The Royal Navy is preparing for a relatively busy period as both HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Queen Elizabeth set sail for equipment trials and training exercises.
HMS Prince of Wales is scheduled to depart Portsmouth tomorrow, the 4th of September, at 12:35 PM, following the earlier departure of HMS Queen Elizabeth, which left on the 2nd of September at 12:10 PM.
HMS Queen Elizabeth’s deployment comes after extensive repairs and capability upgrades completed at Rosyth earlier this year. The carrier underwent critical work on its starboard propeller shaft coupling, necessary due to a technical issue that led to its withdrawal from the NATO exercise Steadfast Defender. During this time, HMS Prince of Wales took over operational responsibilities.
The vessels are the most powerful warships ever built for the Royal Navy, displacing approximately 65,000 tonnes and measuring 280 metres in length. The carriers are capable of carrying up to 40 aircraft, including the advanced F-35B Lightning II stealth fighters and a variety of helicopters.
Commissioned in December 2017, HMS Queen Elizabeth has already undertaken significant operational duties, including a global deployment in 2021. HMS Prince of Wales, commissioned in 2019, has also deployed operationally to the United States as well as around Europe and the Arctic.
Both carriers are now embarking on their respective equipment trials, which are essential for testing and validating new systems onboard.
There is no indication that they will operate together during this period at sea. We understand that each vessel will conduct its training and trials independently.
There will NEVER ever be the aircraft numbers to even give one a full outfit never mind both. About time the one in one out routine as was originally planned for commenced and the manpower made available passed on to get the rest of the Fleet back to sea. Some could easily take over the couple of new RFA’s releasing those crews to man true support vessels and let the RN crews man what they should, MCM and Seabed protect units. Question, where have all the MCM vessel crews gone?
I doubt both carriers will last out the next five years. We don’t need them for European defence. We need more frigates and OPVs to protect the growing offshore energy foot print. Carriers are useful for deploying globally 1000s of miles away not few miles off the cost of allied nations. We’ve elected a government with largely EU and NA regional defence ambitions and therefore we need to reconfigure the force structure to fit that strategy.
Given the fact we have committed Billions to buying them and many more on F35B I think you are way off the mark. The F35B purchase only makes sense if we operate a carrier force and we arenāt the only European country operating carriers.
I think that the worst that will happen is HMG will remind RN that the plan was one operational and one on extended standby. So stop playing Admirals with both big shiny Toys at the same time, put one away with Teddy or forget getting any more F35Bās.
To allow one carrier to languish in port leads to redundancy in the minds of the treasury accountants, a similar fate faces the Albion Class. By keeping the carries on active operations ensures the issue of redundancy doesn’t occur. I agree with Expat, in regards to deploying the carriers in the Middle and Far East as this is likely to be the future theatres of stress? Dry docking away from British shores should also be a possibility thus avoiding the need to return to Scotland every time. The Elisabeth Class is a great asset and we should make the best of them whilst they are still relatively young.
Well if itās anything like my old Morris Marina back in the day, after being stuck in the garage for months it will be a pig to start.
Tru datļ»æšļ»æ.
Spyinthesky, you don’t want to put that about apart from the Allegro or ‘Allargo’ the Marina was a pig full stop starting or otherwise. My Jag started every time!
This is exactly what is happening with the albion, they take a lot of effort to get back to sea after the mothball period.
I was on Bulwark in 2008-2011. My opposite numbers on Albion had a mare bringing her back to take over from us. I was supposed to join and refit and reactivate Albion again in 2015. I graciously declined, put my notice in and went outside.
Oh how I laughed when Drafty complained that me going outside had left him in the lurch and he didn’t have a SQEP WO WE to now join Albion.
I thought a lot about that phone call sat outside my 4 bedroom villa , next to my swimming pool in the hot middle east sun, drinking my GT and not paying any tax on my rather substantial wages…
NOT!
ļ»æšļ»æ
Pull the choke and and cough, cough, spluttering, cough!
I can hear many on here wondering what a choke isš¤£
They can’t currently be deployed anywhere, due to lack of escorts and lack of solid state supply ships.
Escorts numbers could potentially get filled by allies (although the optics would be bad if they made up the majority of the escorts) but replenishment is another question.
If that was different I’m sure they would already by in the region helping deal with Iran and the houthi
I was thinking more medium to long term. But I stand by my premise that if a vessel is tied up on rotation the greater the risk of it being seen as expensive and redundant asset. This I fear would be the case if a carrier was on rotation for more than 6 -8 months, especially under this current government.
I don’t see any evidence that the current goverment is worse than the last. In fact the stats don’t support it as the last Labour governent spent more on defence as a percentage of gdp than the most recent conservative government. Not to mention that Labour is stating they will increase the budget when finances allow.
However on the mothball risk, I can see that being a risk under either party.
On reflection, Cameron was a ‘plonker’ in regards to defence matters, so yes, we may just get better judgements from this new lot?
Who knows its too early to tell. Parliament hasn’t even been back a week yet.
The massive budget black hole that the last government tried to hide is worrying, as it is likely to result in defence cuts as that is the least controversial part of public expenditure, at least from the average voters perspective. Saying that clearly if the Conservatives had won they would have also had to deal with the gap, and likely had done the same or worse as they have been cutting public service for their entire time in office.
There ain’t a massive budget black hole, just Labour spin. Don’t fall for it.
The office of budget responsibility has confirmed there is one, so not labour spin.
The Conservatives backing media is trying to pretend otherwise but it has been independently confirmed that the Conservatives withheld data to hide the reality.
Of course labour is using it to their advantage and playing party politics but that is expected of any polictican.
You’re the person doing the spinning. Multiple, credible, dources have confirmed it.
And when multiple military towns go Labour, their Mps will be sure to root for spending.
1. 22 billion is >1% of GDP. 2. An equivalent sum of money has already been squandered by Labour rewarding their client base. 3. The OBR has an appalling record in their forecasting.
Anyone and anything can deploy anywhere as singletons or in 2s or 3s.
Escorts and supply ships dont stop you going.
Managing the effects on operational capability of no/few escorts or supply ships is a different issue.
This is true, but was more thinking an actual deployment where the carriers would be operationally used against enemy targets, at which point escorts etc would be needed to protect them as they have very little in self defence capability and would be a massive PR victory for that enemy if they hit it, even if the damage was minimal and a massive hit to uk military reputation
Is there any news on whether the carriers will get the new SEA Ancilia decoy launchers and any other additional defensive armaments? Maybe it’s not a priority right now?
The ongoing worry I have about our carriers is the low level of protection when devoid of aircraft and tied up in port. Sorry, I can not tell you the answer in regards to SEA Ancilia, though there should be enough space next to the ramp? That said, Britain has always surprised us when it faces a war and suddenly all kinds of technology is brought to the fore.
We had that in the First Gulf when new urgent fits appeared overnight that we did not expect for years ahead. Already sitting in the many warehouses the MOD and makers have, just waiting for them black days. However you can’t generate manpower of major units such as the F35 squadrons or the many Helo’s needed. We don’t have enough of either to fill out one (30 Merlin’s to cover ASW and AEW roles) and its not looking good for the future either.
Dry docking away from the UK isn’t an issue.
I was asked to see if it was possible where I work. It is although there are caveats.
Air wing to disembark which is standard.
Light load condition so pump off most of the fuel.
Ammunition- Big issue. Needs UK Ministerial level sign off to go into a drydock bombed up. Nearly achieved it on a large RFA a few years ago but the minister bottled it at the last minute on the safety case. I spent weeks putting the case together and ensuring mitigation was available. The UK team was happy. The Minister said Nah…
A change in leadership positions at MOD has since happened as the LRG that Dry Docked in Singapore would have faced the same issues.
I maybe off the mark but we spent billions on Nimrods that never saw service, we cancelled TSR after investing billions in todays money. History is littered with military kit being disposed of ahead of time or worse not making it into service, its all sunk cost in the end and no bearing on budget pressures going forward(no pun intended). I also note most European nations only have one carrier. With only 48 F35B 2 would not be much use by the time we commit part of that F35 fleet to training and maintenance its enough for one carrier. Having 74 F35s with only ever having one carrier available is not really a great trade off tbh, RN may well say fine give me 48 and I’ll have some other toys instead like frigates that are cheaper to run. I do think if we get to the point where we’ve lost access to allied airfields in Europe then I doubt we’ll be turning a conflict in Europe around with a couple of carriers and 74 F35s.
It’s a whole lot eaiser to cancel a failed build than it is to cancel a completed carrier politically.
Don’t forget the f35b is shared with the RAF. I assume like the harrier the plan would be to use them off roads, carparks etc to distribute out the assets, should the worst occur, something the typhoon can’t provide.
The F35A is also planned to be used from roads Europe has literally millions of miles of tarmac that can be used. And the A has more range and can carry more weapons, some with more standoff range meaningit can be based further from the front lines. The A is also 30m dollars cheaper and less complicated to maintain. If we were sticking with a global strategy carriers and F35B makes sense but not for Europe only.
Politically there will be more fuss over winter fuel payments than axing a carrier!
When was the plan cooked up to have one carrier on extended standby?
It never was – you are correct. The planned option (as I understand it) was for one carrier to have a full air complement (i.e. F35+merlin).The other , although operational was in effect a standby , with a capacity to operate in tandem as a hybrid commando carrier.
My 5p worth re the 2025SDR-one carrier will go into extended readiness – uncrewed and laid up. I sincerely hope have the foresight not sell it off.
Thanks. If the defence budget does not rise to 2.5% in the next 6-9 months then I have a horrible feeling you may be right about ‘the second carrier’ being mothballed and de-crewed.
There is no chance of a rise to that within a year, at best there might be a time frame for when Labour expect the economy to be in position to afford that.
I do hope I’m proven wrong! ļ»æšļ»æ
Exactly this.
Healey said expect cuts…
Thatās certainly my recollection of the argument for 2 carriers when Cameron I think, wanted to build just one: you need the second to ensure one is always available.
I do think HMG will halt the F-35 order at 48 and/or significantly delay the increase to 72 operational planes.
My understanding is that Cameron wanted to cancel the build of the second carrier but was told that cancellation charges would be too high.
Ah, yes, you are right. The availability argument was probably how it was spun.
And as there was never a plan to have both with 36 F35Bā¦..
If the second happened to be available then then it would do other duties or maybe share load add redundancy.
HI SB
The planned option (as I understand it) was for one carrier to have a full air complement (i.e. F35+merlin).The other , although operational was in effect a standby , with a capacity to operate in tandem as a hybrid commando carrier.
They both require trials
You’re assuming the Strategic Defence Cuts Review makes sense. From what I’ve seen so far most ministers have serious mental health issues.
I’m sure the plan is still to have one active and one in reserve once thry are fully in service, but they are still going through trials and with all the issues those plans are probably a little out of schedule resulting in both being at sea at once.
I did not elect this lot the FPTP SYSTEM DID.
Agreed.
But thatās what elected the last lot? And the one before before before before ā¦
Yes. I’m against it myself.
But that’s what elected the last lot? And the one before before before before …
We can’t magic the carriers away because the current (new and inexperienced) government is shying away from that Pacific Rim tilt. Do you think the Government will sell them or mothball them? If they are sold then do you think HMG will buy a few extra frigates for EU and NA roles with the sale proceeds??
Isn’t it a waste of a Ā£1bn frigate to be guarding an oil rig or undersea pipes and cables? Job for OPVs supported by MPA and 43 Commando Fleet Protection Group Royal Marines, formerly Comacchio Company. although they would need expanding to cover this as well as the nuclear weapons defence role that is seemingly their primary mission.
Sensor and weapon systems requirements may dictate the utilization of a highly capable platform (I e. T-26) for this mission during conflict. At least until OPVs and T-31s are refitted/upgraded on an emergency basis, upon commencement of hostilities. š¤
Doesnāt your oil rig / undersea pipes scenario suggest Kongsberg Vanguard or similar?
I think one will be mothballed, but could be sold off after a few years.
Inexperienced? They knew they were coming to power a good 12 months before the election so they had plenty of time to prepare.
On the offshore infrastructure. Rigs are pretty meaningless because fossil fuels are largely portable to as we did in WW2 we can bring in fossil fuels if we lost offshore capacity. Problem is be 2030 well be reliant on electricity, which isn’t portable you need infrastructure to send it. The undersea cables are obvious targets but also the easiest to repair. The turbines themselves are better targets because the will be much harder to replace or repair especially in a conflict. Well be adding 1000s of sq km in the coming years. The turbines themselves interfere with radar also, creating blind spots for shore based radars. So we need airborne radar(expensive) or high quality radar pickets offshore preferably with the ability to repell attacks. OPVs aren’t going to cut it. These attacks could vary from cheap drones to EMP and could come from tge air, sea or sub surface. All we’re doing by building offshore wind capacity is increasing the area we need to physically defend. Baring in mind, we can’t adequately defend UKs mainland atm. Of course the political class and the big green energy companies will tell us it’s secure energy what they mean is if there’s a war somewhere else our wind power is unaffected so in that respect it is but when it’s us that’s at war we’re going to find out quickly how insecure it is unless we take protecting it seriously.
The carriers are good for force projection, detering wars and as we could very possibly be facing a war in the Pacific. Could be useful.
We need to accelerate the purchase of 35B.
Interestingly those who also follow Millenium 7 on YouTube he thinks the Just in time model for F35B for aircraft spares is fatally flawed.
Worth a watch !!
We need a military that is set up for high tempo modern warfare so we won’t run out of ammo or spares in a month of high tempo combat.
I donāt disagree, JIT is fine in peacetime but useless in war , especially in the middle of the ocean
Also RAF /RFA needs more front line aircraft now.
The only now option is F35B or refurbish T1 Typhoon to new standard.
I donāt think we can do the latter as the workforce is now on Tempest.
The Typhoon assembly line is still operating and will do for several years.
What it takes to upgrade a T1 to a T4,I donāt know. But I do remember BAe said it was possible.
It is a very big piece of work.
The issue probably is risk. Will BAe take the job on a fixed price basis?
Probably not on the airframe mods. They probably would on the electronics as those are all new fit.
Nobody wants another Nimrod saga.
There comes a point where risk outweighs costs.
As an ex Engineering manager. There is a lot can be done to derisk such an undertaking .
At the moment it is just estimates and SCurves.
With modern cad/ cam there is a lot can be done to risk minimise.
I donāt see it as an AWCS Nimrod. That was an ill conceived project from day one. The airframe just was not suitable,
Iām agree it cannot be compared to Nimrod – either version. However, it is the bogey man argument to put forward.
If it was a reasonable fixed cost it would have happened by now.
I disagree. A lot of the MoD decisions defy logic or common sense.
Given there is only fraction of difference between airframe marks. I think a lot of the reluctance to upgrade the T1 is down to the MoD playing games.
Not really
RFA do not operate aircraft!
Typo it was supposed to say RAF / FAAā¦.
American is facing a war in the Pacific I doubt we’ll be getting involved.
I will be very surprised if we donāt.
It is in everybody interest that China does not get its hands on Taiwan. The economic repercussions should not be underestimated.
It was Labour who ordered both š
That was never the plan. The reduction from 3 Invincibles to 2 larger carriers was controversial at the time of order but justified by asserting we would always have AT LEAST one available.
Unfortunately, though predictably, the costs and development delays of F35 mean we may never have the originally planned numbers to allow both to operate up to 36 each.
Additionally, the decline in available escorts and SSNs means that for some years to come we will struggle to assemble a single CSG. So the problem of F35 numbers is a bit academic.
I am no fan of the carriers. Every doubt I had about their affordability and the reliance on a single aircraft type, over whose endless development we have no control, has been proved correct. But, for the first time ever, the RN has 2 carriers capable of operating modern supersonic jets. Even with,say, 12 F35s each, that is a force few other countries can match. Mothballing one of them would be a poor choice: even if, theoretically, that might free up a few hundred crew, that would not by itself make more escorts/ subs available.
The main reason why both carriers will stay in service is political. Labour ordered them in 2008. Tory led coalition wanted to cancel one but then realized Brown had made that effectively impossible. For a Labour government to scrap one would be a huge political embarrassment. I seriously expect one to be given the enhanced amphibious capability proposed and dropped in 2017. That would allow for a smaller number of MRSS and the full retirement of the Albions. Money saved and embarrassment avoided.
That would be a pragmatic option. The new government does pragmatism, The current commitment to MRSS funding is only 3 hulls. You would want the carriers to be interchangeable.
If memory serves, the proposed alterations of POW were to increase troop accommodation and would have cost@Ā£70m. But both carriers already have the capacity to carry 250 RMs and launch enough helicopters to move them all quickly.( Up to 9 landing spots). To that extent, the carriers are interchangeable.
Argus is going on CSG25. Clue to future thinking?
My understanding as well Peter.
Liking your suggestion from 2017 Peter. My fear is Labour will mothball one. I can see them falling over themselves to save the crew costs. Penny wise and pound foolish .
Yeah and when people bang on about the UK not having enough escorts they conveniently forget about this thing called NATO. There are many Tier 1 European navies with very capable air defence destroyers , the French, the Dutch , the Italians, the Danes , the Norwegians , the Spanish etc but apart from the French none have a proper carrier that can form the heart of a CSG – and even the French only have one.
The assumption is that should a war kick off that all the nato partners will agree on their involvement in it, and how the carriers are used, which is extremely unlikely, especially now all out war in Europe seems insanely unlikely. Just look at afgan, many nato members were involved but most only wanted to be involved in safe activities to show support without putting their troops at risk.
Interesting commentary Peter. Personally, I am of the opinion the RN should have built 2 smaller carrier – circa 40,000 tons along with a pair of smaller LPH .I recall there was a plan for the French to build a QE carrier to complement Charles de Gaulle, In return the UK would build a pair of Mistrals. I think this was in the 2004- 2009 period, Never progressed off courses.
We havnt got the escorts either to put both to sea at the same time . Either one at sea and the other in port or one needs to be sold
ITS Cavour is currently in the Pacific with an escort of one frigate
A PPA is also in Pacific. There is also a frigate in Red Sea.
And the Cavour is with 8 F-35 and 7 Harriers.
Absolutely
With or(hopefully never) without the carriers, we need more escorts urgently. It’ll be the 2030s before we return to the totally inadequate 19 we had a while ago.
Our carriers of course can do more than just Carrier Strike. They can support amphib operations with heloes and embarked troops, act as a C2 node, do HADR. So both could be on deployment at the same time but doing different things ie not both requiring an air wing.
Hard to envisage a conflict that would require both to be simultaneously deployed in the Carrier Strike role. (This is where I am ‘reminded’ that we deployed 2 carriers in the strike role for a short period in 1982!).
Absolutely agree.
Exactly this.
And effectively a third used as a transport which was sunk.
Believe there is a generally agreed joint plan, developed in cooperation w/ USN, that one or both QE class CVs would be deployed in the Atlantic theater, in order to enable the dispatch of additional USN CVNs to the Indo-Pacific during a conflict? USMC to provide requisite additional a/c and helicopters and/or V-22s. Believe USN/Uncle Sugar would lobby diligently on both military and political levels to forestall sale of 2nd RN CV. Speculation, but probably reasonably accurate…š¤
I have been saying this for years! One carrier with 24 F35’s embarked? Nirvana!!
Yes there will , full 48 next year with more to come , itās supposed to be one in one out . 3 years from now at a push they could send both out with 30 jets each plus choppers . Is that not enough ??????
A full fit out is only 40 aircraft including helicopters. My bet there will be a PR stunt done where a fully loaded carrier is sent on an exercise.
I agree outside photo stunts that fully loaded is highly unlikely in a deployment scenario but we will see what happens on the drone front that might plug that
I believe max capacity is meant to be 65?
Enjoy it while we can…..
Yes Angus and we all know that a defence review is a round of cuts, so when they mothball or scrap one of them we will just about have enough F35s.
Not exactly rumors are the Army will grow so not all cuts. But there’s not more money. The pay increases need to come from the existing budget so does the funding of the new Armed Services Commission. And buy British policy will need to be funded from the same budget. Not sure why anyone is surprised it was all in the manifesto very clearly – No spending increase until economy allows and loads of new spending commitments, not sure what outcome people expect tbh, something will need to give.
Current year spend is planned to be 2.3%, I’ve not seen a commitment to this but if any one has evidence 2.3% is the baseline commitment then please share. But we could go back to 2% for awhile which would be a cut before moving to 2.5% when the government stops inventing black holes ļ»æšļ»æ. Trouble is a cut back to 2% with the new spend outlined above will mean bigger capability cuts overall.
I’m hoping all this noise and doom mongering by the government is a ploy so when the review comes its not as bad as we are lead to believe and the government play a ‘despite the ruin we have worked miracle card’.
They will probably make a promise to grow the Army by 3000 at the expense of a carrier. I definitely hope I am very wrong.
So do I
Labour ordered the carriers so binning one would look pretty silly at a time of massively increasing tension.
If you wanted to light the Trumpian fuse then I thing going one less carrier would be an excellent way to do it?
QEC are totemic to Trump. Really. he has referenced them in a number of peaches.
Yes and it was George Robertson now Lord Robertson who was the architect of SDR 1. Core to SDR 1 was Carrier Strike and the principle behind that was to guarantee one you had to have two. It was the Tory’s under Cameron and Osborne who tried to cancel the second carrier and I would really be surprised if Robertson who now heads up the new SDSR after having been a very successful and respected Secretary General of NATO would totally reverse his original thinking and cut our numbers to one .
I totally agree.
“Really, he has referenced them in a number of peaches.” Presume that is a reference to speeches made in the great state of Georgia, the Peach state? š¤š (Also, one of the seven battleground states which will determine the outcome of the US 2024 election.)
Or he is really Frank Underwoodā¦..
“Postman Pat” , as Robertson was once described to me by a V. Senior RN officer will do as he is advised. Yes, he signed off SDR1 but he didnt have the capacity or military experience to drive it. That came from his advisors and the support team he had.
Look who is on his current support team and their backgrounds. You will gain an insight into which way this SDR will go and looking at them its going to be brutal.
To paraphrase Sir Humphrey Appleby:
Sure a train driver is a neutral partyā¦.he will follow the tracks..
In this case, as you say, the tracks were set out by whom was appointed.
Robertson doesnāt have the intellectual capacity to reason this out.
Defo. Terrible trade off, as BOTH are needed.
I’d be very happy with an extra 3k for the Army, or any increase in manning levels. . But not at the expense of a carrier or any T26, T31, or F35’s. Sort the RFA out, please Labour, and get those dry/floating docks sorted. Unfortunately. I have a very bad feeling about this government. We’ll be lucky to get to 2.5% before 2035. Regardless of the outcome of SDR.
Likewise mate. I think many here with rose tinted Labour glasses might be in for a few shocks.
Definitely mate
Hi Robert
I’m thinking one of the carriers will go into the reserve (un- crewed off course) Extended readiness I believe is the term?
That’s the term mate. We’ll see what happens. It was never the plan to have to full airwings for both carrier’s. That would be better than being axed altogether. But extended readiness has to be very careful managed, as they still need a lot of maintenance if they are going to be swapped around. It also runs the risk of having no carrier’s available if the on call carrier has a maintenance issue. Look at the French and how little the CDG spends at sea.
Thank you Robert, good point re CDG!
It was Labour’s first SDR as a new government, in 1998, that put in motion the development and design process for the carriers in the first place.
Absolutely – exactly my point I was New Labour who were the architect of Carrier Strike. It was the Tory government under Cameron and Osborne who did so much damage to UK defence. Scraping Harrier, Nimrod , Warrior Mk 2, AS90 upgrade , Fort Geirge , Ocean, and prob most importantly fourth and fifth AEW. Boeing. . We own the radars apparently – now buy the planes.
Look back pre 2010, Labour had already dismantled much of the military from 97 to 2010.
Both parties have a bad record.
Of that list, most Harriers had already been cut before the terrible Cameron government finished the rest off.
Likewise Nimrod MRA4 was down from 21 to 9 before Cameron scrapped the rest.
I think the 4th and 5th E7 might get reinstated, at a cost of some thing else of course.
Ocean was held together with black maskers and belzona.
CVS going meant the Sea Harrier could go. It was a fair call. We didnt have need of them (luckily!) between getting rid and getting QE and F35
Nimrod post Hadden-Cave was a given. The thing was another multi crew death waiting to happen
AEW- Buy the planes to fit the radars to. Probably a bit easier now that everyone is buying the things to replace E3s
The cost of the radars is only a small part of the price of the E7. We are now in the realms of Labour cuts and if we cut the F35 B for the RAF we are left with the Typhoon Mk4 which is not a replacement for the Harrier, Tornado and F3 s. We need to consider the role of the RAF and how to get get the best out of what we can afford. To really make savings it has been my experience that you cannot ‘nickel and dime’ it to quote a US phrase. You have to cut deep to have any real impact, so for the RAF it looks like continue with the F35B order and scrap Tempest or vica versa. My guess is that further F35Bs are dead in the water for the RAF and current aircraft will be given to the RN to justify at least one Labour Carrier. Tempest will proceed on the hope of future sales ( which will not materialise but its a good story for the uninitiated) but development will be elongated to better smooth MOD spend which will make it more expensive. Of course the Tempest will be late and cost more and probably will not meet whatever mystical spec it is required for. Sorry is a very negative view but given the above 3 E7s is beginning to look enough. Of course there is an option to cancel the 3 E7s and fully integrate into the NATO AEW Force which would limit our National capability but its just about gone now. Given the farce of the Ā£22B black hole Labour will blame the conservatives for whatever cuts they make and they will want to cut early whilst they still have the benefit of the GE bounce. Its not about defence of the Nation but Politics.
QE will be sold to Australia and in 3 years time PoW will be sold to India..the Army will be reduced to 40,000 and Tempest will be cancelled
And then we can all live happily ever after in Labour’s Worker’s Paradise
Nonsense.
Me when I make up nonsense.
Every Labour government in history gets gammons like you so riled up, it’s actually comedy gold that should be at the Apollo.
I’m skeptical on Labour defence wise, due to their past record, but this is nonsense.
this website ran an article on a warship changing their main gun as front page news (the other day)..wind that back 30 years, 3rd page story.
Boll*cks.
Unless more money in the Defence pot can’t see these Carriers ever work together or with full air group’s .Plus let’s be honest if you want to solve the problem of Manpower then it’s going have to be National service for all 3 of our Armed forces . Never going to happen but true š
They were never meant to. We bought two to guarantee one. The recent quick swop between QE and PoW proves it works. Yes in a general war with RU or whoever we could deploy two together and the point of this article is that we currently have two together at sea at the same time proves we could if we have to – stop knocking UK PLC.
If passed governments didn’t make so many cuts we wouldn’t have prove we could if we had to ,we should be able to have both vessels at sea when not in maintenance etc .For knocking them š God help us when defence review is out ,then you’ll Probably be knocking them.
Always leaving 4 meters off their lenght and 7,000 tons off the displacement.
Will they arm one with Paper darts?
Paper cuts are a bitch!
Very true
With all the talk of “we’ll never have enough F-35s”, people seem to be missing the point that it’s very likely that any future QE class air wing might be 50% uncrewed drones. Maybe even a higher percentage. Lots of drones, some cheap & entirely attritable, some a bit more “Gucci”, allow a greatly increased presence over the battlefield. As is being amply demonstrated in Ukraine and Russia as I type this. Spending restrictions over the next four years might slow the installation of the EMALS necessary (lower power, intended for drones only), but I have little doubt that it will happen.
We are, sadly, back in a position where our most threatening potential adversaries’ best weapons are no longer IEDs and converted Toyota pickups..
At last someone whom knows what he talks šš Actually sorry troops that’s not fair as most of us do but it is a few who want to politicise everything who spoil our usually informed and considered conversation by talking – cr*p.
The Ukraine/Russia War and its use of Drones is not really relevant here – they are Lauched from Land onto Land Targets.The rigours of a Maritime Environment bring a whole load of extra problems into their potential use,as well as the need for much increased range.
Yes, and combat missions were first flown from land, over a century ago. We, as a nation, took that idea, and made a rather good early job of doing it from the sea. Every nation that has naval vessels with large enough flight decks is looking very seriously at not “if” they should fly drones, but what type, how many, and how soon.
See also the Boeing MQ-25, taking on air refuelling, as an example, and, needless to say, the RN’s own Project Ark Royal:
https://www.navylookout.com/the-royal-navy-has-ambitious-plans-for-its-future-maritime-aviation-force/
Does people forget ,we are an island nation ,still with overseas interests to look after.Britain should still have a substantial “blue water navy”.With my honest opinion at least two carrier battle groups available at all times.
Well we’re not actually practicing deploying both carriers as a single or two CSGs here, but working both up to adequate operating after both have been repaired. The program is out of sink after ech had unscheduled repairs. More a coincidence than a plan. Each carrier working up to check operation & bring the crews up to speed.
IMO we’re way below minimal forces(one reason Russia, China & Iran feel so bold), so further cuts are suicidal insanity.
Desperately trying to get them to work because the Americans can only put a quarter of theirs to sea and those need a refit.
So they will have 4 planes each?
No m. One in the CSG role would have 12 – 24. The second in the LPH role could have 6 – 8 F35 if required plus 12 Apache , 6 Merlin MK 4, 6 Merlin ASW, RPAS , UAS, etc etc. Don’t keep on knocking UK PLC.
š Not to be sniffed at, apart from the knockers who want the FAA to be like the USN. We don’t have the money.
Hi Daniele , further to Pongolo’s point- I was under the impression the original plan for the carriers was indeed
“One in the CSG role , the second in the LPH role” ?
I thought the original plan was one active one not, until 2015 when Cameron granstanded that both would be crewed, the usual carrot diversion amid his cuts.
I’d read the 2nd could be used in the LPH role but only because a 2nd airgroup doesn’t exist so they had to find a use for it. The ER Chinooks would come into play here.
Ironically, if the Drones work out, it could.
thanks for clarifying DM!
Never would of guess
A really good strategy- flexibility and maximising use of these assets.
John Healey has been on today defending the export license bans to Israel, and he specifically mentioned that the F35 is excluded as it is vital to UK and Western security.
That to me hardly spells the end of F35 or the Carriers. Maybe they might reduce the additional order so we have 60, not 72, they might have only one QEC in use, one reserve, back to the pre 2015 plan, to redistribute the headcount?
Whatever, these are strategic assets that we need to maximise.
I doubt the issues are connected. The export licence announcement sounds to me like labour trying to keep the Muslim vote onside. Running with the hare and hunting with the hounds?
Agree a reduction in F-35 numbers is on the cards. Interesting that Argus is part of CSG25 which gives it a more expeditionary feel. Reverting back to the 2015 plan is possible. An alternative idea might be that they are thinking in terms of 3 flaf tops – 2 QEC which can configure as either strike carrier or LPH + one dedicated LPH, with 2/3 vessels available at any one time.
On the Argus, do you reckon they will give it an additional Phalanx and or a pair of 30 mm? Like the Bays as it looks very exposed.
Well, you would certainly want to do that if it and a Bay were deployed in a LRG without an escort. I was just struck by the fact that is included. I look forward to see the itinerary. Maybe we are planning to meet up with a Bay and invade the Spratly islands š
If the UK Government interferes with the F35 programme British Aerospace could very well loose the very profitable large sub contract work it does in the UK building the section of the F35 airframe for all F35s sold. Look at the problems we have trying to sell more Typhoons to Saudi Arabia because of the German veto. The US government and LM would cry foul and demand the work be moved on shore to the US. It also wouldn’t help Labours hopes for growth in the North of England. I’d also mention that the F35s are needed by the RAF for defence suppression and the Strike role in all these comments on the Carriers.
All very true. And Healey highlighted their importance, as I mentioned above.
Yet it seems an easy cut of an asset that doesn’t exist yet, to escape a pending large financial commitment if they reduce the order.
And if not, what do they cut instead, if the valid reasons you list win out? Tempest?
There was a very good analysis of the Govt thinking on the export bans.
The reasons for doing it were stated throughout as Human Rights, Geneva Convention etc.
All of these “Legal” and “International Law” reasons stated in the brief where comprehensibly dismantled by a respected legal expert and lawyer on such matters. His take…the Govt is blagging it. All the reasons they gave do not stand up to scrutiny.
I have the popcorn ready if someone decides to do a Judicial Review!
Well look at what Starmer actually is. They’ll hide behind that and morality while the world becomes more dangerous as the west withdraws up its own arse.
Let’s see, I certainly hope I’m wrong.
I cannot find a single mention online of any “respected legal expert and lawyer on such matters” dismantling anything on this issue. Got a link, just out of interest?
Also worth bearing in mind that Thatcher suspended *all* weapons licences to Israel from 1982-94, on the back of the Lebanon invasion, so there is precedent here.
Hi Daniele, I have a gut feeling you are right with your analysis. And the Pacific focus will be quietly forgotten to one of just the Atlantic/ Arctic therefore displaying a commitment to Nato. Potential buyers for a QE2? None existent. India building their own, Australia? Too expensive. As for the F35 numbers? With a European “force” of F35s in the near future, and decent numbers of Typhoon/ Rafale/ Gripen? A decent amount of quality airframes to counter Russia. Hope this “review” commits to some serious intent. At least “in my day” we knew what and who the threat was. Good old days ļ»æšļ»æ
The idiocy is, with China rising, and Iran emboldened, withdrawing to European NATO only is the last thing they should be doing. A strong RN is more vital than ever.
Instead, hypothetically, they increase the army by a few thousand posts. How does that on its own alter the UK strategic balance while reducing the RN further?
To me, it doesn’t, despite the fact the army needs more troops, and CS CSS especially.
We should be doubling down on the enablers not all of NATO provide, and the RFA, Carriers, and SSN are at the heart of that.
Think we have a true Labour government. Priorities are funding the public sector through taxation. None of that crew have any international “nous” do they? Increasing boots will look good to Joe Public and will be cheaper than the things you rightly highlight. It also props up a wobbly Europe imo. China? They will wait for who is Potus, then move. Xi has serious domestic issues and needs a distraction. Iran? The extremist elements scare me, the proxies as much as the mad mullahs. Too many possibilities for our narrow minded politicians to contemplate, and I fear they are totally out of their depth on the world stage.
If my memory serves me right (probably not) the nuclear deterrent was not always part of the MOD budget but moved in during Cameronās reign, maybe do the right thing and move it back out and use the money correctly.
If only… The money would move with the deterrent budget line. I read somewhere a few years ago that one of the reasons the RN was facing cuts in ’80’s was because HMT insisted the MoD budget was cut to pay for the new Trident missiles and V class boats…
The pie is only so big, moving budgets around doesn’t change that I’m afraid.
Cheers CR
The numbers are increasing every year and people are complaining.
They always say that the carriers are being scrapped/we will never fulfil the F-35 order, yet we make more orders each production lot.
From next year, we’re commissioning new frigates at the rate of 1.5 per year.
We also have a few solid support ships being commissioned by 2030.
The idea of scrapping a carrier ignores the circumstances around a corner. It would’ve made much more sense say a decade ago.
We will finally be able to form CSGs again around 2030 ish.
QE class is supposed to be in service till about 2070. Why on earth would you make a decision that affects 50 years into the future based on a short-term decision?
Sometimes I feel that people want our carriers to fail, to demasculate the nation.
We can deploy a very respectable CSG now.
>The carriers are capable of carrying up to 40 aircraft
I try to laugh rather than cry when I keep reading this much used statement. The two carriers have now cumulatively been in service for over ten years, and so far the largest air group embarked has been 25 jets and helos – with 10 of the former being American. PoW might match this number next year, but I doubt if it will exceed it.
The smaller Ark Royal IV operated 40 aircraft – including 12 Phantom’s and 14 Buccaneer’s – every year between 1970 and 1978.
It is often forgotten that when the two QEC carriers were ordered in the 2000’s, it was also planned that the FAA would have 4 frontline line squadrons each with 12 carrier-capable, multirole combat aircraft, plus a 16 strong training squadron. The FAA was thus starting to gear up in expectation of receiving 90 F-35’s, or F/A-18’s, or even a navalised Typhoon.
It’s currently hard to see the carriers carrying 24 UK F-35B’s given that the purchase of another 24 F-25B’s (for a total of 72, minus one loss) is in serious doubt due to the forthcoming defence cuts. 2.5% might be the government claimed target, but from all the kite flying a “temporary” cut in defence spending from 2.1% to 2.0% in 2025/26 and 2026/27 seems almost certain – and that includes 0.2% in military aid to Ukraine. The later already has to be included to avoid the UK very embarrassingly failing to meet NATO’s agreed 2% target.
I’ll happily place a Ā£10 bet that SDSR25 calls for one carrier getting mothballed and the second batch of F35B cancelled.
I will take that bet.
I’ll digitally shake on that, looser pays Ā£10 to there favourite charity?
Agree on the F-35s; salami slicing will not produce budget reductions which are big enough and fast enough. A big ticket item has to go. Less sure about the carrier mothballing. Think of the political āopticsā – Labour govt mothballs Gordon Brownās carriers. I notice the previous govt. only approved 3 MRSS ( 2 or 3 spot Enforcers?) and I suspect the peremptory abandonment of multiple T23 Lifex was motivated by the budget as much as the condition of the ships. I think the RN is happy to sacrifice the LPDs in favour of flat tops; Argus was preferred to a Bay for LRG upgrade.
The picture sums up decades of failed defence policy in the UK.
2 massive aircraft carriers, one with a few aircraft on them and the other with none.
Plus where are the escorts?
We need to face reality that we can be a strong regional power helping to stop threats from countries like Russia but wasting money on elements of a global fleet that we can not afford is getting ridiculous and in my view being done just to fool an electorate that has not caught up with the truth.
We need to take a sharp look at procurement.
RENT carriers from the USA.
It never ceases to amaze me when some people who have served, go out of their way to slag off those still serving and the kit in their deployments or endeavour, however ‘well intentioned’.
If you are now out and enjoying the fruits of your service, then good for you but whatever your political views, at least show support for those who will be called upon in defense of the greater good.
My son, now proudly serves. He will be deploying and I wish him and his mates all the best.
The nation has two carriers with formidable air wings, not Yank standard, but of which my son is a part.
The ‘numbers’ aren’t the days of Eagle or Ark Royal but capabilities are beyond them now anyway.
Things were never always great when I served and we could have always done with better kit, but it was about the person next to you and the person next to them and so on.
I thank those who still swear allegiance for their service.
Whilst they are both working?
It would be good to see HMS Queen Elizabeth training with the mk4 comando merlins plus a dozen Apache’s and possibly even three or four F35’s as I wonder if Albion or Balwark will ever return to sea and this might be a option until /if MRSS happens?
Whenever discussing the defence budget, in my opinion most miss the bigger picture.
Consider the following:
The amount of money sequestered in UK tax Havens.
Similarly, the use of Non-dom status in tax avoidance.
UK forces are used in hurricane standby patrols around most of said tax havens.
What are we defending? The nation or the interests of the super rich and the landed aristocracy.
It’s my opinion that the rich freeloaders should be forced to contribute. Brexit itself has only further benefited them.
The Labour Government has to get a grip on these immoral companies and people.
Stop the invasion. Stop the boats
Hamas we’re coming 4u, we must defend Israel says Keir Stormer.
All 2 Putin must be shaking in his boots
These are impressive ships but the new Chinese carrier Fujian blows them away in terms of size and capability capability – some photos. And the first of an expected three even larger nuclear powered carriers that are directly comparable to the USN’s Ford class is well under construction, expected to complete in 2027. Okay, the USN still has an advantage from its decades of continuous big deck carriers ops, but the RN has lost that. Watch some of the USMC videos of CSG21 and whilst they are always very polite, there are some telling read between the lines references such as “adjusting to a lower tempo of operations than we are used to”. It will be interesting to see if CSG25 dares do a “provocative” freedom of navigation passage through the South China Sea. I suspect not unless its in company with a USN carrier group.
Why is it not possible to write an article concerning the carriers without adding the line “The vessels are the most powerful warships ever built for the Royal Navy” The “power” comes from destroyers, frigates an attack sub and the kind loan of the USS Sullivans by the USN (who’s likely there to cover the US F35’s filling our numbers). Our most powerful tools are the Vanguard subs with tomahawks, heavy torpedo’s and honking great nuclear missiles sitting at the ready. They “will” be the most powerful once they can field a full indigenous air-wing and of course, restock weaponry whilst actually out at sea.