HMS Queen Elizabeth’s Carrier Strike Group was approached by a ‘suspicious aircraft’ and launched F-35B jets to intercept it, luckily however this was just an exercise.
Hawk jets and other aircraft, some operated by Cobham, have been simulating air attacks against the Carrier Battle Group.
Suspicious aircraft spotted at range by @HMSDefender, and intercepted by our #F35Bs.
Meanwhile @hms_kent tracked a suspect submarine whilst @HNLMS_Evertsen kept the surface watch.
On, under and over the water – we are securing the area⚓️#WeAreNATO #JW202 #CarrierStrike pic.twitter.com/KtAtiZ5th0
— HMS Queen Elizabeth (@HMSQNLZ) October 7, 2020
Typically, Hawk jets support Dassault Falcon 20DC aircraft acting as long-range anti-ship bombers. The Falcons are flown by Cobham Aviation Services.
Background – What’s going on?
HMS Queen Elizabeth and her Strike Group are currently exercising alongside allied nations in the North Sea, as part of NATO’s largest annual exercise, Joint Warrior.
The Ministry of Defence say that the aim is to provide a complex environment in which the participants can train together, honing tactics and skills in preparation for deployment as a Combined Joint Task Force.
“The scenario for each Joint Warrior is designed to reflect contemporary political tensions – such as the War on Terror and the threat posed by ISIS – and to simulate the hostilities that might result from them. The ultimate aim? To assure maximum preparedness in the face of any threat.”
This massive multinational war exercise involves warships, aircraft, marines and troops from UK, NATO and allied forces.
The MoD also say that exercise doesn’t only allow participating units to hone their specialist roles within a larger war-style setting – “it also helps foster vital links between the UK, NATO and other allied militaries”.
Fantastic picture at the top of the article of HMS Queen Elizabeth muscling her way through moderate seas, although from limited exprience on board the sail training ship Lord Nelson ‘moderate’ is a relative term 🙂
I thought for a moment, from the headline, that she had launched against a real intruder. Certainly, looks as if the capability is developing nicely. Well done to all involved…
Cheers CR
It certainly does. Crowsnest is key though.
Using HMS Defender to locate the aircraft at distance, while travelling at height so it can be detected in order to facilitate the training is different to a low flying aircraft over the horizon that doesn’t want to be seen.
Keen to see the capability mature and quickly. Deploying to SCS without it is frankly a willy waving exercise, and does nothing to deter potential adversaries, or indeed does nothing to convince them that the RN is actually ‘back in the big flat top game’.
In an actual shooting war, I don’t think the Chinese for instance would take an issue with sacrificing 4 jets in an over the radar horizon, pop up and fire suicide mission in order to get 8 hypersonics on target.
Like I said, things are going great, but I’d be more keen on getting a well rounded multi-spectrum capability than rushing into a flag waving exercise that is inevitably going to wind up the Chinese in order for the Government to be able to fake the first operational deployment date & then boast about it.
USN LHA’s such as USS America deploy to the SCS without organic AEW, so it’s not as essential as you make out, very nice to have, yes. Adds a great deal of capability to a carrier strike group, definitely. But essential, no. And the Chinese won’t start firing off missiles for no reason at all. unless the have a political/Economic death wish. Plus the QE will deploy next year with crowsnest, but it won’t have achieved IOC as I understand it. I may be wrong.
I’m in a bit of a grey area with the IOC if I’m honest as I’m not sure myself, but tell the guys on HMS Sheffield that organic AEW isn’t essential.
Also the USMC wouldn’t ever act unilaterally in the SCS without the USN backing it up with a Carrier Group so the point is kind of moot.
Even the island hopping doctrine they are set to adopt would be likely acting in, around or just forward of a USN/radar picket line.
Robert, also… As per my first post I am talking in the event of things hotting up… Not FON exercises… Maybe the SCS deployment will aid in Crowsnest IOC – who knows – I would hope so.
My point was if the SCS tour delays IOC for Crowsnest then it’s a political stunt. If it doesn’t then fair enough – but as I said – I’m not sure either way.
Yes, i agree, but unlike HMS Sheffield, the QE isn’t heading off to war. All the capabilitys will come, it just takes time, and a considerable amount of money. And the QE sailing today, still provides a level of capability far beyond anything the Chinese can muster.
Yep, the USS America had Hawkeye support flying out of the Philippines. However, they also need to tanker support (couldn’t land on the LHA). The USN/USMC are still investigating the best (cost effective) method of providing organic AEW as as good as the Hawkeye is, it couldn’t provide 24/7 coverage.
I would have to disagree. AEW adds a tremendous amount of capability to a carrier strike group especially the E-2D. It extends the radar coverage of the group and is able to detect small, very fast moving targets way before a ship onboard radar could detect them giving the group more time to react. With ASM missiles, hypersonic weapons, ect AEW is essential to the modern CV group. Not having it puts one at a great disadvantage.
I agree, and the QE Class will have a very effective AEW capability once it’s operational, it’s just not critical to have it for the first deployment next year. Crownsnest is scheduled to deploy next year, but it won’t have achieved IOC, as far as I’m aware. ?
I think you’ll find it is critical it deploys next year. Come what may, Crowsnest will be aboard the QE – its a matter of national pride and avoiding the egg on face scenario.
Hi Dan, I fully agree, I was just making a point if Crownsnest wasn’t fully operational for the QE’s first deployment next year.
Without AEW the carrier is dead.
Not at all, it limits its operating environment but it certainly isnt dead. Once Crowsnest is up and running, not the best but good enough.
It’s still a method used by the Russian Navy with their Tu95/142 Bears. The idea being is a Bear searches an area with its long range Leninets Morskaya Zmeya (Sea Snake) search radar and ESM. If it finds the ships it will relay targeting information to other aircraft, but also submarines and ships. However, it will stay high and far away to keep the fleet in view or launch its own anti-ship missiles (AShM), i.e. KH22s, KH35 etc and thereby provide constant targeting information. The Falcons and Hawks mimic this tactic.
Whether, this tactic is actually doable, when the carrier has both Crowsnest and F35Bs is highly debatable.
SEPTEMBER 25, 2020
The strike carrier’s eye in the sky – update on the Crowsnest project
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/tag/crowsnest/
As for China?
Images confirm China is operating J-15 fighter aircraft from third batch
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/images-confirm-china-is-operating-j-15-fighter-aircraft-from-third-batch
They still fitted with those terrible Russian engines?
The J-15 is still plagued with problems – the result of trying to copy a prototype airframe purchased obtained from Ukraine.
The J-15 is not the only aircraft plagued with problems don’t forget.
It will be interesting to see what progress has been made with these engines come 2027 and in what numbers.
The west has a distinct advantage in engineering, but China will eventually have the advantage in numbers.
It would be unwise to underestimate any potential adversary!
“Two decades later, the PLA’s objective is to become a “world-class” military by the end of 2049—a goal first announced by General Secretary Xi Jinping in 2017. Although the CCP has not defined what a “world-class” military means, within the context of the PRC’s national strategy it is likely that Beijing will seek to develop a military by mid-century that is equal to—or in some cases superior to—the U.S. military, or that of any other great power that the PRC views as a threat.
As this year’s report details, the PRC has marshalled the resources, technology, and political will over the past two decades to strengthen and modernize the PLA in nearly every respect. Indeed, as this report shows, China is already ahead of the United States in certain areas such as: OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China ii > Shipbuilding: The PRC has the largest navy in the world, with an overall battle force of approximately 350 ships and submarines including over 130 major surface combatants. In comparison, the U.S. Navy’s battle force is approximately 293 ships as of early 2020.
> Land-based conventional ballistic and cruise missiles: The PRC has more than 1,250 ground launched ballistic missiles (GLBMs) and ground-launched cruise missiles (GLCMs) with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers. The United States currently fields one type of conventional GLBM with a range of 70 to 300 kilometers and no GLCMs. > Integrated air defense systems: The PRC has one of the world’s largest forces of advanced long range surface-to-air systems—including Russian-built S-400s, S-300s, and domestically produced systems—that constitute part of its robust and redundant integrated air defense system architecture.
More striking than the PLA’s staggering amounts of new military hardware are the recent sweeping efforts taken by CCP leaders that include completely restructuring the PLA into a force better suited for joint operations, improving the PLA’s overall combat readiness, encouraging the PLA to embrace new operational concepts, and expanding the PRC’s overseas military footprint.”
https://media.defense.gov/2020/Sep/01/2002488689/-1/-1/1/2020-DOD-CHINA-MILITARY-POWER-REPORT-FINAL.PDF
No one is under estimating anyone, least of all the Chinese……..yes they are looking to an ever increasing fleet, and they have I fear been underestimated in the past. But things have changed as China pursues an ever more aggressive stance, China is one country, us, the USA, Australia and Japan not to mention others are all increasing naval Capabilites to the point where China simply cannot take on the United front. The J15 has no real chance against the F35B, hence their apparent anger at Japan’s intention to deploy them, and China’s land based anti ship missiles would be targeted and destroyed prior to any serious conflict.
With the introduction of the S-500 the goal posts have changed and not necessarily in our favour. China already operates the S-300 and S-400. No doubt they will purchase these as well.
Both Russia and China are conducting joint war games, and of course you have Iran and quite possibly Turkey the way things are looking, so it’s not all one sided.
As for the F35 vs the S-500 no one actually knows the answer other than radar technology will one day be able to counter stealth, the question is when?
https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia-pacific/2020/06/01/chinas-missile-and-space-tech-is-creating-a-defensive-bubble-difficult-to-penetrate/
The S500 relies on the ability to track a target and successfully engage it. The radars can be overwhelmed and confused by large numbers of fast moving drones closely followed by cruise missiles…….. as Russia seeks to create even more advanced systems, so we create effective means to counter them.
And so it goes on, with the added concern of the introduction of the first Anti-Ship Ballistic missiles things could get very interesting!
“The South China Morning Post reported that Chinese forces fired one DF-26B and one DF-21D on Aug. 26, 2020. An American defense official subsequently told Reuters that the United States had assessed that the People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force (PLARF) had fired four medium-range ballistic missiles (MRBM) – defined as ballistic missiles with maximum ranges between 621 miles and 1,864 miles – in total, but that analysis of the available intelligence was ongoing to determine what types were launched. The DF-21D is an MRBM, but the DF-26B is an intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM), a category consisting of notably longer-range weapons able to hit targets out to distances between 1,864 miles and 3,417 miles.”
China has powerful military drones but won’t use them like the US, analysts say
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3045440/china-has-powerful-military-drones-wont-use-them-us-analysts
And so it goes on and with the introduction of the first Anti-Ship Ballistic missiles things could get very interesting!
“The South China Morning Post reported that Chinese forces fired one DF-26B and one DF-21D on Aug. 26, 2020. An American defense official subsequently told Reuters that the United States had assessed that the People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force (PLARF) had fired four medium-range ballistic missiles (MRBM) – defined as ballistic missiles with maximum ranges between 621 miles and 1,864 miles – in total, but that analysis of the available intelligence was ongoing to determine what types were launched.
The DF-21D is an MRBM, but the DF-26B is an intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM), a category consisting of notably longer-range weapons able to hit targets out to distances between 1,864 miles and 3,417 miles.”
China has powerful military drones but won’t use them like the US, analysts say
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3045440/china-has-powerful-military-drones-wont-use-them-us-analysts
Much like missile technology, radars etc, stealth technology is continually developing. The S500 system is an interesting development. It was primarily designed as an anti-ballistic missile system, but has like all programs, morphed. It is now intended to be able to deal with low earth orbit satellites, UAVs, aircraft and unsurprisingly hypersonic missiles. According to a lot of sources, the system is designed to be just as mobile as the S400 but have better reaction times. The system follows a similar layout to the S400 with a separate control centre, power supply, a number of missile vehicles. However, it is supposed to use four individual radars, Long Range Search, volume search, and two target tracking radars. just like the S400, the system can be networked with other SAM and radar systems. According to the blurb it is supposed to work in parallel with the S400. The system will initially use the same missiles as the S400, i.e. the long range 40N6, but will start to use a development in the 40N6M, which is slightly slower but has a longer range. The 40N6 series use a combined active/semi-active radar and also make use of command guidance for intercepts. It should be a very effective missile.
Like any radar based system it can be countered by stealth, as both are governed by radar theory. Basically the S400/500 relies on the interpretation of the returned signal to determine if there is a threat or not. Stealth works by either deflecting the signal away from the receiver, completely absorbing the transmitted signal or only allowing a very small portion to be returned. Atmospheric absorption will also degrade the transmitted and returned signal. The main issue therefore is target distance away from the radar’s transmitter/receiver. If a F35, is for example, some 200 miles away from the radar the combination of the aircraft’s radar absorbent material (RAM) and distance will mean no signal is returned to the radar. At say 100 miles, the aircraft may start to return some signal to the radar, but it will be minute. At 50 miles there will probably be enough signal return to generate a threat warning.
The above is a rough assumption based around the S400’s performance, as the S500 radar’s power output figures have not been released. However, it can be assumed that the system is a development of S400, so there will be marginal power improvements. The radars will most likely to begin with based on PESA rather than AESA, as Russia are lagging behind in that technical department. But it’s the signal processing were they massively lag behind the West. An aircraft’s radar cross section varies depending on the radar frequency illuminating it. However, an aircraft such as the F35 focuses its RAM at defeating certain frequency bands of radar. These are the higher frequencies used by tracking radars and those used by active missiles, so X, Ku and Ka bands and to a lesser extent S and L band. There is too much of an angular discrepancy at lower frequencies to generate a descent target resolution for a missile lock. This is where command guidance can play its part. The lower frequency search radars may be able to get a decent return and thus determine that the threat is “over there and is roughly x distance away”. The missile launches in that direction and the command guidance steers it using targeting updates. Much like how the F117 was brought down, if you launch a number of missiles in the general vicinity of a threat, the missile’s proximity fuse may detect the threat and detonate.
Performance of radar these days is determined by the quality of its signal processing. The West has been using Gallium Arsenide (GaAr) based transistors for high powered amplification and filtering. These were significantly better than the previous silicon based ones. However, today we are switching over to Gallium Nitride (GaN) based transistors. The GaN technology is a step change in performance over GaAr in both power generation, wider bandwidth filtering, but more importantly much lower noise generation. Russia are banned from buying this technology, so have to develop it themselves. This is a crucial performance disadvantage for all Russian radars, as it means their level of signal processing is a long way behind the Wests. For example Sampson is now over 20 years old, yet is still uses GaAr based transistor technology (for the moment). When compared with the S400’s radars, the Sampson combines the functions of 91NE6E volume search radar, the 96L6 high altitude radar and the 96L6E low altitude radar as its an AESA based system rather than PESA. The performance of Sampson has been classified ever since it was produced. However, it is stated that it can detect a cricket ball sized object on the horizon. A cricket ball is about 8cm in diameter, so has an approximate RCS of 0.1 to 0.5 metres squared (depending on frequency and the ball’s construction, it will have a high RCS though because it is spherical).
The S400 has a published performance figure for a target with RCS of 4 square metres = 390 km. The F35 has been said to have a frontal RCS between 0.005 and 0.0015 metres squared. So the actual distance that one of S400’s radars will detect it will be much shorter. The S500 being a development will have a slightly better detection performance, but not significantly. The F35 will be able to get pretty close and launch either a small diameter bomb or Spear-3 at it, before its detected. To make matters worse we may also be getting Spear-EW to properly mess them up!
For some unknown reason the moderator has failed to let me post on the latest news in regard to Crowsnest.
You can find this @ Save The Royal Navy!
I’m sure the exercise is generating some interest and snooping from Russia. I wonder if there has been any increased air or sub activity? I am wondering whether QRA Typhoons would respond or whether QE would attempt to mount its own response.
As I understand it the F35 B’s primary role is as an attack aircraft and the QRA Typhoons are dedicated ‘dogfighters’ but can one of you boffins explain how good the ‘B’ will be in the Air defence role covering the Task force?
With the radar, data sharing & the Meteor BVR when that eventually comes online one would expect, extremely good.
An enemy would not see them coming. There would not be a dogfight.
Agree with the above. The low probability of detection capabilities of the APG-81, means even if it’s active. it’s unlikely to be detected. The F35B will be perfectly adequate for providing combat air patrols (CAP). The aircraft will be armed with ASRAAM and AMRAAM, so will be very hard to counter. In the short term, the ship can do without Crowsnest by relying of the F35 to provide over the horizon cover. However, the radar was never really designed for this, so Crowsnest would be better suited. Especially as it would mean the CAP having to flying in race track patterns, to make sure they have 360 degree coverage. The only disadvantage F35 has, is really in quick reaction alert duties, as its time to height is much slower (relative) than Typhoon. Both can be aerial refuelled so duration is not a problem (except we don’t have an organic capability on the carrier – doh!).
The other thing with F35 is the ability to produce a composite radar picture from more than one.
What would be really interesting would be combining that with CrowsNest.
The assumes the enemy isn’t also flying stealthy jets. With US/Russia/China all looking to sell their jets, I would think the chances are that the next major war would involve both sides having stealth fighters and with both sides struggling to get radar locks I would guess this would result in dog fights coming more likely
Not for our F35Bs, we can’t be bothered to buy the gun pods. Thankfully we’ll have USMC birds aboard equipped with it instead.
How good are these supposed enemy stealth jets? Can they- if they exist – dogfight?
You don’t need a canon to dog fight, although it in theory gives you more options.
The F35-B will carry Meteor in about seven years time plus Spear Cap 3 once Block V software has been installed (2026) and the missiles cleared for use.
Japan pushes forward with JNAAM co-development
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/japan-pushes-forward-with-jnaam-co-development
No fast jet pilot wants to ‘dogfight ‘ They want to kill the bad guy from 20 miles away, and survive to fight another day.
Very good, All aspect stealth, AMRAAM ASRAAM (Meteor in a few years), The APG 81 is a hugely capable radar, Helmet mounted site, integrated avionics fuse the air picture together to give unrivalled situational awareness and allow the pilot to manage the aircraft signature. Stealth isn’t just about airframe shaping. And SA is the real winner in modern air combat. Performance and agility is still hugely relevant, and the F35 is no slouch, but situational awareness wins the day.
I’d bet on sub activity, even possibly Chinese I they’re serious. The interesting bit would be our reposte, but good luck with finding out about that. All other UK assets will be on the case as needed, no doubt.
A couple of us seawolfs have visited faslaine very recently so odds are they are still hanging around.
QRA Typhoons would respond if the QE is in UK waters as she is currently. QRA is a very complicated but very well practiced role involving many parties. The Jets responding are the final link in the chain.
Julian.
I bet there is. In the mid seventies the Russkies commissioned ‘Kiev’ a light aircraft carrier. I read that a British sub was tasked to go up into the Barents Sea find the new ship, shadow it thus recording it’s acoustic footprint and even went close underneath to take photos of the hull. Made one successful pass only to find there was no film in the cameras and had to go back again. Pulled it all off undetected. I’d be very surprised if the Russians aren’t planning something similar for HMS Lizzie.
No need for a sub to take pictures of the hull, Google images has them covered ?
This post was very interesting.
The DF-21 has a range of around 1,800km, with state media describing the most advanced in the series, the DF-21D, as the world’s first anti–ship ballistic missile. The source said the missile launch was aimed at improving China’s ability to deny other forces access to the South China Sea, a disputed region.26 Aug 2020
https://www.andrewerickson.com/2020/08/the-china-anti-ship-ballistic-missile-asbm-bookshelf-2/#:~:text=The%20DF%2D21%20has%20a,China%20Sea%2C%20a%20disputed%20region.
It will be interesting to see how we plan to counter these types of missiles over the coming decades.
Clearly satellite imagery will play a part in identifying both carrier strike groups and missile defences that could engage them.
Russia’s latest S-500 has been designed to engage low orbiting satellites amongst other things, so interesting times ahead!
“A military insider says the weapon is now in active service. It has a range of about 2000-3000km [1242-1864 miles] and is mainly designed for big targets at sea.”
“Big targets at sea” almost certainly means “aircraft carriers.”
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/chinas-df-100-anti-ship-missiles-are-ready-sink-us-navy-90741
The reality of accurately targeting and tracking a modern vessel moving at speed (if you can even find it) from 3000km away is dubious to say the least. Vessels that go electronically silent can be very difficult to find in open sea.
The ocean is getting smaller by the day! I wonder what military satellites can achieve?
Satellites to monitor ships that turn off their AIS
Startup UnseenLabs informed about its intentions to launch up to six more ship-tracking cubesats during 2020. The satellites aim to monitor maritime traffic, by using orbiting sensors to track vessels that turn off their AIS.
https://safety4sea.com/satellites-to-monitor-ships-that-turn-off-their-ais/
I assume China can do the exact same thing? At the last count they had over 250 land based systems along the coast of South China Sea.
Satellites Track Chinese Aircraft Carrier In South China Sea
“So how do you find a specific ship far out to sea? Unlike civilian ships the carrier was not broadcasting its position on AIS (Automated Identification System). Many ships use AIS in order to avoid collisions so it is a go-to for OSINT analysts. Warships however, use it selectively as it can be used by adversaries to track movements. So it is no surprise that the carrier group was not on AIS.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/hisutton/2020/04/23/satellites-track-chinese-aircraft-carrier-in-south-china-sea/
Perhaps we should be looking to defend the UK with some additional land based systems, a subject I’ve touched on before.
Clearly the RN and RAF require something with a longer range too.
LRASM plus Aster 30 Block-1 and Block-2 BMD?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/oct/08/china-strategic-threat-to-uk-as-northern-sea-route-clears-says-royal-navy-chief
And it’s been explained why we don’t have land based missiles to you before.
And it’s been explained to you many times before by me why your needle in a haystack theory is little more than a joke.
Your very much out of touch.
The ice is melting, creating access to the Atlantic, read the post and think again.
“Speaking aboard the new aircraft carrier HMS Prince of Wales, in Portsmouth, he stated: “When China sails its growing navy into the Atlantic, which way will it come – the long route or the short route. And these routes skirt the coast of that resurgent Russia. A Russia that is now more active in the Atlantic – our back yard – than it has ever done for over 30 years.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/china-military-arctic-ice-caps-melt-uk-navy-russia-tony-radakin-b889695.html
I’m out of touch?? ? You think China is suddenly going to deploy an invasion force to the East Coast of the UK, for no apparent reason at all. Id lay off the Tom Clancy novels Nigel. Plus some very clever people in the pentagon and MOD have very up to date intelligence of global threats. Leave it to the experts.
Like the one in the article you just replied to.
Tony Radakin, the First Sea Lord.
And he’s also not calling for UK land based missiles, because he knows what he’s talking about.
That’s because he unlike you is already aware or the threat.
Try keeping uptodate with what’s happening in relation to defence rather than being constantly behind the times.
SEPTEMBER 8, 2020
“gap in the shield – the cruise missile threat to the UK
There is a growing conventional threat to the UK mainland that has received little attention and for which there is very limited defence.
Adversaries are increasing cruise missile numbers and capabilities. Air and surface-launched missiles would be difficult to counter but submarine-launched cruise missiles are particularly potent. Here we consider the threat and how the UK could respond.”
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/a-gap-in-the-shield-the-cruise-missile-threat-to-the-uk/
Maybe you should watch the news, and realise WW3 isn’t imminent with the Chinese. And no invasion force is heading for the UK.
I’ll keep my eye out for them just in case using commercial satellites!
Maybe you should inform the MOD or MI6, and tell them about some Chinese intelligence they might have missed from ‘save the Royal Navy’ or some other website that needs hits to stay in existence.
I don’t think China will do a show the flag exercise in the Atlantic just yet, as their Navy has very little experience in operating far from shore. However, to gain that experience they will need to venture further afield. I would fully expect them to start showing the flag in areas outside of the South China Sea in the next couple of years, specifically the Western Pacific and East Indian Ocean. They have already done an exercise around Taiwan with their carrier group, showing the could blockade Taiwan if needed to. Could you imagine the outcry, if they decided to sail around Guam or Diego Garcia etc?
After the QE group does the World tour next year. I would say its a sure bet that China will want to emulate it. But not in the immediate future, maybe in 3 to 5 years perhaps, when it has more sea legs under its belt?
First Type 31 & 26 will not be in service until 2026/7.
Both China and Russia will have access to our backyard.
Whoever explained this needs to apply just a little bit of common sense, unless they are Russian or Chinese trolls.
“Nearest the camera, a line of four newly constructed destroyers catch the sunlight. Two are Type-052D air-defense destroyers, generally equivalent to the U.S. Navy’s Arleigh Burke Class AEGIS destroyers.
These displace 7,500 tons and can carry 64 large missiles including long range surface to air missiles (SAMs) and cruise missiles.
The other two are larger Type-055 Class ships. These are also described as air-defense destroyers but are verging on cruisers in terms of size and fit. These are about twice the displacement and carry over 100 large missiles.
Behind them is the shipyard with its mass of construction halls and cranes. In the basin where the newest ships are docked after launch are another four destroyers. Again there are both Type-052D and Type-055 ships.
Together with another Type-055 under construction on the left of the image, this brings the total number of large destroyers visible to 9.
To put that into context, the Royal Navy’s entire destroyer fleet is just 6 ships. And this yard is just part of a much bigger construction program.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/hisutton/2019/12/15/china-is-building-an-incredible-number-of-warships/
Who says its disputed? The UN? Just because China has to shout its mouth off does not mean that what it says is gospel.
If everyone runs away then they can rule the world … but the point of deterrence is to erm, deter.
If you want to defend Britain – instead of wittering on about it just go out and buy stuff from other than China. Then let them sit up.
I wonder if that very un-aerodynamic carier bow does not take at least 1 kt on carrier speed.
I doubt it, at 32 knots the amount of aerodynamic drag is not that high, plus its not much more un-aerodynamic than any American Carrier of CDG, as the only difference is the ski-jump, and it is not big enough to heavily affect a 65-70kT carrier.
A question for the Japanese AlexS!
08 OCTOBER 2020
Japan’s converted Izumo-class carriers will not feature a ‘ski-jump’ ramp for F-35B operations
“The Japan Maritime Self Defense Force (JMSDF) has decided that its two Izumo-class helicopter carriers will not be fitted with a ‘ski-jump’ ramp to facilitate operations of the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter, Janes has learnt.”
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/japans-converted-izumo-class-carriers-will-not-feature-a-ski-jump-ramp-for-f-35b-operations
Seems things end up the shape they are for a reason. Like maths, then here you go:-
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0029801818318705&ved=2ahUKEwiF4oHi4a7sAhUUVBUIHbtmAroQFjAKegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw3qRRWjV2RI-2gzII-iG2RM&cshid=1602496334218
Regards
Excellent Gavin, many thanks. I understand the aerodynamics priority are for the flight operations for obvious reasons.
A very comprehensive study. However, one aspect is puzzling me, which is shown in Figure 25. This shows the computed airflow hitting just below the front deck and the front of the ski ramp. The problem I have with it is it only shows one airstream, but it is split and it looks like they have based their conclusion around this one airstream. Granted as is shown, the air will try to follow a curved surface and thus try to remain laminar. However, it should also show the air that hits well below the curve for the ramp, i.e. the flat vertical face above the bow. The air is presented with a oncoming 90 degree flat surface, it will do two things, one slow right down, the other is, it will increase in pressure. The air will then try to follow the structure, but because there is a higher laminar flow above this, the air will be dragged up into it. The higher pressure air will mix with the lower pressure laminar air, but because the higher pressure is greater, the average will be a rise in pressure, but also airmass. So what I believe is not shown, is that the increase in airmass will cause an upward vector or basically an additional thicker bubble of air right near the front of the ski ramps curve. This additional mass helps support the aircraft as it passes over the curve giving additional lift. It may not be a massive increase as it will depend on the ship’s forward speed and the local air (wind) speed, but every little helps – clever!
It has been said that the Hermes ski ramp is a more aesthetically pleasing design. However, the QE’s ski ramp design is more aerodynamically effective. So I guess the moral of the story is, don’t judge a book by its cover!
This likelihood was anticipated for the small scale model and then confirmed during water tunnel testing. Full scale computation evidently anticipated this would not be replicated, which is illustrated in fig 25, such that the increase in laminar ground effect at the ramp for additional F35 lift, and longitudinal flow down the length of the deck become the beneficial result.
The article as a whole though does indicate what is involved in the early design process, for this one aspect alone, and in vessel certification under real world conditions during trials, which hopefully endorsed the experimentation. An eye opener for sure.
Do allied F35B share ALL data gleaned from their sensors?
And are F35b flying CAP at all times?
As to the Chinese, surely they’re already operating in the North Atlantic
I’m usure where we stand today. Hopefully the required funding has been allocated and the equipment installed?
29. Ms Haynes and Mr Mostrous noted that the US had invested in a Battlefield Airborne Communications Node (BACN) and a multi-function advanced data link (MADL) to enable secure transmission of data between the F-35s and legacy aircraft and vessels. By contrast, they claimed that, while similar technology has been trialled in an F-35-Typhoon demonstration, “as things stand today the funding is not there to bring that capability forward”.24
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmdfence/326/326.pdf
Project Babel Fish was used to determine how a F35 with the enormous amount of data it collects, could transfer it to a Typhoon. An F35 can talk to any other Link-16 equipped aircraft as it also has Link-16. However, due to the very small bandwidth and slow data transfer rates. High capacity data such as live radar or imagery feeds could not be transferred. Project Babel Fish was to investigate how the F35 could transfer this type of data. The person who put the report together has clearly very little understanding of how data-link systems or identification friend or foe (IFF) work or has been given bad gen’. For example when they used the quote:
“The Royal Navy’s new aircraft carrier is understood to lack a Multifunctional Advanced Data Link (MADL), which enables covert transmissions of data. It means that an F-35 returning to the carrier in stealth mode would be indistinguishable on radar from an enemy missile, one source said. The source raised the possibility of an accompanying British ship, such as the Type 45 destroyer, shooting down a jet returning to the carrier in error.”
The statement is simply bollocks and scare mongering at its worse. The MADL is not used for IFF purposes. The aircraft has a dedicated IFF transponder as does a T45. The aircraft will be transmitting IFF when approaching the ships. the F35s IFF is directional and uses the latest Mode 5 techniques, which means they are very unlikely to be jammed or detected by other parties, unless they are in between the aircraft and ship.
The issue with Link-16 on other aircraft is that it transmits omni-directionally and will be detected by other parties with the right surveillance equipment. MADL by comparison uses electronic beam steering and counter-countermeasure techniques just like AESA radar. This makes it highly directional and very difficult to intercept or jam. Link-16 operates from 960 to 1250MHz whilst MADL operates in the Ku band (12 to 18 GHz). By operating at these higher frequencies, its data transfer rates and bandwidth is significantly higher. There some things you can do to increase the bandwidth of Link-16. Which is done by stacking transceivers, these operate at slightly different frequencies within the Link-16 band. It helps, but is still nowhere near the capacity of MADL. Link-16 when stacked up is more like 3G, whilst MADL is like the very best performing 5G.
A F35 using Link-16 codes through its MADL has the ability to control AMRAAM. This is already done on E3Ds, where they can take over control of Typhoons AMRAAMS. There is still an issue of the amount of data the F35 can transmit, the pilot has to select what is transmitted, which is major bottleneck and takes their focus off what’s happening around them.
Along with MADL, cooperative engagement capability (CEC) is another data-link system that should be a priority requirement. The future of winning conflicts will be the side that has the best live data and those who can use it to its full potential.
Absolutely awesome to see the uk back in the global naval game.
Although there is a mass of activity/clutter around Europe and specifically the UK we should be relatively easy to defend being compact.
I think now is a good time to start gearing up. Start too soon and everything is OOD but we need to start sometime.
I bet all the “carrier with no aircraft” posters are absolutly gutted with the speed and progression of the Carrier Battle Group. Yes there are holes, lack of AEW, hopefully soon sorted, limited escorts etc but on the whole bloody good effort. However I do notice the doomsayers have now changed tack, now its “No AEW, Shit F35s, more yanks than Brits, not enough escorts/missiles, hyper velocity missiles, the carriers can sink (yes all ships can actualy sink) colour scheme is rubbish, that anchor has rust on it blah blah” Yes some are genuine issues but which can all be worked around with new SOPs, drills and skills, thats what the military does, it evalutes risk, and creates SOPs to mitiagte risk to the best of its ability, in order to opererate effectively, in any environment to enable an offensive posture and kinetic effect. Constructive critisism is essential, but the whinging is quite sad.
Main concern is that they carefully organised this task force, making sure the ships got through maintenance perfectly aligned, etc. Can this type of task force be created on an ongoing basis outside this big press op.
Joint Warrior is anything but a press op. It’s a very realistic exercise, that tests and exposes the assests involved to potentially very real life scenarios. It’s very high quality training.
I agree that Joint Warrior is not just a press op. However, the carrier strike group taking part in it very much is one, especially considering the carrier group is not fully operational yet.
And that’s why it is taking part, to build up that experience, and to fully integrate the USMC into the way of life on-board, as well as all the exciting stuff. And working as part of a task group with numerous other vessels. It all takes time and experience, this is why so few countries can operate aircraft carriers.
And this forum has Nigel C as a local doomsayer. Always the first with real or imaginary bad news. As evidenced above.
He sure does like to big up the bad guys ?
You mean the one who is aware of the potential risks we could face and points this out. I’m constantly pointing things out to you on here Ron5, or rather attempting to educate you.
A bit of a waste of time I know, as do most people on here by now.
It certainly does. Crows nest is key though. Using HMS Defender to locate the aircraft at distance, while travelling at height so it can be detected in order to facilitate the training is different to a low flying aircraft over the horizon that doesn’t want to be seen. Keen to see the capability mature and quickly. Deploying to SCS without it is frankly a willy waving exercise, and does nothing to deter potential adversaries, or indeed does nothing to convince them that the RN is actually ‘back in the big flat top game’. In an actual shooting war, I don’t think…»
Hi All,
Some great photos of HMS Queen Elizabeth on the BBC News website. They are from the RN’s annual photo competition…
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-54420134
There are also some photos from wider catagories which remind us what it means to serve.
Cheers CR
Fantastic images. ???
What was it like cleaning the heads onboard the carriers Robert? ?
Didn’t have to do to much of that stuff, I was busy on the flight deck, or hangar, fixing radar snags on the FA2, or Sniper pods or FLIR on GR7/9. Flight deck BBQ’s and sundowner beers were always fun.