An Astute class nuclear submarine, armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles, will deploy with HMS Queen Elizabeth and her Carrier Strike Group.

According to the Ministry of Defence, on the 28-week deployment spanning 26,000 nautical miles the Carrier Strike Group will conduct engagements with Singapore, the Republic of Korea, Japan and India as part of the UKā€™s tilt towards the Indo-Pacific region.

HMS Astute fires a Tomahawk missile.

A statement from the Ministry of Defence regarding this deployment confirms the presence of a submarine:

“HMS Queen Elizabeth, the most powerful surface vessel in the Royal Navyā€™s history, will next month set sail as the flagship of a Carrier Strike Group. Joining her will be a surface fleet of Type 45 destroyers, HMS Defender and HMS Diamond, Type 23 anti-submarine frigates HMS Kent and HMS Richmond, and the Royal Fleet Auxiliaryā€™s RFA Fort Victoria and RFA Tidespring. Deep below the surface, a Royal Navy Astute-class submarine will be deployed in support, armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles.”

It is unusual for the Ministry of Defence to comment on submarine deployments so it is likely the point of this is to send a message.

You can read more about the upcoming deployment by visiting the link below.

Largest concentration of UK seapower in a generation to sail

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

100 COMMENTS

    • Wonder how many United States F35’s will deploy. Guess by 2024/2025 the UK will be able to deploy larger numbers. It will be fascinating to see how things go for the Task Group.

      • Think the RN has Crowsnest with initial operating capabilities now. Don’t know if it would be deployed though.

      • I’m almost 100% certain Crowsnest will sail with the CSG. I think they were prioritising it through IOC specifically to get there. Because it’s a system that’s supposed to roll on/roll off the Merlins, it may not have warranted a line in the list of aircraft.

      • As part of the 7 Merlin I guess. We’d read the kit can be moved between cabs as needed.
        I’d hoped for a dedicated squadron like the Sea Kings of 849 but not enough Merlin for that.

    • Hi Daniele,

      I think you are right about the Invincibles deploying with 22 aircraft. Of course with the USMC there will be at least 30, even so for a carrier that could allegedly cram 72 aircraft on board (36x F35b’s) according to forces.net, that hangar is going to have plenty of spare room.

      Nevertheless, hugely proud to see the UK putting together such a capability.

      Just goes to show we can still put a significant force together and deploy it. Many people forget that deploying naval forces is as much about planning, managing resources and basing rather than just the ships. The RN has 300 years experience in global deployment so I guess they are pretty good at it by now.

      Politics also plays a key role, so the FCDO will be playing its part, which makes the announcement of the submarine’s role in the deployment doubly interesting.

      Cheers CR

      • Agree with you. Huge amount of hard work and effort has gone into this. ‘Well done’ to all involved in the planning.

        • Hi mate. 22 is correct. We deployed with 17 Harriers. 9 GR7 and 8 FA2’s, plus 5 Seakings, 4 AEW, and 1 SAR back in 2001. It was incredibly hard work. Flying stations would finish, and we would still be moving aircraft around 6 hours later. Getting one jet out of the hangar, often meant we had to move 4 others to get it out. Then range the jets for the next days flying. You would just get that done, then suddenly we needed to carry out a HP (High Power) ground run on a jet. So you had to move another 4 aircraft to get it in position for the HP ground anchor points. The flight deck only had one on the centre line at the aft end. All in the heat of the Red Sea. Deep joy šŸ„µ. And that’s the key difference. 22 aircraft was the absolute limit of what could be achieved with the Invincible class. 22 on the QE will be a walk in the park. And not even close to it’s limits. The capability we will have in the years to come with a few more F35’s, Crowsnest, and a new generation of UCAV’S, loyal wingman ect plus the Merlins, Wildcats, Chinooks, Apache’s will be light years away from this first deployment. F35 capability growth will be on another level from anything we have operated before. And despite the doom and gloom DOD reports about delays and cost overruns. The pilots who fly it, absolutely love it. And will provide a level of capability we can take to sea unmatched by any of our advisories for years to come. It really will transform how we conduct air warfare. It’s the silent assassin that can sneak through the back door and slit the enemy’s throat, while our Typhoons do the heavy lifting. šŸ‘

          • Agree. Too many doom mongers around, even for positives in the wider scheme of things!
            22. Cheers mate.

          • Agreed. We also hosted 14 AV8B’s of the USMC back in 2007 for a month, plus a V22 on-board Illustrious. So this kind of Joint operations with the USMC go back a long way.

          • Agree too. In their life time, the new carriers will give capabilities we can’t currently imagine. Technological advancement is so rapid these days. However, it needs to be matched by huge R&D investment and clever forward planning. Not the MoD’s strongest skillset and that’s me being kind.

          • Hi George. The QE class has huge potential. In the first 10 years of the Invincible class we typically deployed 8 Sea Harriers, and usually 8-12 Seakings. Fast forward another 10 years and we started taking Harrier GR7 capability to sea. Sea Harrier now had AMRAAM capability. We deployed to sea Chinooks, Apache, Merlin, Lynx, (Army Lynx) Gazelle and USMC Seaknights, AV8B’s, and a V22 for a few day’s in 2007. All that from a pretty small 21k tonne carrier. So you are correct in saying, we can hardly imagine the things we will be doing with these vessels in 10-15 year’s time, as is the pace of technology, capability and adaptability šŸ‡¬šŸ‡§

    • Lets hope the CCP do not invade Taiwan while we are deficient of F35B’s. Also, I wonder if the Osprey based in air refuelling system will be tested with British F35B’s. That could be a game changer. Permitting the F35 to ski jump with maximum payload and minimum fuel.

          • Yes but those I’ve seen in testing, all require catapults and arrester wires for carrier operation. The RN do not have that capability. (For reasons I can’t fathom and must simply accept.) If there is a STOVL refuelling UAV in development, I’ve not seen it.
            That’s why the V22 idea was so good. Perhaps the RN FAA can pick up where the USMC left off with the concept and take it to fruition.
            Granted it’s an expensive and inefficient way to do things. But is it more so than the alternative of buddy stores on the precious few F35B’s available. In RN service, the V22 could be used as a AEW platform too. With longer endurance, range and speed than the current helicopter version. Splitting the operational cost of yet another aircraft type. Just some musings.

      • Whether we set sail with 8 F35s or 30+ makes no matter; we wouldn’t exactly go charging in alone to defend Taiwan. It’d be stupid.

        • As part of a coalition with the US to defend Taiwan. I’m assuming the USMC would want and need their f35’s back! As part of a coalition without the US. Would they even permit their aircraft and pilots to take part at all.
          Either way, sabre rattling with an empty scabbarded is embarrassing.

          Before Beijing Biden usurped the White House, I was expecting a modern version of SEATO to emerge before, during or after the joint exercises. With Japan, India, Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, US and UK as member states. With some others in the region such as South Korea as potential members. (See: NEW ALLIANCE AGAINST CHINA: D-10 COUNTRIES THREATENED BY CHINA UNITE AGAINST IT.)

      • Hi George. During deck trials with the F35, the did fly the jet fully loaded. 6 x Paveway 4, 2 x AMRAAM and 2 x ASRAAM. plus full internal fuel. šŸ‘

        • Excellent but I bet the fuel consumption to take off with that full load, must have been excessive. The ability to top off the tank after take off would be useful, don’t you think. Then refuel on the way home if needed. Converting a V22 would be worth the effort.
          I wish I were a few decades younger to see what happens next. My service days are long gone.

          • V22 as a tanker isn’t an option. But large UCAV’S as tankers and AEW are in the works. Along with studies to fit a catapult to compliment the ramp. This site has a good article about such capability. It has to be remembered that the F35 only uses dry power for takeoff , even when fully loaded. Reheat isn’t used during any part of the launch procedure. That alone saves a big chunk of fuel. šŸ‘

          • Cheers Rob. That sounds almost impossible but with a single engine capable of super cruise combined with the ski jump. OK this old school grunt is convinced..
            Search: The Corps is on track to turn the MV-22 into a refueling tanker And on YouTube: Bell Boeing V-22 Aerial Refueling Proof of Concept Flight (US spellings)
            There are many concepts proven and simply left on the shelf as solutions to problems not yet met MV22 tankers may be an option but perhaps not worth the effort at this time. We’ll just have to wait and see.
            One thing is certain, there are quantum leaps in capability on the horizon.

          • The P&W F135 in the back of the F35 produces 27,000 lbf in dry power alone, and 41,000lbf in full reheat. And 40,000 lbf In dry power with the lift fan engaged. It’s a wonder of engineering when you see it up close. I think with V-22, the sheer cost is enough to stop us buying any. They are extremely expensive.

    • It will be interesting to see how the numbers break down. By the way it’s written, it sounds like those numbers are spread across the group itself. If not, it will be intersting to see the full composition.

      • I had not considered that.

        So the 4 Wildcat with the escorts and the HC4’s lily padding from the RFA’s as necessary.

        • I would hazard a guess at:

          2 HM2 with Richmond and Kent.
          1 HM2 OR HC4 with Tidespring.
          4 Wildcat with Diamond and Defender.
          2 OR 3 HC4 with Fort Vic.

          The others would be on QE, mix of ASW and AEW.

          Just my takeaway from it all. It’s also likely that the numbers may change, and there’s always room for miscommunications/typos to crop up. Just look at the publication about Gibraltar’s new patrol ships. ‘HMS Ships’?

          • Ah, of course, they’re tailed 23s.
            I Know there are Merlin Ships Flights but
            I thought 820 was the dedicated Carrier Merlin squadron so assumed they would operate from the carrier.
            I’d have hoped the 22 were the carrier complement but you’re probably correct.

          • I guess it’s just a case of watching this space! The more helicopters the better though. šŸ˜‰

          • I just saw the confirmation from 815. Wildcats will be embarked on the four escorts.

            (With Sea Venom!)

        • 21 at present (18 in the UK, and you know where the other three are). I’d love to see all 18 embarked, but baby steps are needed. 8 embarked really isn’t too bad. It will likely increase in size and scope for future deployments. Consider the USMC aircraft as a helpful way of building knowledge and understanding regarding the operation of a larger amount of fixed wing airfcraft within the taskgroup. It’s going to be the first time she has deployed for an extended amount of time with the full nine yards. Crawl, walk, run is still very much a thing.

      • 18 production in UK with 3 T&E in the US (17 SQN). A squadron of 12 would have been quite demanding but I was hoping at more than 8. We may of course get more delivered before they sail….

  2. It’s weak statement when most of the F35 on board are American and not British on a British carrier, something that never happened in British naval history before. Anyone using allies excuse is delusional. Imagine the moral of the British naval officers . Why does government not order more jets? Why so slow? We all know why I guess already

      • Well, that’s a very good start. Hopefully a few more years and numbers can be boosted quite a bit. Will be an impressive view.

    • 10 USMC and 8 FAA/RAF? That would make 55% of the F-35 American. While I’m a tad disappointed we can’t stump up another 2 aircraft, I think that “most” aircraft being American is slightly overstating it- don’t you?

        • Haha, yeah, when being utilised correctly they should be!
          To be fair to him, he did specify F35 rather than number of airframes total, but that metric doesn’t do justice to how important those helicopters are to the operation of the CSG.

      • Flight without formulae (1970) definition of aeroplane: A heavier than air flying machine, supported by aerofoils, designed to obtain when driven through the air at an angle inclined to its direction of motion, a reaction from the air at approximately right-angles to its surfaces. Ergo, helicopters are aeroplanes. An aircraft is literally any man made object that has flight capabilities…so, hot air balloons, dirigibles….the paper aeroplane that I have just made!

        • As an aerospace engineer, I think you’re misinterpreting the quote slightly. All the things you mentioned are aircraft, yes, but a helicopter is not an aeroplane as its aerofoils (rotor blades) are not required to be “driven through the air at an angle inclined to its direction of motion” in order to generate lift. Rather, rotary-wing aircraft can generate lift regardless of their direction of motion.

          • A good point, but presumably as the rotor blades are being driven through the air at an angle inclined to their direction of motion, circular, then it is an aeroplane. I’m not sure my quote is correct as I am working from memory…reading Flight without formulae when I should have been revising for O levels circa 1970!šŸ˜‰

          • That’s fair enough haha, I suppose some argument could be made for calling the individual rotor blades aeroplanes, but the ability to generate lift in a direction roughly perpendicular to their direction of travel is what makes them aerofoils. Being part of a larger system (i.e. a helicopter) probably disqualifies them from being aeroplanes in their own right. Most definitions of aeroplane tend to include the term “fixed-wing” to avoid this confusion. If you’re interested in any further reading that doesn’t get overly technical, I would recommend John D Anderson’s “Introduction to Flight” as well as his other works. He is American, so you would have to put up with his inability to spell, but his writing style is generally informative and engaging.

          • Thanks Daniel…I think that the definition needed expanding a little to represent flight more comprehensively. For instance, a Harrier or an F35 in hover mode are not performing as an aeroplane, according to the definition. Similarly a helicopter, when it is out of ground effect, is flying as an aeroplane as it needs its forward momentum to generate its lift, indeed the aerofoils are generating lift in the same way that an autogyro does! I remember being in a Bell Huey that was trying to land in an enclosed mountain canyon in Oman (actually we were trespassing in the UAE). We had to descend by flying circular fashion as the sheer height (and the extremely high temperatures) of the mountains around us meant that we were out of ground effect. Therefore, the Huey was flying as an aeroplane….does that make sense!

          • Yes there are definitely aircraft which blur the boundaries quite a bit, Harrier and F35B as you said, tiltrotors and even the new SB-1 Defiant. For Harrier / F-35B / Yak-38 I would suggest they still fit the definition from your book as they are designed to be able to generate lift entirely from conventional flight, they just have extra bells and whistles which aren’t specifically disallowed by the definition. In the case of the Huey you mentioned, I don’t think it would fit the definition of an aeroplane still as a significant proportion of its lift would still have been being generated by the rotation of the rotors, just not enough for it to enter a stationary hover due to the low density of the air.

          • That’s an interesting one, I’d say it’s still not technically an aeroplane because it isn’t fixed-wing. But really, an autogyro seems like an even better example of something in the grey zone than the STOVL / VTOL jets mentioned earlier.

          • If you want to know that the RN referred to the RAF as, put a ‘r’ between the ‘c’ and ‘a’ of cab.

            It has many potential meanings! šŸ˜‰

          • Indeed haha! Though I don’t remember the syllabus going into autogyros and other edge cases or the nuances of helicopter operations in hot and high regions so it wouldn’t have cleared up all the questions.

    • “Why so slow?”

      You’re partly right to blame HMG incompetence, but its more to do with the fact the F-35 still isn’t in full-rate production. It would be insane to bloat an order book now then having to upgrade them not much further down the line

    • Well they’re not actually going to fight a war!! 18 quite a reasonable load for Fleet Defence. (Seeing as they are lending us 10 F35s, they may as well throw in the V22s as well…)

    • Block 4.

      Imagine the moaning if the carrier sat at home in port until 2023 instead until the full complement of F35 ( 2 Squadrons ) arrived?

      Nothing wrong with this at all IMO. The capability is being rebuilt and does not happen overnight.

  3. I will feel really proud to see them sail, so God speed and many congrats to all involved. Hope they make a big show/visit to our wonderful Aussie cousins, and help bolster the backbone of our Kiwi chums.

    I just hope nothing kicks-off when they are over there. I’m just worried that flying the flag is all very well and good, but it needs the threat of an even bigger stick coming along behind it should there be any conflict. So are we relying on the USA for that back-up, or are we going anyway, but won’t have our bottoms covered?

  4. Plus USS Sullivans and HMNS Evertson. A strong UK led multinational package. A signal to China and a confidence boost to the Phillipines. Great work!

  5. I wonder if the limited amount of UK/US F35-B’s is down to available spare parts and problems with Odin?

    Perhaps a limited number of aircraft to deal with is a sensible idea on a maiden deployment?

    The Operational Data Integrated Network (ODIN) is slated to replace ALIS by the end of 2022, but DOT&E warns that the Pentagonā€™s development and deployment plans are unrealistic. In fact, according to DOT&E, ā€œthe ODIN software and hardware deployment schedules are even more aggressive and less-defined than the accelerated quarterly ALIS software releases,ā€ and the report went so far as to call the schedule “high risk”

    “The Operational Data Integrated Network (ODIN) is slated to replace ALIS by the end of 2022, but DOT&E warns that the Pentagonā€™s development and deployment plans are unrealistic. In fact, according to DOT&E, ā€œthe ODIN software and hardware deployment schedules are even more aggressive and less-defined than the accelerated quarterly ALIS software releases,ā€ and the report went so far as to call the schedule 10 times the normal number of maintenance alarms”

    https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2021/02/is-the-f-35-program-at-a-crossroads/

      • My comment above.

        “Perhaps a limited number of aircraft to deal with is a sensible idea on a maiden deployment?”

        Second paragraph down from the attached link in my original post. Could this be the reason?

        “Weapon programs undergo operational testing to see if they are effective in combat and suitable for use in the hands of the troops.

        This is different from the developmental testing that engineers and developers conduct to determine whether the weapon meets the engineering specifications of the manufacturerā€™s contract.

        The difference between the two processes can roughly be compared to field and laboratory experimentation.

        In the case of the F-35, the developmental testing done to date has already revealed major shortcomings, but the most serious flaws emerged once the F-35 was in the hands of real operators in the field during operational testing.”

        Would you be so kind as to share with us why there is a limited amount of embarked F35-B in your opinion?

          • 22 April 2021

            “US lawmakers slam F-35 programme for sustainment problems
            ā€œIā€™m [going to] take a deep breath and try to contain my anger at what is going on here,ā€ said John Garamendi, chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness. ā€œThe programme is over budget. It fails to deliver on promised capabilities.

            And, its mission capability rates do not even begin to meet the serviceā€™s thresholds.ā€

            Garamendi and Donald Norcross, chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces, were especially incensed with P&W F135 engine problems that threaten to take 43% of the USAā€™s total F-35 fleet out of action by 2030.

            Lawmakers reacted to a revelation, disclosed in the GAO report, that the F135 engine had repair problems that could ground 43% of the US F-35 fleet ā€“ or about 800 aircraft ā€“ by 2030. An engine repair backlog is already impacting the F-35, with 20 aircraft unable to fly at the end of 2020.

            The stealth aircraftā€™s operating cost, estimated at $36,000 per flight hour, as well as delays and cost overruns for upgrade efforts, also drew fire.”

            https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing/us-lawmakers-slam-f-35-programme-for-sustainment-problems/143427.article

    • That could clearly be another option open to us and safer too.

      We also have to consider how many hours we spend in the air due to incomplete structural testing on the airframes, so it might be wise to limit the number of flight hours undertaken until then?

      “Cybersecurity Operational Testing ā€¢ While some cybersecurity-related system discrepancies have been resolved, cybersecurity testing during IOT&E continued to demonstrate that some vulnerabilities identified during earlier testing periods have not been remedied. More testing is needed to assess cybersecurity of logistics support systems and the air vehicle (AV) itself.”

      ā€¢ Teardown inspections of the original F-35B full-scale durability test article (BH-1) completed in October 2018.

      The program canceled third lifetime testing of BH-1 due to the significant amount of discoveries, modifications, and repairs to bulkheads and other structures that caused the F-35B test article to no longer be representative of the wing-carry-through structure in-production aircraft.

      Release of the DADT report on BH-1 was expected in November 2020, but has been delayed to 2021.

      The program secured funding and contracted to procure another F-35B ground test article, designated BH-2, which will have a redesigned wingā€‘carry-through structure that is productionā€‘representative of Lot 9 and later F-35B aircraft.

      Contract actions for BH-2 were completed in November 2019 and testing of the first lifetime is scheduled to begin in 1QFY24.

      The BH-2 ground test article will come from Lot 15 production. ā€¢

      “So far, the UK has ordered 48 F-35Bs, all of which are set to be delivered by 2025. The final number of F-35s has been cast into doubt by the need to fund the development of the Tempest future combat air system (FCAS).”

      https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2020/dod/2020f35jsf.pdf?ver=C5dAWLFs4_N3ZLrP-qB0QQ%3D%3D

      • I saw this the other day but couldn’t find it.

        This could turn out to be a very bad year for a programme that was intended to fill a capability gap until the arrival of 6th gen aircraft and will not be able to support Meteor or Spear 3 until at least 2027.

        Time will tell I guess.

        26 APRIL 2021

        Norcross of New Jersey, chairman of the House Armed Services Committeeā€™s (HASCā€™s) tactical air and land forces subcommittee, said during a House hearing that providing 97 additional F-35s, more than was requested since FY 2015, has created a sustainment issue for parts. Although the subcommittee has been supportive of the F-35 programme in the past, Norcross said financial resources are limited, and he would not support any request for additional aircraft given affordability concerns with the programme.

        Garamendi of California, the HASC readiness subcommittee chairman, said neither to expect more F-35s, nor more funding for the F-35 programme.
        ā€œIt seems that the ā€¦ industry solution to many of these problems is to simply ask the taxpayers to throw money at the problem,ā€ Garamendi said. ā€œThat will not happen.ā€

        https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/two-us-democrats-vow-to-oppose-additional-f-35-requests-to-those-in-budget

  7. The first nation to put 18 5th gen F35’s to sea for an extended period, and send them to the far side of the world. A fantastic achievement by any nations standards. And these is still very early day’s in the regeneration of carrier strike. I quietly envey those young men and women about to deploy with genuine world beating kit. And one hell of a life experience they are going to have in the coming month’s. šŸ‘

    • do u think RAF/FAA contingent will go with more pilots (say, more than 12) with the intention to fly US jets or do you think each nation will stick to its own jets? As I understand, they are identical.

      • I don’t know is my honest answer. I imagine they will stick to there own jets. They could be different software standards ect. Slightly different operating procedures, and they are cleared for different weapons. USMC don’t operate the ASRAAM for example.

    • Agree Robert, we’re not going to war, we’re deploying, its all building towards the capability to deploy in numbers. Experience will be gained and all that. Andy aye, the lucky buggers will be getting some cracking run’s ashore, its a good part of the world for it. ļ»æšŸ»ļ»æļ»æšŸ’ļ»æ

  8. I remember when some folks doubted the UK would ever be able to do this type of Task Group again including building the big carriers and having aircraft to fly from them. How wrong they have proven to be. 9 ships plus a submarine. Must say a big thanks to the United States Of America.. For their support in many different way’s. Great to have the Royal Netherlands navy alongside too. ” Clap to all involved”

  9. No surprise submarine going along with CSG hope it doesn’t have to many Chinese guess subs to worry about .šŸ¤”but good luck to CSG safe journey.šŸ‡¬šŸ‡§

    • I suspect we’ve already got a good idea of China’s submarine capability. Still, bring them on during CSG, it’ll be good practice for the Astute & T23s, also 45s sigint perhaps. Got to be assessed some time.
      Would not be surprised if one of the US attack boats was close during SCS transit to cover more arcs, with maybe a Collins and a Soryu to cleanse pinch points at suitable locations. Excellent training opportunity all around – if the Russians don’t grab our attention beforehand.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here