given sanctuary, whether or not we agreed with them. We have always had confidence enough in our own society to not be threatened by ideas, and to ensure we sustain our values. We need to promote and strenthen those values and contrast them effectively against those of our enemies – we can only win that contest, it is our ace.
          3. Culprits. We need to look at why refugees are coming – and especially how they are being wesponised. Russia, Turkey and Belarus have all used this tactic. Worrying about the pawns is playing into these guys hands – it is what they want us to do. We need to work with Poland, Greece and Italy among other entry points to Europe – and put pressure on the likes of Putin. We also need to target extremists who wish to radicalise migrants and also target those who radicalise British people against migrants.
          4. Management. There will always be a few bad apples as we have seen in Liverpool. Themselves usually vulnerable individuals who get indoctrinated. There are also bad apples among our own population. Managing asylum seekers needs to walk a tighrope between what is ethically correct (and reflects and therefore upholds the humane values of our society – the very values we need to defend) and what is required to deter illiegal immigration. Remember many of these people have been our supporters in Afghanistan and Iraq.Putting people on a remote Island and paying Island nations to keep them out (Aus style) is not an option for the UK. But we do need to ensure they are not concentrated in in a few areas where conflict can be stirred up.

          I am a patriot. I have served HM in the armed forces and as a civil servant, and I have worked in the wars that cause most of these people to migrate to the UK. However I see this debate as one which favours our real enemies and not one of consequece for our long-term security. We need to resist unjustified fear of migrants, have confidence in the resilience of our society, identify the real facts, and ensure that we manage the inevitable flows of migration to and from our country both effectively asnd humanely. We need to be proud of our treatment of migrants while dettering illegal immigation and contrast that with the excesses of our enemies. We must always be firm about upholding both our values and our laws. Those are both targeted by those who wish us harm.

          • Nice post James, thankyou for taking the time, I have to say I do think migration has become more of a geopolitical tool again ( it was before and is again).

          • Theres quite a bit of liberalism and unassociated detail in that post – I may agree with some of the sentiment but not all & in essence If I disect your answer I’m not sure you provided much by the way of detail.
            I think you are somewhat obfuscating ,or even missing, the point:
            There is a an illegal trade facilitating immigration by subversive mechanisms directly impacting the UK borders – and that needs to be addressed and stopped.

          • I am not an ideologue – I take the ideas that I think are right from whatever canon – I have been around the globe many times and know much about and have respect for other societies. Yet I am a proud Briton, and that means I take seriously and wish to uphold our historical values, our moderate and humane society and our ethical insitutions. You can call that liberalism if you like. I call it old fashioned British decency.

          • My point is that is people trafficking is not just a ‘trade’ it is also politcised by our adversaries. That you will only deal woith this problem by dealing with those who wish to disrupt our society. However troublesome Macron might be, he is nothing to Putin and Xi – Marcon is pissed with us, and France’s baby is the EU, but Putin and Xi want to smash us back to the stoneage. I’m not sure anyone gets how deeply under threat western society is – economically, politcally and ethically as well as militarily.

          • HI James.

            Thank you for going to the trouble of drafting such a detailed and thorough reply. Much of your commentary find me in agreements. However the current situation appears untenable.

            How can one country absorb such volumes of migrants at one point in time? I suspect many of theses folk are not refugees but opportunists seeking a better way of life. I don’t begrudge them for improving their lot, bet thy need to do it through the legitimate framework and process. Why should thy jump ahead of the que ahead of those who have lodged legit applications?

            My principal gripe is the global hypocrisy on these “migration” waves. If this behavioural trend is is to be tolerated, then why are not China, Japan, Russia, and Middle East oil rich nations compelled by the UN to take up their share of the burden?
            Particularly China and Japan who bemoan their shrinking population forecasts.

            To build on your comment: “not Moscow or Beijing (in fact very few asylum seekers have ever considered those places as desirable refuges – I wonder why?”

            This is not a legitimate reason for these nations to forgo their societal responsibilities. China would be a considerably better situation than the one the refuges are fleeing. It us both unrealistic and morally unjust to expect the West to shoulder this burden alone.

            This is not Europe problem, its everyone’s problem.

          • Hi Klonkie,

            Did I say we need to accept more migrants? I don’t think I did. Because I said we should treat any migrants to the UK decently, and look to those who wish to weaponize migration to Europe for causes, you assumed that I support increased immigration, right? I do not – I think are limits and we need to control immigration. But I don’t think blaming the migrants or France will help with that.

            This is the problem with the current debate – it it not possible to speak of humane values without being branded ‘woke’. I am as about as fast asleep as any old fart can be. But I am British and we are a decent humane society which values freedom, has never been a Police state, and does not round up people because they are different and throw them in camps.

            I do not support increased migration, but I also do not support demonizing migrants. I have lived in many of the countries where they come from, have fought alongside them, have friends among them – and that is why I can’t see them as ‘the enemy’ – nothing to do with ideology. I have also been an ‘opportunistic’ (as you put it) migrant myself to many countries and would wish to be treated as I treat others.

            An uptick in illegal immigration does not equate to accepting more migrants, it just says more are trying to get here. If we put 2+2 together, and look at recent events in Afghanistan – and what is occurring on the Polish border – is this really surprising to anyone? This is not ideology, it’s what we used to call ‘facts’.

            In the previous three years illegal immigration has fallen. So we need to look to world events for the causes, and for the solutions. France are not the cause, maybe they can do more, but that is a minor part of the equation. Joe Biden, the Taleban, Putin and Lukasheko seem much greater culprits.

            China and Russia (and Turkey) want to force migrants on us and Australia and the USA – they are often behind the trade that gets them here. English is a global language so we are always going to be attractive, its the flip side of being a successful society (and we want to remain a successful society, I think).

            My suggestion is to forget about ideology – on left or right or via religion its usually a direct route to mass graves in my experience – and I was in Rwanda and Bosnia, so I can attest to that personally. We need to start looking pragmatically at the facts, and to tackling those who want to f~*k us for solutions.

          • Thanks for the reply -It gives more detail and a more rounded impression of where you are coming- and for whats its worth I agree with much of that.I dont see them all as the enemy ,although there will of course , be those amongst them that seek to do us ill as there will be in legal migrants and home grown ones!. Indeed I felel sorry for those let down -for example in Afghanistan- in wars we have been involved in.
            Leaving that aside for the momemt Nor do I feel we should stop all immigration – just a controled fair approach to it that also gives consideration to the impact on the indeginous population, and recognises their fears- imagined or real.
            If you look at Sweden (I think) the general populus had a relatively open armed sentiment – that was subsequently abused by those in power and they became much more intolerant towards immigration.
            As for illegal immigration I’m afraid I have a stronger stance on that – I have very little/no tolerance of it esp. towards those that profit from it & I think a stronger multi state response to those on the ground is needed in the first instance.

          • Yes I agree with those points – and also agree with the impact in Sweden (my wife is Swedish and her family has strong views on silly government policy). I don’t think we will get cooperation from Russia, Belarus, China nor Turkey, but we need to nail the traffickers for sure.

          • Hi James.

            My apologies if my comments inferred you were pro to opening up the migration floodgates. I don’t think your view on compassion to those less fortunate is by any means “left wing”

            I too am an immigrant (to NZ), so as I said I don’t begrudge people looking to better their lot, but it needs to be within a legitimate framework. I’d like to think the UK government would not to quote you” round up people because they are different and throw them in camps.”
            I believe it is far preferable to prevent illegal migration from entering the country to start with. You are of course correct though, barbed wire fencing is not the solution.

            I’m liking your commentary and agree mostly with your views. Your point on a pragmatic approach is spot on. I stand by my view this is global issue requiring a collective approach to solve it.

            I largely echo Grizller’s view in his reply post, as I feel much the same way. In particular his lasts paragraph ring’s true.

    • France is in breach of international law by allowing the boats to even launch. Also in breach for not processing these illegal economic migrants as if they were true refugees they would claim sanctity in the first “safe country” they entered. The fact they have all travelled through entirely of Europe proves they are not refugees.
      All should be given humanitarian assistance then as long as not minors (eg under 18 years old) should be loaded onto commercial flights with an air marshal or law enforcement office present and sent back to the country they came from. Namely France.
      France are in breach of the Trade, Security and Co-Operation deal on the grounds of NOT dealing with this issue and actually helping and supporting these migrants to enter the channel on flimsy boats. It is a stain on France and shows where their moral compass is. Its in the bin with their dufuss president’s charisma and intellect.

      • Can’t disagree on what France ( government not people) is doing, a half arse job at best, morally reprehensible at worst, because they want the people to move on and seem to be willing to allow something that involves risking lives.

      • What makes u think france is breaking law? Before u start there is no international law which says they must claim asylum in first country visited

          • Your own link says in their opinion there isn’t international law to back this up, we are also not in the EU. This is from law journal
            “The Home Secretary has said that a genuine refugee would claim asylum in the first safe country he or she reaches. He therefore deduces, or at least claims to deduce, that those traveling from France to the UK are not genuine refugees.”
            “This sounds good and appeals to a certain constituency. It is also what some in the UK would like the law to be. But we have seen that human nature does not work like that. Nor does the law.”

            Also last year I believe because of all the appeals and delay tactics we returned 5 people. This year will be none. It doesn’t matter if the U.K. says that by our law they should have stayed in France for instance as since Brexit and France trying to punish us there is no return treaty so we can’t actually send anyone back!
            Until we get the will as a country to do what Australia did in the 1980/90’s and ignore media snowflakes we will never deal with situation.

          • I know we are not in the EU but France Belguim etc are – hence me stating the implications reagrds UK & EU law. There is a return treaty if we want to use it- we dont..in the same way Cameron didnt want to invoke a cap for fear of upsetting Merkel…that turned out well for him in his referendum didnt it.

      • The Police- Christ they can’t even handle the criminality already endemic in the UK- what are they supposed to do.
        There have been many on here who have in the past suggested the Navy get involved.
        I also take issue with RNLI being used tbh-whitlst they are being cajouled into getting involved with the illegal people traffiking their real purpose is being undermined. I await the outcry following the drowning of some guy fishing off the coast whilst the nearest lifeboat is out acting as an immigrant ferry, a most definate missappropriation of a valuable resource.

  3. I think a few things need to be recognised and accepted before we try and pump ourselves up at it were…..
    Firstly, our F35Bs have the absolute minimum weapons fit at present and do not have any kind of Anti-Ship or Land Attack missiles. Our carriers whilst impressive in a lot of ways, have absolute minimum defensive fit and rely too much in escorts to stay alive in a high threat area Our escorts whilst fitted for AAW, are unable to demonstrate any significant anti-ship capability or land attack capability…..so, in short, it looks good, sounds good, but sadly truly lacks the key capabilities it so badly needs. There is no way we can entertain the thought of becoming involved in any war such as a ding dong in the SCS.

    • Yeah, like all our forces its the same story. We punch above our weight. As long as the enemy cooperates and doesn’t throw out any threats our forces are fitted for but not with countermeasures for…

      • glass half full guys, it’s more than good enough to act as the big stick of foreign diplomacy, as it stands and take on many potentially hostile counties around the world.

        Future improvements will see the gaps being filled.

        The capability is already better than anything anyone else can field, bar the super powers to be honest.

        • The worry is our wonderful political dictators will feel the need to show our support to our bigger friends if the balloon goes up. If they don’t they’ll be left shown up and lose any credibility to the world audience. Bye bye global Britain boasts.

          That will leave our forces far from home ill equipped for the mess they find themselves in. It could end up a slaughter.

          Either we stick to using our forces at the level they are equipped for or we equip them to match the posturing they are doing. What is being done right now is wrong plain and simple.

          • I’m not sure Marked, I think the right posture is slightly more shades of grey than Black and white.

            Our carrier capability will be used over the next 40 odd years against all sorts of rouge states on operations like Libya, the Balkans etc.

            Any conflict in the SCS will likely spark off quickly and go from 0 to 100mph in the blink of an eye. An accidental shot will be retaliated for (probably Taiwan, but perhaps the Spratly’s) and it will turn into all out war very quickly.

            I would expect a brief, but very bloody conflict involving the US and China before a negotiated settlement was reached.

            A vicious exchange of blows that will probably leave quite a death toll in its wake and involve regional players on the side lines.

            By the time we assembled a task group and deployed, it will be over…. that or escalated into a proper bun fight!

            By far the biggest contribution would come from a deployed RN SSN, one Astute would cause absolute carnage to the PLAN, two would send it scuttling back to port….

            Now add US Navy Carrier battle groups and multiple SSN’s and the PLAN will have to review its blue water Navy with a glass bottomed boat…

    • To be fair Paul, any Ding Dong in the SCS will be a two way effort in the land of the Giants, with the US and China slogging it out, South Korea and Japan pitching in.

      The UK will always be a bit part player there, perhaps causing a little mayhem with SF and the odd astute SSN.

      • Problem is our allies will expect us to get in there with our new big carriers and 5th gen Stealth aircraft. We’ll end up relying on US Easorts for all round protection…..

        • And the RN has provided T45 capability to the American carrier’s. Because they bring capabilities US escorts can’t.

      • Australia have just said they would stand up if Taiwan invaded. The Chinese replied they would Australia if they did.

        All becoming very bellicose; of course, if a US ship gets in the way, can we see an Article 5 being called?

        • Things are warming up a bit with China determined to test the west to the limit….in what is effectively becoming a game of chicken…if it starts, where will it stop? I think China heavily underestimates the US, thinking by flashing all these new weapons that it is in some way indicating military superiority…..but it fails to stop and think about US Black projects that the world knows little or nothing about….what was it flying over Amerillo all those years ago? It wasn’t B2s…..

        • Article 5 can only be invoked as per Article 6 if a member state’s forces or territory are attacked north of the Tropic of Cancer, which is why it couldn’t be invoked over the invasion of the Falklands.

          Taiwan is right on the line though, so it could be invoked if a US ship in the northern part of the Taiwan strait was attacked.

    • All carriers of any nation are heavily reliant on escorts. Nothing moves within 500 miles of the carrier without them knowing about it. And we do have land attack capability. Astute class with TLAM capability. Carrier strike is an evolving capability, with much more to come. It takes time. And even today is only beaten by the American carrier’s in strike capability.

      • Our TLAM capability is very limited. Whilst the US might launch 30 at a time, we might be lucky if we manage 3 due to very limited missile stocks. We need to do much better, but funds are are limited…..

    • Hi Paul, i totally agree with all on your “shipping list”! But to give some credit it’s a pretty darn good show for the UK and its allies to pull off this CSG round trip…even if they did leave out a visit to Sydney!

  5. the achievement speaks more than the words. we have carrier capability and friendly countries willing to sail alongside.

  6. I don’t know about punching above our weight but we sure talk above it.

    One Harrier carrier with a small number of rather short-range aircraft is not that big a deal outside the UK, certainly not compared to USN carrier air groups or emerging Chinese carrier capability.

    The carrier certainly has a useful role to play in any limited out-of-area conflict.

    But its role in NATO is also marginal, given that it would be foolish for it to enter the Baltic or Black Sea if there was any risk of a shooting war. The fact that the B barely has the legs to reach A2AD installations in Kaliningrad or Leningrad or support land forces in Estonia or Poland unless forward-based in Europe poses the question iof what the carrier would actually do in any conflict with Russia.

    The key strategic air need for the UK and NATO is longer-range interdiction/Strike/SEAD aircraft that can handle any Russian military adventeurism on NATO’s Eastern border. Since we retired the Tornado prematurely, we have nothing in the locker – long range strike against A2AD defences is not a job for the Typhoon and should not be for Tempest.

    I think we have taken the wrong fork in the road here. We should have been prioritising the F-35A to replace Tornado, with a modest quantity of Bs to equip one operational carrier. Instead we are putting all the wrong eggs in the wrong basket and ‘bigging-up’ the result. It is a triumph of political bombast over strategic military needs. Sadly, it drains the funds available to restore some interdiction/strike capability, which will likely come back to hurt us before long.

    • Umm the Panavia Tornado is 40+ years old and is frankly becoming obsolete

      Germany is already planning to retire them in favour of the Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornets and Eurofighter Typhoons and the Panavia Tornado ECR with Boeing EA-18G Growlers

      Italy is replacing their Panavia Tornadoes with F-35A Lightning IIs

    • Cripes, I am a bit confused by nearly everything in your post:

      We haven’t had Harrier carriers for over 10 years.
      We don’t have one carrier, we have two.
      Pointless to compare our carrier capability to that of the USN – they are a superpower and we are not. Why would non-Brits not be impressed by the world’s second best carrier capability outside the USA?
      We did not envisage carriers playing a role in eastern European waters during the Cold War, so why now? Are our two carriers really now meant to take on the Russians, if the balloon goes up?
      Surely we rely on the RAF (and other European air forces) to provide air support in the event of European conflict? I was not aware that Typhoon was an inadequate aircraft for the task. You suggest that the RAF’s F-35Bs could not effectively operate from UK bases against Russia so Iguess they can’t get AAR (why not?), so surely they would be forward based in NATO bases in Germany or Poland during TTW?. Who is to say the RAF will not get some A variants, as they seem to want them.

      • In any substansial conflict I cant see the RN allowing a couple of dozen Bs to be transfered off the carriers so one or two carriers if the range of the aircraft is the same and if they cant get to where they are needed and perform any real role for any length of time then they become aomewhat surplus. Regards the possibilty of A’s to the RAF theres plenty on here that don’t see why the RAF should get any A variants at all- they would prefer to wait for Tempest…so lets hope Russia and China afford us that luxury.
        For me I think we have created two big baskets for our eggs and although the Typhoon is a great aircraft I hope the RAF do get some A variants-

    • The Combat range difference between a F35A and F35B is a bit marginal ( 155 miles ish) and is totally overshadowed by the fact a carrier based F35B can be transported and launched from almost any part of the worlds oceans and the F35A is chained to 10,000 feet of friendly runway.

        • Enhanced Paveway 4 is an extremely accurate and flexible weapon. Laser guided and GPS guided. It’s a true all weather day/night precision weapon. Can hit moving targets too. Can be re-targeted in-flight. And 6 weapons can hit 6 different targets in a single pass. Very advanced fusing options, and angle of penetration. A bunker busting version is entering service soon. It’s a very capable weapon.

          • Hi Robert although it’s only one of the tools the F35 will have and therefore has limits until it gets the rest of the tools in a few years. although a very clever/accurate guided 500kg bomb has a broad use from moving targets to hardened bunkers, it becomes more difficult in the situations where less is more ( spear 3) which means at present the F35 is a well armed hammer, awaiting some finesse tools.

            What interests me is how effective a fifth generation fighter armed with Paveway would be against surface warships ? I imagine it would be devastating against a less than peer navy.

          • EPW4 can dail down it’s warhead, and has been used to take out individual snipers ect. Dailed up, due to it’s clever fuse options, it can provide about 80% of the same bang as a 1000lb weapon. Use against vessels would be pretty effective, if the aircraft can get close enough and get through the warships defences, so it’s big if. Any anti ship warfare is very difficult to pull off. Finding, tracking and engaging is a tricky business, even for the most capable weapon systems and platforms. Submarines are the most effective anti ship capability. Presence alone will keep many bad guys at arms length.

          • Hi Robert, cheers, I did not realise that the Fusing on Paveway 4 was that flexible around reducing the area effects of the weapon. Even more flexible than I thought.

          • It’s a cracking bit of kit. And has pretty much replaced the 1000lb & 2000lb paveways. Spear 3 and spear EW will bring another superb capability. F35 will be able to carry 8 Spear 3’s internally. 👍

          • It can also be re-targeted in flight, or steered away to a safe area if civilians are spotted in the target area.

        • No F-35Bs have been cleared for more weapons than the UK’s. Its to do with the software updates. UK F-35B’s can carry the same weapons as USMC F-35s, plus ASRAAM and Paveway IV. Also we forget that the F-35 is designed to penetrate enemy A2AD bubbles with stealth and powerful ISTAR, electronic attack and countermeasures capabilities – it does not need to rely on stand-off weapons. They can defeat hostile air defences to enable gen 4 aircraft or long range missiles to deliver the goods. In a maritime environment, Spear 3 is good ensough to degrade a naval task force’s ability to defend itself or land-based A2AD. Paveway IV can sink ships. Long ranged (1,000km) sub and sufrface launches heavyweight missiles are needed to complement F-35 in the maritime environment – Tactom and FCASW.

          • Spear 3 will not reach FOC until 2028. No heavyweight SSM until at least 2030. Flying around within visual range of any sort near peer adversary seems like a really poor idea. The AC is low observable not invisible.

          • F-35B is not cleared for any ASM – so integration will take longer than for Spear 3, and as long as FCASW.

  7. I’m sure when it all kicks off the two Carriers, dozens of Escorts and 24 F35B’s will be instrumental in the defence of The Royal Family and the Right Honourable Cabinet ministers, ensuring their liberty and their personal evacuations to the land of self preservation.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here