Aggressor aircraft launched a simulated air attack against HMS Queen Elizabeth and her Carrier Strike Group in the Scottish islands, the purpose of this training is for the vessels to practice defending against air attack.

Hawk jets and other aircraft, some operated by Draken International, have been simulating air attacks against the Carrier Strike Group.

Typically, Hawk jets support Dassault Falcon 20DC aircraft acting as long-range anti-ship bombers. The Falcons are flown by Draken International.

HMS Queen Elizabeth and her Carrier Strike Group are currently exercising alongside allied nations in and around the Scottish islands as part of the massive Strike Warrior exercise.

When they transmit their position, the Carrier Strike Group warships can be found on tracking services such as martinetraffic.com

The Royal Navy say that Exercise Strike Warrior will involve more than 20 warships, three submarines and 150 aircraft from 11 nations and is a final test for the Carrier Strike Group ahead of its first operational deployment to the Mediterranean, Indian Ocean and Asia Pacific.

“The exercise, which will run for two weeks, will see the task group pitted against warships from NATO’s Standing Maritime Group 1 in waters off north-west Scotland to prove it is capable of undertaking high intensity operations against the most demanding adversaries. The culmination of Strike Warrior will see the Carrier Strike Group certified ready for deployment, at which point operational command will pass from the Royal Navy’s Fleet Commander, Vice Admiral Jerry Kyd, to the Chief of Joint Operations, Vice Admiral Sir Ben Key.”

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
38 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
James
James
1 month ago

Thank goodness the fire on RFA Fort Victoria didnt end up being serious, could have caused problems for the deployment!

Ron
Ron
1 month ago
Reply to  James

Too true, it shows more than ever the improtance of getting the FSS ships built.

James
James
1 month ago
Reply to  Ron

Am I right in thinking that Victoria is the only ship we have capable of replenishing the carriers?

Ron
Ron
1 month ago
Reply to  James

With solid supplies yes, for fuel we have the Tide class. The Fort Austin/Rosalie are not compatible with the carriers and are I think in extended readiness (one stage before scrapping).

James
James
1 month ago
Reply to  Ron

Goodness knowing we had 2 carriers coming getting rid of Fort George back when we did looks like one of the most ridiculous decisions to date.

Ron
Ron
1 month ago
Reply to  James

Agreed, Fort George was scrapped when she was only 17 years old. This was three years after the instructions were given to design and develop two carriers. It seems that Tony Blair thought that we would have only one carrier at sea at any one time. Even worse, RFA Fort Vic was damaged by an IRA bomb which almost sunk her, Fort George was a younger ship and never damaged. Tony Blair seemed to not think about refit repair damage or time of station. I like the Fort Vic design, 4 helcopters, Sea Wolf capability and the ability to operate… Read more »

simon
simon
1 month ago
Reply to  Ron

Fort George was scrapped as a result of the 2010 review

Ron
Ron
1 month ago
Reply to  simon

Simon, your right, my mistake, Fort G was scrapped under the 2010 Con/Lib review after Labour left the infamous no money left note. I still don’t understand why Fort George could not have been laid up or for that matter the 4 T22s III, Illustrious to be put in reserve. Yes it would have cost some money, but I could bet my house that the RNR would have loved to babysit them. The quick fix is not always the best idea.

CAM
CAM
1 month ago
Reply to  Ron

Absolutely right. Especially with the fact that they won’t just be supplying destroyers and frigates in a coalition group but now also being responsible for supplying the carriers and its strike group.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
1 month ago
Reply to  James

It certainly could have.

“RFA Fort Victoria suffered a minor fire while alongside in Portland on the morning of the 10th May. It was extinguished by the crew with no serious injuries. This ship is the sole UK solid stores support ship available to replenish the carrier strike group.”

https://www.navylookout.com/minor-fire-onboard-rfa-fort-victoria-highlights-single-point-of-failure-for-carrier-strike-group/

James
James
1 month ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

In theory as we only have the one ship capable of this its technically not possible to launch 2 carrier groups to totally different locations?

I know have two groups is borderline fantasy fleets anyways but to be strangled of the capability by a class of ships like this is a really bad position to be in.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
1 month ago
Reply to  James

I’ve always thought that these would have made a useful addition to the fleet?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HNLMS_Karel_Doorman_(A833)

A-833-HNLMS-Karel-Doorman-047.jpg
James
James
1 month ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Yeah it looks like what we need, not cheap but maybes we will end up borrowing/working alongside it if push comes to shove.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
1 month ago
Reply to  James

Quite possibly, the Doorman class is a multi-purpose warship and given our budget constraints it would be a very useful addition rather than wasting precious money and time designing something new that servers only one purpose?

captain p wash
captain p wash
1 month ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

You Paying then ?

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
1 month ago

Incoming!

_methode_times_prodmigration_web_bin_3b50702f-191f-378b-b2f0-a9a84c34572a.jpg
James
James
1 month ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Can Phalanx pick that up!?

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
1 month ago
Reply to  James

Only Scotsman it appears!

geoff
geoff
1 month ago
Reply to  George Allison

oops-sorry George😐

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
1 month ago
Reply to  George Allison

OK

captain p wash
captain p wash
1 month ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

🙄

geoff
geoff
1 month ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

😄

TrevorH
TrevorH
1 month ago

All these waters are British waters aren’t they?

Ron
Ron
1 month ago

Does any one know what ships are taking part and how they are split into red/blue forces?

James
James
1 month ago

It’s shocking that there is one solid support ship operational only ! Ff true the entire Royal Navy command is incompetent! I won’t blame the defence ministry even because it’s the responsibility of the admirals not put the navy at harm’s way and not sugar coat such serious gaps in the navy . They should fight their corner and say the gaps that exist and it’s dangers for deployments.

I’m glad this is all happening under training circumstances and not under war.

CAM
CAM
1 month ago
Reply to  James

Yes. Let’s hope that the FSS ships will be built sooner rather than later and hope that they will have the capabilities needed for the Royal Navy. They aren’t only responsible for the frigates and destroyers of the Royal Navy and allies but also now our carrier and her strike group.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  James

Nuts they got rid of George and kept Rosalie and Austin.

Lusty
Lusty
1 month ago

Rosalie and Austin should have been retired, with Largs Bay and Fort George retained. (Though I fear if that were the case, we might have been looking at a two-ship build, rather than a three-ship build for replacements). Part of the argument for George’s retirement were the costs of a refit, the yearly running cost, and the fact that the older Forts offered a higher dry-stores capacity. Of course, the trade-off is a single poitn of failure for the CSG, two ships without Merlin certified decks, and the lack of additional tanking facilities. Despite being retained, the older Forts have… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Lusty

Thanks Lusty, I was not aware of the reasoning, I was too busy burying my head in despair in 2010!

4 Bay and 2 useable Forts, how useful those extra assets would be. What an own goal and how cheap we sold Largs for a paltry yearly saving.

Lusty
Lusty
1 month ago

You’re welcome. You and me both. The cuts from back then bit us on the behind all those years ago, and they continue to do so to this day. The good news is that we have a fleet of six modern fleet tankers (four of which have been designed to directly support the CSG), as well as plans for three solid support ships which will also be designed to support the group. Though fewer in number, the ships are significantly larger, and will offer the fleet a massive capability upgrade. I would honestly take three modern support ships over four… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Lusty

“Then again, I’m surprised Boris isn’t using Labours’ slashing of the escort feet as the main reason why the drive for shipbuilding is needed.” Bang on. Too often here it is the Tory cuts that are lamented. People have short memories of 97-2010. As I recall all too well – 35 at 1997 SDSR. 32 – 3 T22 paid off. 31 – 1 more T22 paid off, 1SL Saying no change in capability so 1 more no worry, I still picture him stating it. Sheffield was it? 25 – 2004 “New Chapter” 3 T23 and T45 buy reduced to 8… Read more »

Lusty
Lusty
1 month ago

‘Escort Feet’ – deary me, what a typo by myself! Haha. Yes, I believe it was. One does wonder what would have happened if we had replaced Type 22 with a new class of frigate leading on from T23 (maybe 6-8 hulls), coupled with the intended number of 45. I can imagine it might have been tight on the carrier build, but then again, more yards would have remained open (or with increased capacities). Ultimately, the cuts were a betrayal to the navy, as well as the working-class communities employed to build and maintain the vessels. That last bit is… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
1 month ago
Reply to  Lusty

But still no T31 names yet? Named t26s promptly enough. Political no doubt.

I once read a Navy News mag article ( would have been early 2000s when i was a subscriber) on the workings of the Ships Naming Committee at the Admiralty.

Lusty
Lusty
1 month ago

Extremely political.

I would have expected the first three names. Not all eight.

Yes, still no names for T31, which is most interesting. I think we can all agree they’re likely to take a letter, county, or general theme as inspiration (Leander style), but the timing’s the interesting part. I can only assume they’re waiting for the first steel being cut.

Then again, the names of the new Gibraltar boats were announced quite late as well. One of them has come a long way since the project began.

Robert Blay.
Robert Blay.
1 month ago

Canceling T45’s 7 & 8 was the biggest mistake. Especially with new aircraft carriers in the planing at that stage.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
1 month ago

More target practice for the ships to defend against.

“The modified AML 4K3 twin-arm launcher will be used to launch Northrop Grumman GQM-163A Coyote supersonic sea-skimming missile targets during ‘Formidable Shield’. The launcher installation has been managed by the US Naval Surface Warfare Center Port Hueneme Detachment (NSWC PHD).”

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/launcher-set-up-at-uk-mod-hebrides-for-gqm-163a-firings