Next year, HMS Queen Elizabeth will deploy with two frigates, two destroyers, a nuclear submarine and support vessels.

Commodore Michael Utley, Commander United Kingdom Carrier Strike Group, is reported by Save The Royal Navy here as saying that HMS Queen Elizabeth will be escorted by two Type 45 destroyers, two Type 23 frigates, a nuclear submarine, a Tide-class tanker and RFA Fort Victoria.

The ship will also carry 24 F-35B jets, including US Marine Corps aircraft, in addition to a number of helicopters.

 

Prior to the deployment, it is understood that the Queen Elizabeth carrier strike group will go through a work-up trial off the west Hebrides range sometime in early 2021.

When asked about whether or not the UK has enough escorts to do this without impacting other commitment, Defence Secretary Ben Wallace said:

“The size and the scale of the escort depends on the deployments and the task that the carrier is involved in. If it is a NATO tasking in the north Atlantic, for example, you would expect an international contribution to those types of taskings, in the same way as we sometimes escort the French carrier or American carriers to make up that.

It is definitely our intention, though, that the carrier strike group will be able to be a wholly UK sovereign deployable group. Now, it is probably not necessary to do that every single time we do it, depending on the tasking, but we want to do that and test doing it. Once we have done that, depending on the deployment, of course, we will cut our cloth as required.”

Air Marshal Knighton added:

“The escorts that go with the carrier will depend on the circumstances. The work-up for carrier strike group 21 will be with British ships, because we need to demonstrate and prove that we can do that, but we are already engaged with international partners to understand how we will integrate an Arleigh Burke destroyer from the US or a Dutch destroyer into that package.”

An MV-22 Osprey from HX-21 Air Test and Evaluation Squadron lands onboard HMS Queen Elizabeth.

Captain Jerry Kyd, former commander of HMS Queen Elizabeth, commented on the initial deployment and the gradual increase in air wing numbers:

“We are constrained by the F-35 buy rate even though that was accelerated in SDSR in 2015, so initial operating capability numbers in 2020 are going to be very modest indeed. We will flesh it out with helicopters, and a lot depends on how many USMC F-35s come on our first deployment in 2021. But by 2023, we are committed to 24 UK jets onboard, and after that it’s too far away to say.”

It is understood that the 2021 deployment will see the Carrier Strike Group sail in the Mediterranean Sea, the Gulf and end up in the Pacific.

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

221 COMMENTS

    • I go through phases of tracking our ship deployments, I haven’t followed them much recently but I have a rough idea of what they will do.

      Firstly, going ahead a bit, if we manage 6 type 31s or 5 but with one forward based, this will roughly give us 2 31, 2 26 and 2 45 deployed at any one time. As well as that, we will have two extra 26s, I imagine one aligned to each carrier. So if a QE+26 tag on to a 45 you still have your 6 deployments (plus extra from albion class, bay class and survey ships) and you have a basic carrier strike group.

      With that in mind, coming back to the present day, I do not believe we currently routinely have 6 ships deployed as im sure one of the frigates is a harbour training ship And one of the destroyers is out getting the engine fix, but assuming we did, (taking account of there being 13 frigates and one is forward based in Bahrain) as there is no second carrier yet we could nab one of the anti sub marine frigates from that at no loss, which would give us one QE, two frigates and one destroyer without impacting other deployments.

      Personally speaking though, I wouldn’t be surprised if current routine capital ship deployments was only 4 or 5 ships. That would mean that the extra destroyer and frigate needed to get the carrier group up to 5 capital ships would essentially be ready and waiting and so would provide no visible loss to routine deployments.

      Also bear in mind we should have 7 SSN (although I understand there are only six ATM) so we could provide one for the 2021 strike group without effecting the routine deployments of the other 6.

      Going forward again, the only way I can see us routinely being able to deploy 1 carrier, 1 26 and 1 45, with the option to surge up to 2 26 and 2 45, without impacting the routine six deployments, is to build a couple more type 31s. Although that does then risk us becoming a two tier navy, where effectively all the global deployments outside the 5 ship carrier group are type 31s.

        • I have no issue with a 2 tier navy myself.

          Others do it. I see no other realistic way to increase hull numbers and prioritise our Tier 1 assets to the carriers.

          • T31 is a pretty impressive Tier 2 asset.

            From my point of view T26/T45 will merge into a single hull (we should do it now and get it over with – by upgrading the radar with Sampson or its replacement) and T31 will be unarmed at some point to similar levels as the Huitfeldt class it is based upon.

            Maybe wishful thinking, but T26 is a massive step up from T23 and the T31 is comparable but different in that it can deploy UV’s. The real key to T31 will be in how many VLS it has.

            We all know we need more frigates, but that doesnt necessarily mean a massive uptick in overall hulls.

            A carrier group will need 10 vessels in a threat environment with 4 T26 and 2 T45 and whilst we have the ability to field 2 CSG’s it leaves us with nothing else.

          • Destoryers of the future will need to be bigger, in order to store and generate energy for future Maga watt lasers, and radars.
            An AAW destoryer will require more lasers then a ASW frigate, so size of the T26 is about right.

            Also it is highly unlikely that 4 T26s will be available at any one time.

      • its not just ships, its men.(sorry crew) there are ships available but laid up,
        and if we retain the 23s for a couple of years it comes down to a government/treasury descision to allow recruitment and then rebuild the fleet. I think the present governent are for an enhanced navy. Hears hoping

          • I put my chit in which would have taken me up to the 12 years. Went through the whole process before sucking it back within a month of going on terminal leave. Anyhoo…. I’d written up a pros and cons list and rejigged it into a letter format, I put it ‘out there’ that I’d done it and nobody was interested. The process at the time was a chat with a Divisional officer who wasn’t your boss just to make sure you weren’t getting bullied, I was gutted to get the MEO who was one of the nicest guys on the planet, and totally got why I and plenty others wanted to leave. He was genuinely interested in my ‘letter’ but he was the only one and he incorporated it into my reasons for leaving.

            Roll on 10 years and when I was leaving after 22 years the only person who ‘thanked me for my service’ was the 3 ring Doc who did my leaving medical. Don’t get me wrong, I wasn’t looking for anything and if the navy offered me a 50K bonus to do another 5 years (or even one) I’d have told them to ram it but the whole process of leaving after 22 years was very underwhelming. From a personal point of view that was fine, I didn’t wan’t any fuss, just to get the feck out of Dodge (well Faslane). I already had irons in fires for going outside but there is zero interest in people, despite what they tell anyone who will listen, I still speak to mates who are in and morale is pretty low and the ‘on my watch’ mentality is just adding to it with people who are trying to make a mark not giving a toss about the long term. It starts in the careers office though, guys who want to do one job get pushed down another route because that’s what they’re looking for that week. I think I’ve mentioned it before on here but I shipped out with 2 time served diesel mechanics who joined up in their mid twenties, both walked into the careers office to be stokers, one ended up doing Comms, the other ended up a WE (fore endy) and both left after 5 years, a waste of theirs and the navy’s time.

            Still, as long as they pay my pension they can crack on.

          • Been happening forever Andy, you at least get a pension, but your point is well made & just like another big organisation (no name, no pack drill!) Administrators are the culprits & they all seem to have been spawned by the same Alien!
            Utterly stupid ofcourse, not to mention the waste & ultimate loss of skilled personnel because of this archaic procedure.
            PS, in my day it was the “Draft Office”! Careers Offices hadn’t been invented, but whatever it’s name, the duty of these people is to ensure recruits are directed precisely towards a job where their existing skills are utilised.
            Is this asking too much?

        • Very true. That really needs to be fixed.

          There’s a Save the Royal Navy piece on availability (https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/minister-tells-head-of-the-royal-navy-to-make-increasing-warship-availability-a-priority/) that mentions HMS Daring laid up for lack of crew. There is talk here regretting the fact that we cut the T45 build from 8 to 6 (and the original plan was 12 of course) but if we had 8 and still had the personnel issues we have now we would have 3 T45 laid up for lack of crew rather than 1!

          • Or swing role? Given we have 8 TAS then is there any need to take those off? Air Defence would need better radar on the 2 of 8 you suggest plus all the different back end systems but would it be a “reconfigure” (as in no longer be configured for ASW role) or adding an additional AAW capability?

          • No we wouldn’t, don’t forget the government got rid of 5,000 RN personnel since the type 45s were built.

          • I’m not sure I understand your counter argument. If we accept the Save the Royal Navy assertion that a T45 is tied up for lack of crew it means we have 6 T45 but only enough crew for 5. Surely then if we had 8 T45 now we would still have the same number of personnel, i.e. crew for 5, so we would have 3 tied up? Maybe you are saying that if we had built 8 x T45 then the RN would have been less brutal in the personnel cuts and would have cut fewer than 5,000?

            Anyway, it’s all hypothetical and we’re probably talking at cross purposes which might explain my confusion. In any event I suspect we both agree that recruitment and retention and raising personnel numbers are absolutely key challenges and priorities for the RN right now.

        • “tackle the age old myth that the grass is greener in civvy street. service people need telling in no uncertain terms that it is not a pot of gold with well paid jobs being given to ex servicemen and women, because they are just that.the M.O.D needs to give its head a wobble and rejoin reality and not stay mired with its head in the sand. ”

          Its what you make of it Andy R, I know plenty guys who have gone ‘outside’ and have done very well for themselves, JR’s and SR’s, For every hard luck story there’s a ‘done good’ story. I bought a few properties when I was in and haven’t worked since I left the mob (as a 22 years fat, loafing, career AB) although I’m fairly skint there’s no reason I couldn’t get off my fat one and turn to. I’ve got a mate who went offshore after about 5 years in the Mob and now earn 6 figures, plenty other guys who work in either offshore or in other industries earning high five figures. Loads of others with comfortable lives, there are plenty options out there.

          Aim low and you’ll get there, aim high and you might get there too.

          • It appears civvy street is not the only option – going on the number of ex RN people to be found in RAN & RCN.

      • As I see it T31 as rumoured is not toothless and it really would not take that much to make it very credible. Replace the 24 x Sea Ceptor mushroom farm with a more densely packed 36 or 48 tube silo possibly using LM 3-cell ExLS. On a fleet of 6 with 2 in maintenance at any time maybe even Stanflex them so only needing 4 Stanflex modules. If the T26 midships silo was also Stanflex then even more economy of scale hence savings could be had from Stanflexing them perhaps meaning no incremental cost over and above these bl#*dy mushroom farms. Then add canister launched interim anti ship missile, again possibly fitted as needed as for T45 Harpoon, and that’s a tier 1 frigate by many navy’s standards.

        • Perfectly sensible Julian, The T31 is retaining its stanflex ability so perhaps we should talk to our danish colleagues and seek their input on how to stanflex our future ships VLS as a minimum.

          I also think we should upgrade the radar which is a relatively small sum of money in the scale of all this and make T26 the UK’s Arleigh Burke class, we can then order a further 6 to replace T45 and give BAES some stability, who knows they may even build a frigate factory.

          I would also then commit to 14 T31 and start investing in personnel recruitment and retention.

        • It would have to be fairly intense to need more I’d think – and unless the UK was fighting it unilaterally then likely other countries using F35b’s would be aboard too. Hopefully more of ours will have arrived by the time of this deployment anyway; we’re supposed to have something like 35 of them by the end of 2022 if I remember – which is about the number of Harriers that were used in the Falklands in total. And THEY did OK!

          • Very true. Though if F35 really is notching up 20:1 kill ratios at Red Flag as claimed – it wouldn’t matter. Guess we’ll only know for sure when the shooting starts again…

      • Max load out of Invincible class using deck parking was 11 sea harriers, 8 merlins, that’s it, max 19-20 aircraft. QE class 3x mass, able to surge upto high 50s in numbers of aircraft. So that is why we need another 48+ F35Bs ordering and at least another 5 more type 31s+ put the order of type26s back up to at least 10. Cost must have come down per hull now Canada and Australia purchasing

        • Unfortunately you’re talking a £12B bill for that lot. Plus the need to recruit, train and retain a couple of thousand personnel. Nice wish list but there’s issues in manning that we need to deal with first before numbers of hulls.

        • Surge conditions, yes. The routine patrol is always meant to be around 24 though isn’t it? As I said earlier, I’d bet F35’s from other countries would be embarked alongside our own if Gulf War 3 or whatever took place. Certainly no doubt about needing the extra ships though.

      • Invincible class carried 5-8 Shars as standard, obviously surged during falklands conflict. don’t forget primary role was fleet air defence in N Atlantic against Russian long range/maritime aircraft

        • They carried a large ASW contingent too, perhaps 12 sea king. Don’t forget they were officially “through deck cruisers” with a role of convoy escort/ASW. The SHARS were really just fleet air defence and a basic AS capability with sea eagle. Those numbers would have been considered adequate to combat Bear patrol aircraft. Obviously things turned out a bit different for them over their lifetimes! I think they may have managed up to 15 or so SHAR/GR3 during falklands war plus choppers

          • We had 18 harriers at best. FAA /RAF. Couldnt move on deck.
            Handlers were fantastic!!. As expected we did it. lived it and loved it.

    • 24 F35’s is a huge capability to take to sea. You would have to go back to 2003 op Telic, was the last time the UK deployed more then 24 aircraft of a single type. (32 Tornado GR4).

    • The question is, when will we see a significant increase in F35-B numbers to fill one QE carrier without the help of the USMC?

      Sailing off to the SCS to protect the rights of freedom of navigation with limited numbers of capital ships to protect the carrier is, to put it mildly, a little embarrassing when you compare the numbers we would be up against if things turned ugly.

      It would make more sense to me to send one ship as part of an international task force until we can fully protect ourselves or, build a European task force around the carrier?

      “The F-35 jet might hit full-rate production more than a year late”

      https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/10/18/the-f-35-may-hit-full-rate-production-more-than-a-year-late/

      • ‘a little embarrassing when you compare the numbers we would be up against if things turned ugly’

        which is why we have to work together. No one has any interest in a global confrontation. It’s a case of standing firm without being over provocative.

        • We will never have numbers but what’s disappointing is that we don’t recognise this and increase firepower. Yes we can work together but this will only happen if interests align if other powers political will is lacking on a chiefly UK issue we may have to act alone the Falklands is an example. We got some background support but were left to it and due to us believing we would always work in a coalition or with RAF assets and protection that brings I’m sure needless lives were lost

  3. Haven’t the Dutch already announced one of their frigates will be joining the QECSG on its first deployment?

    While this is positive news, it’s only going to be possible if active ship numbers improve dramatically by then. Otherwise QE will be taking more than half the active fleet with her on what is largely a flag showing exercise and leaving 2-3 frigates to cover every other commitment.

  4. All sounds promising, start putting the ‘bits’ of a carrier group together, even if we’re not planning on sustaining it. Maybe after the 31’s start rolling out there might be another batch to build up the capability to at least make a carrier group easier to achieve.

  5. This is not really up to date news is it,there is nothing in that article that we don’t already know and has’nt been reported a dozens of times before

    • It was confirmed in a defence select committee meeting yesterday which is why it is being reported today, even though it isn’t exactly new news

      • I agree, but what’s not new for us might still be new for someone else. Especially those that are just starting to get an interest in defence.
        With a spotlight on the carrier and F35 trials in the media, this is a great opportunity to keep it in the public eyes, get people excited about it and potentially help drive recruitment.
        I for one am very happy to see those pictures and to have the news reaffirmed. Can’t wait for some video footage.
        M@

      • Ta i missed that,thing is only the US has a large enough navy to carry out CSG operations independently and even they rely on allies,as the article says we have to work with the french and their navy is roughly the same size as ours ,so we are always going to have help from our allies, but so they should help us out, the germans have been getting away with spending as little as they can on defence and relying on others for far too long

        • That’s not true. We are building up to a minimum of 24 F35s probably leading to 36. We are building up to regularly having a minimum 1 carrier available at all times.
          The French are able to operate an air wing on their single carrier when it’s not being refurbished.
          I fall to see why you complain about us having allies.

  6. seems good i just wish that hulls 7 and 8 for the type 45 were not scrapped,if we ever have to go it alone for any reason god forbid then we are rather short,especially if both carriers are deployed together

    • Such a stupid decision in the end, pretty sure if we order the other 2 it would have been for a lot less than the average cost of 1bn. Mind you we would still have to cut them open to replace the generators. The UK got completely screwed over on that joint frigate program.

      • The one billion Type 45 cost included the cost of research and development, primarily for the PAAMS missile system that had already been spent. Without that apportionment, Bae was building the Type 45’s for 650 million or thereabouts. Seems a bargain today.

      • BB85 -Surely if you were to build 2 Type 45’s today you would incorporate all the Engine upgrades whilst in build,id even go as far as swapping the WR21 GT’s for MT30’s.

      • I thought hulls 7&8 were sacrificed to allow the money for them to be used for development of T26 to be accelerated so they would be built sooner ? So suppose you have to weigh up pros cons more T45 and longer wait for T26 or less T45 and T26 sooner .

    • I wish hulls 7 to 12 hadn’t been cancelled. And they had been the replacements for T42 that we need. Sea Viper is utterly fantastic; it is the best system afloat. The ship it is fitted into not so much.

        • The proposal was at that time, to build all the 13 replacements for the Type 23 frigates, as All Type 26 specialist anti-submarine(ASW) frigates.
          It it this Misguided decision that resulted in the cut in T45 numbers.

        • The decision to procure All UK’s 16 Type 23 frigates at the time, as potential ASW frigates, was made in the midst of the Cold War.

    • Agree 100% Andy. I understand those two ships were cut to fund the type 31s, though it’s all lies and politics, this especially comes to the fore now Hammond is showing his true colours regarding Brexit. I’m sure if there had been the political will they could have funded ships 7 and 8 and still got the 5 type 31s. I am reminded of what political will can do when Gavin Williamson was talking about the commando carriers, I appreciate the devil is in the detail,but what a fabulous concept and a sneaky way to give us a LPH similar capability. I truly hope they come to fruition.

      • Not true, the decision to procure 5 Type 31 frigates was made in the 2015 SDSR. The number of Type 26 ASW frigates was cut from 13 to 8.

  7. Can’t understand the rationale for deploying to the SCS, while we should uphold FON around the world, it opens us up to some kind of humiliation the Chinese will have planned for the RN a la surfacing a submarine in the middle of the CSG as they did with USS Kitty Hawk. Bad PR for us and needlessly provocative.

    If I had the MoD’s ear, I’d propose a Falkland Islands and south Atlantic deployment as happened shortly before the invasion and deterred the Argentines for a good while. Given the inevitable rise of Peronism and all the sabre rattling that comes with it, it would do us and the Islanders some solid reassurance and the Argentines reason to think again about continuing in the direction Kirchner and her puppet will take them in

    • The rationale is that it clearly demonstrates our commitment to upholding international law. If we refuse to actually back up those words with action, it sends a clear message to the word that we’re all mouth and no trousers.

      There is almost no point to sending half our fleet to the South Atlantic. Not only are the Falklands far beyond Argentina’s current capability to attack (the 4 Typhoons there represent more fast jet firepower than their entire air force), but it’s in Argentina’s constitution that they’re not going to fight another war for the islands. Until they amend their constitution (and you can guarantee that will be big news), the CSG is better utilised somewhere relevant.

      • Indeed and lets be honest if a Chinese sub is able to surface in the middle of our fleet undetected (unlikely with an Astute around I might add) then far better we know they can do that in peace time than during any developing conflict. It might give us time to work out how.

    • But that’s just the reason you would have to seriously consider the SCS. If you’re not happy to go there in peacetime, then where does that leave you during confrontation. These are, as you rightly say, FON sailings, although we will still be itching to test out the Chinese abilities against our own, sub-surface of otherwise. In time of tension, we can no doubt assume a far more sophisticated approach would be initiated. Regards

    • Followed by the inevitable fall of Peronism. Nothing new in Argentina in them threatening to spend money they do not have.

    • You have seen the appalling state of the Argentine armed forces? An airforce with no fast jets , a navy with well no real navy and an army with the very latest in 1970’s equipment. The anxiety levels of the islanders must be off the charts at the fear of invasion

      • The major threat to the Falklands is internal, not external. A very real risk that a Labour government, led by Corbyn, would simply hand them over to his beloved Argentina.

        • Agree Corbyn the unelectable muppet would give the keys of the kingdom away to whoever asked politely for them, “we have to engage in diplomacy”
          Roll over

    • Not needlessly provocative? I would have said keeping a strong enough force there, good intelligence (unlike last time) and make sure we have the means to reinforce quickly would actually be far more effective and far less antagonising as you can bet any such action you suggest will only have demonstrators on the streets calling for action making it actually more likely they will try something than less. At least as and when they have rebuilt enough to do anything so any action will be years past any such ‘demonstration’ as it was last time we did it and then thought we could forget about it all.

        • 4 Typhoons, 1 Voyager, 1 A400M, 2 Chinook, 4 civilian helicopters for SAR and support, HMS Clyde (soon to be replaced by HMS Forth), a rapier detachment, and ~1200 troops. We’ll likely never know if a submarine is deployed there regularly.

          HMS Protector is also in the region for large portions of the year.

    • I don’t know what is so embarrassing about a Chinese sub surfacing in the middle of a carrier group in international waters during peace time. Even if the US carrier group knew it was there, which they probably did, they are not going to attack it are they?
      The UK sailing through the SCS will be well publicised and I’m sure there will be a host of Chinese ships to follow them on their way. If it was during an actual conflict their location is not going to be published and ships will be informed to stay 200 nautical miles clear or be classified as a threat making it much easier to detect submarines in the area.

      • As for the rational, as per Callum, you can’t just follow the command of the Chinese government and not sail in the SCS because they say it belongs to them. They have no legal authority to claim it therefore it needs to be challenged.

      • dont know if the itinery has been announced but i suspect South Africa, india, Singapore/Malaysia, Australia, New Zealand and Japan. All places where we can show off our ships. SCS does not give us anything except grief from the chinese. Go there in company with the US and Australia if we are trying to make a military point.

    • Really good question Levi. The crux of the issue is around our China strategy. Basically, as far as I am aware, we don’t have one. I believe that government is aware of this fact now and I’m sure in the next few years one will be developed. Recently I read a government paper and the gist of it was, yes we don’t have a China strategy and yes we need one. I’ll give you the link if your interested. It’s fascinating the naive optimism surrounding the rise of China, the only way I can see us realistically countering them is to increase our defence spending and form a nato like alliance with Japan, south korea, Australia and New Zealand plus get the whole EU on board with our efforts. If China is forced to stand against a united EU and usa plus the other countries mentioned, they will be forced to change. The issue is getting it to happen. Trying to unite the EU alone is like herding cats

    • The needlessly provocative action was for the PRC to seize atols in the highly disputed SCS, enlarge them, create military bases on them & start bullying anyone encoroaching on their illegally annexed territory.
      The neglect & selling off of naval capabilities though the 1990s. 2,000s to the present only encouraged such actions.

      • There has already been fighting on a very limited scale between Vietnam and China over some atolls that were Vietnamese but were taken by China. This was mostly to do with fishing rights around the atolls. China has now rebuilt the atolls into highly defended bases, leaving Vietnam little options of gaining them back. They raised the issue with the UN and World courts but got nowhere.
        They have also made rumblings over a small chain of islands off the south of Japan. Japan has a dedicated militarised police force on these islands; complete with armed helicopters and coastguard ships that should really be called corvettes.
        The latest issue in the South China Sea (SCS) is China taking over some atolls near the Philippines. These were traditional Philippino, but not populated, again China have fortified them, where a large scale force will be needed to evict them.
        Be under no illusions, China is by force claiming the SCS for its natural resources as well as the fishing rights. It will only be a matter of time before something serious kicks off. The countries that surround the SCS, rely on it for a large proportion of its food and if its being denied, what next? The problem for our Government is that China is a now a massive trading partner and we need their business. So we can only go so far before we upset them to our financial cost. However, they are actively trying to remove the past historical stigma of being called the “sick man of Asia”. They are trying to attain the status of a Superpower and are not afraid of proving it to everyone, gunboat policy anyone! So at some point we will need to help the other Nations with upholding international law in that region. By sailing the QE CSG in the SCS and paying visits to countries in the area, yes it is flag waving, but it also a very necessary political message.

        • Yes neo-colonialism is alive & well with the communist PRC leading the charge to bully & aquire it’s neighbours.
          This is exactly the wrong time to be keeping our navy pegged at its weakest for centuries. I thought the UN made a clear decision on the SCS but the PRC just ignored it. The PRC is a global superpower now. Plenty of ships fully equipped for modern warfare, plenty of supersonic/hypersonic anti-ship missiles, air cover etc to make it very difficult & costly for any one to stand up to them.
          We do indeed have a far to reliant trading relationship with them. What they’re doing to the Uighurs & annexing the SCS shows their true colours.

    • Remember the new strategic/foreign policy doctrine is “return east of Suez” putting a carrier group in the Pacific and the new British fleet bases in the middle east.

    • So the same rationale will have the Chinese humiliating the Australian Navy? Or are you saying that the Australians are intent on cowering before the Chinese?
      Indeed, in your rationale the Australians might as well give up their navy.

  8. So ince the carrier group potters off on some trip around the globe we will be pretty much defenceless as thta will leave us with 1 type 45 , 2 Astutes and 3-4 friagtes ( if we are lucky ) to carry out all other global duties.

    • Tim uk – look at the situation a different way – how many other Countries would be able to Sail such an impressive Fleet around the world and still have (admittedly just) the capability to have a Duplicate Fleet in reserve ?.

    • If the price holds and T31 really does hit the water at the £250m-per-vessel price point then building out that fleet beyond the currently announced 5 would in my view be a cost-effective and acceptable way to add slack for those additional tasks. I would be very nervous if we started seeing T31 substituted for the core 2 x T45 + 2 x T23/T26 escorts (or allied equivalents) in a CBG because at 24 x Sea Ceptor plus guns I don’t think they are a capable substitute for any of the vessels in that core top-class AAW + ASW escort group but for many other tasks acceptable.

      At currently expected prices £1.25bn, a relatively small amount in defence terms, would add 5 more vessels which within a fleet of 10 could maybe add 2 extra operational units at any given time (and yes, I know I’m glossing over personnel issues!).

      If it was doable within budget I’d love to see another £1.5bn allocated to T31 to get those 5 extra ships plus £250m (£25m per vessel) to up-gun the fleet of 10 T31 by changing the Sea Ceptor fit from 24 in a mushroom farm to 36 or 48 possibly by using 3-cell stand-alone LM ExLS and also using whatever the already announced interim anti-ship missile program delivers to have ASM canister launchers potentially cross-decked if required to keep costs down (similar to T45 Harpoon). That would really make T31 quite capable in most other roles and even be a useful addition to a CBG over and above the 4 core escorts if required.

      • Julian agree definitely. BUT the type 31 hull is designed to easily be uparmed. This is a full sized frigate 5000+ tons, easily able to be fitted with 24 mk41 vl strike cells a 5 inch gun etc etc. I too would like the type 31 ordered in a continuous rolling programme, 5 ships, then another 5 ships, then another 5 ships until we get around 20. Never going to happen
        Or 10 type 31s and put the type 26 order back upto 10 + vessels, the cost per hull MUST have come down now that Canada and Australia are purchasing the design?

        • Is this not the point of the naval construction strategy, ie keep building ships … and as and when we need to we sell on the surplus used ships. Is this not the point of the T31e… it’s economical, not just new ones, but resell used ones. (we could keep the expensive weaponry ?)

          The more we build then they will be more economical and cheaper for us to own and easier for future clients to buy.

        • Yes, I’d seen that number. It’s an interesting figure to try and reconcile with the currently announced intention to build 5 ships. If the budget does hold at £250m per vessel that’s £750m left over to account for. As I understand it design costs were included in the bid price (hence Babcock Consortium being able to bid such a big vessel because of design cost savings to to IH heritage) so that leaves stuff like a contingency sum, the cost of running the tender and selection process (which surely isn’t anywhere near the scale of design costs) and possibly some provision for some one-off new shore infrastructure, training paths etc that will be required. Maybe also some provision for introducing new logistics trains into the RN as a result of T31 which now look quite significant (all new-to-RN 40mm & 57mm plus Thales radar) but maybe that is somewhat offset by less being spent on cross-decking operations from T23 which might also have been budgeted in that sum where the level of cross-decking now looks significantly reduced.

          Is it too much to hope that the budget might include a provision for vessels 6 at least, or maybe even 7 or 8 if all the extra items I mentioned above are actually buried elsewhere in the MoD budgets?

          I think the £2bn covering 8 vessels is unlikely due to all the extra costs mentioned above but just maybe it is intended to cover a 6th vessel if there aren’t significant cost overruns. That would be the bare minimum for HMG to be able to say that the T31 program had delivered an increase in frigate numbers as was promised (or at least strongly hinted at) when first announced.

      • I do believe in the future, the T31s will be an active part of the CSG, but acting as goal keepers for the carrier and its support elements. The reason for this is that the T45s need to be operating away from the carriers to improve their radar coverage. The T26s cannot be near the CSG as it will be generating too much noise, so they’ll be on the periphery of the group doing sprints and drifts looking for subs. The T31 in this case could be used as the goal keeper for any leakers, but has the ability to be uparmed to meet the requirements.
        It it’ll be interesting to see what they’ll be using in their role bays, unmanned sea vehicles hopefully?

    • Who is going to attack us? Well? Has it occurred to you that the carrier would just turn round and come back? Or that we still have scores of fast jets. Plus allies ( well not including neutral weasling Ireland).

      • =-D =-D =-D

        Nice one Trevor, Grrrrr bloody Oirish and their relatively long standing dislike of the British. Grrrrr bloody weasels, imagine not having a massive armed forces to back ‘us’ up. Grrrrrr.

        As an aside, do you you know how many potatoes it takes to kill an Irish man ?

        None.

        I’ll get me coat.

          • Come on Trevor, they’ve given the world Ikea. and ABBA….. and they do have a pretty hefty defence industry. They might stand alone but they do it with their own gear and they take it seriously, none of it is pointed at Norway.

          • Ah, so we’re talking ancient history. and irrelevant bollox.

            Grrrr, bloody Swedes…..

            Fuel your ‘hate on’ mate, goddamn neutrals, you’ve got to hate those that don’t want to pick a side eh. What about those bloody Swiss…. Jeezo.

          • The Norweigians were not laughing in 1940, (german troops regularly passed through sweden to norway) and families of dead merchant seamen were not laughing 39-45 either

          • That’s the spirit Trevor, you hold onto that grudge, the Swedes and Norwegians may have kissed and made up but what do they know eh ?

            Its a noble cause you hold dear to your heart and I salute you for your passion and commitment to right the Weasly Swedes many wrongs….. The swines……

          • What’s your point caller ?
            You’ve already established that Ireland are neutral (and weasling ????).

            Now we get the news that Norway is in NATO (has been from the start).

            Some scrambling for relevance going on here Trevor. So if Ireland joined NATO they’d be off the ‘weasel list’ I take it, seeing as how its their neutrality that seems to incur your wrath, what would their ‘weasel credentials’ be if they joined the Tashkent Pact ?

            Of course the other problem would be how would it affect Norway in 1940…… and would those beastly Swedes be up to their shady shenanigans again, bloody neutrals. These questions need answered, I for one won’t be able to sleep tonight otherwise…..

        • I’ll admit, I’ve never heard that one. However, in the dark humour of BritAF, it’s quite good.

          More of this or that platform will mot happen.

          Vote for a party that gives 3% to Defence and watch our AF develop.

          CONservative platitudes mean nothing – neither of the main party’s are to be trusted.

          On the sailing, embark a commando and have them take islands along the way… that would send a signal to the Chinese while needing little extra in the way of additional defensive platorms.

          Just a thought.

        • Plenty of us Irish have fought and fought hard for the British forces including myself. You want to know what pisses Irish people off? Its idiots like you with your making fun of the death and displacement of millions while a small number fat British landlords exported food for profit. I think you would have made happy company for them. Not to mention being invaded by another country and your people executed tends to create a ‘dislike’.

          Why don’t you wind your bloody neck in and read a bit of history. You’d find that there were good British and Irish people back then trying to work together to stop that death.
          Maybe take a leaf out of their book.

  10. Great to see this confirmed. As others have asked I do wonder what other commitments have been shelved to generate the CSG, but also completely understand the RNs rationale that they want the first deployment to .

    As an aside, and it’s probably beyond the realms of possibility, but I think it would send a message if the CSG were able to visit some or all of the British Overseas Territories while en route as part of the first deployment.

    It wouldn’t mean much in the grand scheme of things, other than demonstrating that we can defend their interests if it ever came to it.

  11. Surprised an article hasn’t been posted regarding Reaction Engine’s SABRE precooler hitting Mach 5 only a few days ago

    • Those guys are going to revolutionise the way we travel, also as a boaster to get to escape velocity low earth orbit.
      Then there is the ex RN engineer who has just won a multi million £ contract for his aluminium batteries. Able to power cars, trucks etc at a fraction of cost of lithium ion batteries and fully recyclable. Aluminium is the most abundant metal on earth. + thinking big the moon is mostly aluminium oxide.
      British inventions…again ….that will change the world we live in.

      • That’s interesting and very positive. From the little I know lithium alloy is a horrible material to dispose of. Of course I’d they do find a way to make clean batteries out of an abundant material cheaply someone will cut the legs out from under it.

      • Shouldn’t really call them batteries as they’re not rechargeable, recyclable yes. They are more like power cells. except you can’t top them up. Brilliant design and easily scalable so could be used from mopeds up to trucks etc.

        • They are rechargeable Davey, I read numerous interview ms with the inventor, they are designed to be easily recharged and recyclable. A car the weight of a Tesla with same weight of batteries as lithium ion Tesla would have a 1500 mile range. Trucks could be fitted out for a 3000 mile range using the trailers subfloor as a aluminium battery cell bank. Genius

      • We should really invest heavily in this battery. Create a whole industry around it, it’s capable of making the UK an industrial powerhouse again and green to boot!

  13. ‘It is understood that the 2021 deployment will see the Carrier Strike Group sail in the Mediterranean Sea, the Gulf and end up in the Pacific.’

    Personally, I hope they end up back in Pompey. Ending up in the Pacific doesn’t sound too good.

  14. The Fact is we dont have enough ships to give adequate protection to the aircraft Carriers and carry out other dutys and even further to mount a strike group as well as The PO Wales Carrier .
    Its utterly Pathetic .
    The Defence Budget needs to be raised to at least 3per cent to fund what is desperatly needed by all three sevices
    Will it , i doubt if the inept and tunnel vision Politicians will grant it

    • The fact is that no country other than US can do a solo carrier deployment. There are issues with our current funding but I think we need to be realistic. 3% would be great but even that would not solve our issues. Moreover, it would be politically very hard to justify.

    • Hi Peter, I think if you look above we do have the hull numbers to protect a carrier strike group. But you’re right to question what it leaves behind – it’ll take perhaps half of the available force to deploy properly.

      You aren’t the father of a current naval aviator are you by the way?

  15. QQ. Don’t we have some predators that we cant use in British airspace, can we not fly these off QEC to provide some sort of long range overwatch function?

  17. Europe always seems to be mentioned as potential escorts. Would be nice for Canada, Japan, Australia, and even potentially India to get a mention (depending on who would be willing to escort the CSG).

    • I’d bet that the CSG receives French & Italian escorts in the Med, US and Maybe Indian ones in the Gulf and Australian, Malaysian & Singapore escorts in the Pacific. All will want to train with the RN and mean that the group will morph with partners during it’s cruise. It may even be able to operate Italian and Japanese F35B’s too.

    • I might be mistaken but I was under the impression that some of the exercises conducted at the start of the Westlant 19 deployment included some interoperability training with Canadian vessels.

      Interoperability with Australia and Japan has been thought of I’m sure, but geographically I’d imagine it’s more difficult to arrange. Maybe as part of the 2021 deployment?

  18. Looking at the photographs, it would seem that the MOD approves of the 50 shades of grey! Prefer a darker grey myself…aircraft as well…think the Typhoons look insipid. The USAF KC45 is about right!

    • Do you think it will work the other way, ie RAF/FAA F35s deploying to USN amphibious ships. certainly not by need but perhaps for experience?

      • Hi julian. Yes I do. I’m expecting plenty of cross decking between the UK and U.S. F35’s. The America class in particular for the USN. Our two navies are only ones currently operating with the B’s off our carriers so I expect that other nations – Japan for example – will also take part in once they get operational with their own.

        I can see a UK squadron deploying with the USS America in the WestPac and SCS and USMC squadrons doing the same in the ETO, Med, or ME on the QE or PoW. It will be an outstanding opportunity to integrate our capabilities with a common weapons system.

        I think the future will see a lot of international CSGs standing to sea with either USN or UK carriers accompanied by Anglo centric (RN, RCN, RAN, RNZN), JMSDF or NATO battle group escorts. The USN can no longer do it alone. We’re going to need to pull together in the coming years or suffer the consequences IMO…

        Cheers

  20. Mmm..

    Not sure we should send a sub into the SCS. China will likely have SOSUS type arrays there. No point in giving them the chance to detect and acoustically profile our subs with them. IMHO anyway.

    • ‘likely’ is good enough for me……

      They’ve come on a long way then. The power of the Chinese military is reminiscent of the power of the USSR in the way its used to scare.

  22. I thought we had only sent 4 F35’s on this excercise but the one photo above shows 6-all sporting RAF roundels! Photo shop?

  24. I was excited when it said 24 F35B until it followed with, including USMC. I guess it will be 12 each. I was dreaming we might get a 24+24 scenario going to push the ship to its capacity, it would be interesting to know how smoothly it could operate.

  25. I do like the answer to the escort question. A bit of attempting to confuse the issue, but the answer is clear yes it will effect standing committments, and we need allies to help us. It’s a shame we invested to heavily in the carriers but didn’t follow it up with the escort numbers needed, to mean we don’t have to go cap in hand to allies the majority if the time.

    If we had gone for the 8 t45 and manage to get all the 13 frigates manned and not sold off 2, we would have been in position to have a UK only strike group on a regular basis. Opertunity lost to make allies want us rather than the other way around, like the US has with us and us wanting to help escort their carriers to look meaningful.

    • Steve just for accuracy we sold 3x type 23s to Chile and scrapped our excellent batch 3 type 22s. If only we had those 7 frigates now. The type 22s could easily have been upgraded as a bridge between type 26s coming into service. Waste of precious resources that will take a generation to make right. Why we can’t put ships into a reserve fleet like the Americans do I will never know. The youngest 5-6 type 23s should definitely be retained…oh but wait a minute all their arnaments are being stripped out for the type 26s and type 31s. That’s a pity. Still retain them, they might come in useful in the future, that’s the purpose of a reserve fleet

      • Mr Bell – Yes id agree that with the 3 T23’s gifted to Chile and the 4 T22’s that would have provided a reasonable Escort Fleet of 25 – 26 Ships had the political will and funding allowed.But regarding keeping some of the best T23’s in service there is no real reason why this cant happen apart from again the ongoing Manpower and Funding issues – from the top of my head the only Equipment that can be recycled is the Artisan Radar for use on the T26.The T23 Missile Silo has been modified to use Sea Ceptor,you would have thought the T26 will be equipped with brand new bespoke Silo’s,as should be the case with T31,also none of the Main Gun Armament of T23 will be transferred as both T26/31 will be using different systems.

        • Yes Paul. That does seem to be how it looks re T31. With the 2 x 40mm + 1 x 57mm & Thales radar decisions it doesn’t look as if T31 is going to need any of the fixed guns or the radar. Also, if you look at illustration 4 here (https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/building-hms-glasgow-the-first-type-26-frigate/), the render of the front half being rolled out of the build hall at some point in the future, it shows a good artists impression of the forward silos with a big hole for the Mk41 and then 4 holes forward of that for the Sea Ceptor silos. It is just a render of cours but if accurate the Sea Ceptor silor do look to me a lot like 4 x 3-cell LM ExLS judging from the shape of the holes. If they were transplanting the mushroom farms I’m not sure why they would group them like that.

  27. Just a thought – 2x45s and 2x23s will escort the Carrier on her first operational deployment. Will the four escorts be fully armed? Would their respective silos have their full missile load-out? Curious to know as I’m not sure what our weapon stocks would allow. I’ve heard it said before that we don’t have adequate stocks available.

    Still, it will be a very proud day for the U.K.! Well done! Hopefully once Brexit is settled and life returns to normal, we can properly address the need for additional defence spending.

    That said, I can’t help but feel a real sense of ‘normal play’ resuming from our politicians in promising everything and delivering nothing.

    I truly hope I am wrong…

    • David – one can only speculate as to what Weapons Loadouts the Escorts will have, obviously this information wouldn’t and shouldn’t be in the Public domain but for a Peacetime deployment you would expect all options to be covered.

      • I’m not so sure on the shouldn’t point. Being able to hide details on missile numbers etc has caused this problem, and caused a lot of deaths in iraq/afgan thanks to lack of basic gear. If things were more transparent, then the MOD would be forced to actually buy the kit that the military needs should the worst occur. Can you imagine the outcry in the media if it was disclosed that a capital ship left with only a couple of missiles or that we only had enough body armor for a fraction of the fighting force etc, the outcry would have got the issue solved.

        • I absolutely agree Steve. It was reported that one of our Type 23s involved in the 2011 Libya campaign, had only 4 Seawolf embarked. Since they were usually fired in pairs to enhance kill chances, that left only two bullets in the gun so to speak. Granted the threat level was low but to me, that shouldn’t mean you send ships into a conflict zone with the absolute bare minimum needed to defend itself. Can you imagine if the Libyan rebels had let go a barrage of anti ship missiles from shore?

          Secondly, it was also reported at the time that while Obama refused to take the lead militarily in Libya and he wanted the Europeans to do it, he was very upset at how quickly the British snd French came asking for him to supply munitions as their own stocks had run down so fast.

          I’m not sure this situation has changed unfortunately…..

          • Assuming that the stocks of missiles is adequate, what is the argument for not going to see with all the silo’s full?

  28. Right so lets get moving on the hulls for T31s and genuinely consider if we can get another 2 T26s back on the stocks. Also dont p@ss about for T45 replacement when its time !!!

    The money we waste messing about is incredible. Bet Aussie and Canadian boats come in on budget and time

  29. Love to see Britain retaking its place as premier naval airpower, it is a matter of tradition, and we Americans are happy to see you Brits back with a great set of ships.

  33. Great news! Would of preferred 24 sovereign F35, but can’t complain. Back in the big boys league now! A formidable strike group indeed

  34. When HMS Queen Elizabeth Carrier Strike Group deploys in 2021 it will contain the absolute bare minimum of escorts required to protect the aircraft carrier, the supply ship and the tanker. There has to be a dozen good reasons why the Flag Officer commanding the group is requested to detach one or more escorts, especially in the disaster ridden Far East and a serious mechanical failure on any of the ships could prove very embarrassing.
    Wouldn’t it be far easier to announce this cruise as a joint venture with the USA and European and Australian/New Zealand warships.
    As with a previous disastrous wartime trip to the Far East by Royal Navy Capital ships this paltry exercise completely ignores the overwhelming strength of the opposing Naval forces and their capabilities. Once again our Admirals have reassured the politicians that all is well in the Royal Navy, that it is OK to send a major warship equipped with pop guns to defend itself [assuming of course that they manage to install CIWS in the next two years] in an absolutely lethal area of the world to project an image of sea power. With a reduced complement of aircraft and helicopters making up the shortfall this visit to the Far East will fool nobody.

      • Yeah the CIWS systems have been installed but even then it’s not like China are going to say “Hey fuck it let’s risk war with NATO and sink a British aircraft the moment it enters the SCS”.
        We aren’t at war with China so whilst yes it is dangerous to go into the SCS risking a political incident, we aren’t going to be going into an absolutely lethal area.

        My only concern would have been the Straight of Hormuz 2-3 months ago but seeing as things have calmed down there shouldn’t be a risk there either.

        Countries aren’t looking for all our war, so this concern of us not having a massive CSG for our first deployment is a bit irrelevant. Either way our CSG is still fairly large and is most definitely a good start.

        • Sooner or later, probably sooner than we could expect, a Chinese battlegroup will transit the English Channel led by an aircraft carrier that will be prepared for war in all aspects. Sending an incomplete Royal Navy carrier task force to the Far East with little support once the political war gets underway is a mistake. I was on HMS Ark Royal when the Russians put a destroyer across the bows just to test the carriers reactions to an emergency when the she was at flying stations. Short of outright war the Chinese will be quite keen to test the abilities of HMS Queen Elizabeth and they have the International clout to cope with any incident.

          • You are mad. We are not at war with China, why would we go to war with China? Who cares a monkeys if they send 10 carriers through the English channel…. it does not matter a toss. And do you think that a Chinese carrier is just going to suddenly teleport itself from the south china sea to the channel??

            They have armed forces because they want to defend themselves, because they have interests. So do we. And currently we are helping Canada and Australia build up their navies and their interests. That is currently giving China something to think about.

          • Not mad Trevor, I obviously have a more unbiased view of the possibilities in the South China Sea regarding Chinese expansionism in that area and across the Indian Ocean as far as Djibouti. My concern , which you have completely missed, is our Government and the Royal Navy Admirals decision to send an under equipped, undermanned task force to the South China Sea or anywhere in the world for that matter. A casual inspection of the Chinese Navy,s building programme reveals that the number of ships being built is intended to rival the size of the United States Navy possibly as early as 2035 with an equivalent number of aircraft carriers by 2050. Ask yourself just what are they going to do with this armada of ships, park them in the South China Sea for defensive purposes!!!
            There is currently no aid of any sort of help to Canada or Australia, they are merely replacing older ships. Fortunately the British Gov. and a British company should profit from the contracts.
            I am sure that if a teleporter is ever invented the Chinese will probably be the first to use it, but for now increased international political clout and an ever lengthening number of supply bases will ensure that a Chinese Carrier Group does turn up around U.K. waters, one of the most crowded areas in the world and if you do not understand the significance of that on a world stage then I think that you should do some serious reading concerning Great Britain’s reliance on seaborn overseas trade.

          • If you’re not blowing smoke up ‘OUR’ side then you must be one of the other lot Andrew. Lots of jingoism from some on here.
            Keep fighting the good fight mate.

          • You say you’re concerned that we are sending an under equipped and undermined task force to South China Sea, but underequipped and undermined for what? You’re talking as if we are at war with China or as if war with China is even likely.

            This jaunt round the SCS is doing two things: showing our commitments to freedom of navigation and also, mainly, to stretch the ships legs. First time in over 10 years that we will have sailed a carrier group. We need to sail it somewhere.

            Let’s face it, neither QE or PoW will ever face down China alone in any possible war. If war did come and we were involved it would be as part of an international coalition. Chances are the QE would have 2 x Type 45, 2 x Type 26, 2 x Astute and probably a number of Australian, Japanese or European ships or subs in escort as well.

          • I understand exactly what you think I am saying but my only real concern about this deployment and the ability of our warships to go to war if necessary is the state of unpreparedness, especially when they are first commissioned. The Type 45,s, the Tide class tankers, HMS Q.E & P.O.W did, and some still are displaying spaces where the original designed armament should be fitted. The new River class Offshore Patrol Boats lost two guns apiece during the redesign which cost a stupendous amount by comparison with the cost of the original Brazilian boats. It is almost as though our countries warships should not be seen as being too warlike. I have nearly drifted off into budgets, and I certainly do not want to go there. Thanks for your comments, I hope that I have made myself clearer.

          • When war is declared there is always a state of unpreparedness. That will apply equally to the Chinese, should they consider starting one.

          • A-J-W China will soon join the club able to sail a CBG around the world,as is their right to do so the same as every other Maritime Nation,but the chances of them Navigating the English Channel with one in Peacetime are quite slim,in Wartime even less likely if not impossible.Note that a Chinese Destroyer sailed through this summer as reported on this site.

  35. for anyone who does not know britains biggest warship tonight sunday 27th bbc2 8pm think it,s the f35 trials from westlant 18 episodes one of three i thought they might of called it season 2 i maybe wrong it could be a repeat of the first 3 but i shall watch and see..

    • I saw it last night. It is a new series and well worth watching. Thankfully they didn’t feel the need to re-introduce all the characters and spend most of the program on loads of “get to know the people behind the mission” type of stuff which was a reasonably big part of series 1 as I remember it. Series 2 took much of that groundwork as having already been laid re the people on board and focused a lot on the first F-35B landings and takeoff. I hope with 2 more episodes to go we might get a good chance to see more of the flight trials as they work up weapons and fuel loads. This first episode of series 2 did show bombs, presumably dummy, being loaded so not sure if that was simply to exercise the automated handling systems or also for the later stages of the flight trials.

      In my opinion these documentary episodes have been really well done so far.

      • i think Chris terrell does a good job,granted there will be things we would like to see that won,t be shown for security reasons,which is understandable but still overall a good enjoyable show,even the wife enjoyed it which is a first

  37. Honest question here: could torpedoes be fitted into the same canister launchers that we fire Harpoons from? That could be a cheap way of putting more anti submarine weapons on.

    Should also install 2 x quad canister launchers onto Type 31s, give them some offensive teeth with anti-ship missiles.

    • See my response below. We have canister launched sting rays already, but their utility is questionable due to range. ASROC would be a good addition, but that should be in addition to the helo. The Merlin remains the best anti sub weapon the T26 will have. Apart from an Astute nearby of course.

  38. Sting ray torpedoes fired from canisters have a short effective range, far shorter than the heavyweight versions fired from most subs. They really are a desperate weapon and would likely never be used as in conflict the sub would have sunk the ship long before it came in range.

    At the moment we don’t know if we will be buying ASROC to go in the MK41 VLS fitted to the T26. I hope so or the helos will indeed be the only way of engaging enemy subs. But they are also the best way as they operate away from the ship to keep it out of range.

      • Going forward, probably.

        Especially when operating as a carrier strike group; I think our small number of F35s will be supplemented in time with drones. These could easily fly off towards a possible submarine contact and drop a torpedo in the water.

        As part of a single ship however, still likely looking at helicopters for a long time as there would be a lack of room for multiple aircraft and a helicopter is more versatile.

        • Yes, but the Merlin/Wildcat won’t be available 24/7. So a ship operating as a singleton, requires another method of taking on a sub. Granted that Stingray has a much shorter range than say a Russian Futlyar. But it would still be useful weapon launched from a very quiet T23 or T26, if within range and especially if the sub had not detected the ship.
          Clearly the gold plated solution would be an ASROC style of weapon, such as the RUM-139C armed with the Mk54 torpedo. If it could be fitted with the Stingray, even better. But who’s to say the Mk54 is better?

  39. Yes I have seen the pictures – the Jigsaw Puzzle that is HMS Glasgow does at last seem to be making substantial progress.

  40. I’ve just read an article that advises the the Lot 14 price for a F35A has been agreed at $77.9 Million per jet, and the Lot 14 price for a F35B has been agreed at $101.3 Million per jet.

    I know there is much to say about parts availability/cost sharing and availability of carrier qualified pilots by RAF/RN pilots sharing a pool of common F35B types etc.

    However if the split was say 96 F35B for primary carrier use, with the RAF getting any spare air frames available, and say another 40ish F35A for dedicated RAF role, that would save over £1.1 Billion dollars!

    That is an awful, awful lot of money!! With in practice, very little reduction in capability, if at all. I’m not sure how 40+ F35A would stack up in terms of available squadrons for the RAF but surely this will be on the cards with the bean counters at the MOD?

    With around £880 Million spare in the MOD equipment budget that could go towards all manner of things 3-4 more Type 31’s for instance? maybe even the 8th Astute (if the building/capacity schedule would allow without affecting Dreadnought).

    Even if half of that £880 Million was lost in duplicating supply chains and stores of non-common parts, that would leave £400+ Million that could be spent on installing the MK41 VLS on Type 45 and a BMD upgrade… Up-gunning the first 5 planned Type 31 with Mk41 VLS maybe?… and a solid purchase of relevant missile/weapon types… No?

  41. As this is one of the few solidly conservative communities I frequent online I’d like to get your opinions on how, without hyperbole, a labour government should approach defence

    To be quite honest I disagree with a significant chunk of what’s said on here when talk strays into the party-political, but the level of insight this community has is pretty damn impressive so I’m keen to her some opinions I might have trouble agreeing with.

  42. The problem is the government is doing exactly the opposite: they want these ships to be built at a snail’s pace so that it doesn’t go over any single year’s budget, even if it increases the overall cost of the ships and leaves us with a shortage of ships. All they can say they are balancing the books.

    • There’s also a huge (hopefully soon to be addressed by the general election) amount of kicking the can down the road at the moment due to us having a basically 1 issue parliament.

      • There is also no point building faster and in greater numbers without an uplift in recruitment and retention. We do not have enough crews for the ships we have. An new Government might go some way to increasing defence spending, but more likely they will have other priorities.

        • Very true and a good point. The whole military needs a vast improvement in recruitment and retention. It’s not enough to just plonk TV adverts out there anymore and be a bit active on Twitter.

      • Election now called, assuming no hiccup in the Lords, so basically we’re now entering a dead zone for any defence news apart from deployments until a new government is in place? I hope UKDJ can prove me wrong.

        In theory there could be interesting things to hear about from manifesto election pledges but I suspect that all the parties will be focusing so hard on messaging around Brexit, NHS and probably policing as a third topic that defence will barely be mentioned for fear of distracting from what the parties see as those few core messages.

        • Probably accurate. We’ll see the usual suspects maybe mention defence a few times, Tobias Elwood et al. but it will largely be a Brexit election, hopefully it will get it all out of their system, we can get it done and focus on other things.

          • For right or wrong, this election is going to be 90% Brexit based I think. Pretty much everyone I speak to is heartfelt sick of it and most of us don’t know much else that’s going on in Westminster at the moment.

            The Tories have set their stall out on the NHS and policing as well as the pachyderm in the room (natch 😉 ) trying to steal Labour’s thunder so I suppose they’ll be trying to ‘win the NHS back’ so yeah, Brexit and the NHS will be the biggies, in fourth place will be crime and sandwiched inbetween will be just how terrible the ‘other lot’ are.

            Its going to be bloody tedious unless someone comes up with some good ‘dirt’ on someone, probably BoJo….

            Time to break out the popcorn (again) and sit back and let it wash over us. I just hope somebody gets a working majority.

  45. And cue the highly unfair criticism of the Royal Navy and the fleet. Look, we all know that there isn’t enough F-35’S to fill the QUEEN ELIZABETH on her debut jolly around the World but the programme hit snags along the way and overran the schedule quite a lot. It’s not the Navy’s fault and to be honest, pretty much every major military project takes too long or costs more than first thought.
    What does concern me is the size of the strike group, which is bang on actually, if you escort both Carriers, that’s a rather large number of Royal Navy warships tied up which then leaves a lot of ground for the rest of the fleet to look after…..not ideal really. We will have to resort to allies and partners escorting one of the flat tops which isn’t a bad thing, we’ve got several keen and willing friends which makes it all good…..

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here